I would like to address the Segi block here, so as not to deflect from the real purpose of the RfC. Admin, John provided the diff’s that they considered made up the breach of the three reverts. They are as follows:
As can be seen, the first one is unrelated to the others. Now, as can be seen from the page history, R. fiend et el, had no history or knowledge of this article until I began editing it. They had started edit warring on the Kevin Barry article, which I had just completely referenced, and followed me then to Segi. Now if the above diff’s are seen with this background, they do take on a different aspect. I did use the talk page at all times, and the edit summaries were very clear. It can be argued that I did not breach the 3rr rule, but broke the spirit of it. But if we are all honest about it, that was not the reason for the block. I was given no warning, no report was made, and blocked by an Admin who had a COI, and refused to comment on his actions.
Now I did place two reports for 3 rr against R.fiend, and the results were not particularly satisfying when you bear in mind the above experience, here and here.
I my self was then blocked for breaching the spirit of the 3 rr here. You can possibly imagine how I felt when I read “Since the three-revert rule is not an entitlement to three reverts” and “since you only recently were blocked for a similar offence.” based on my above experiance. The block on Segi in my opinion was wrong, and it did contribute to the subsequent block. --Domer48 (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I contacted the admin who blocked me on the second one here, and asked them to review the conduct of R.fiend for the 30 Dec. There reply is just above the Segi section, needless to say I did not file a report. I made another report on the Admin's page, but decided to leave it at that. --Domer48 (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I should have done that, but got distracted. I am sick of all this untoward speculation about a dead man's sexuality. Truly, are we to believe that a Unionist politician from the north is a reliable source on the personal life of a dead Irish rebel? What a load of bollocks! Thanks for your note. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'17:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I just edited over your revert on the famine/hunger page. I think my edit addresses the concerns expressed by the previous edit without taking a position either way. have a look. Hughsheehy (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good article Domer I see you have been stalked on it already one of your admirers is on it with tags after 4 mins that must be a record what exactly needs to be cleaned up? BigDunc (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dunc. My first real attempth at an Article, so I suppose it's a start. I'm not even going to bother with them, decided not to argue about it. From now on, I'll just ignore the row risers, and carry on editing. The system may not be perfect, and may be slow, but I do think it works. They will be copped sooner or later, I'm just happy with the attempth. --Domer48 (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who will be "copped" sooner or later? On the one hand you claim you've issued a frank and sincere apology for your behaviour on Wikipedia, and on the other you continue to label editors as "row risers".
BigDunc, as you admitted to me yourself, you don't like nor understand grammar. I think you should, therefore, refrain from dismissing the attempts of those who do by referring to them as "stalkers".--Damac (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:1916-1921 club 030.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
From reading the book The Squad, I get the impression that he wasn't a Volunteer, he only went along to the hotel were he was arrested with Peadar Clancy, and was waiting in another part of the Hotel whilst the meeting was ongoing, also Collins later refered to Two Soldiers of Ireland killed not three, so it would appear he was just a friend of Clancy, I will see if I can find anything else on him.--Padraig (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hear what your saying about Collins refering to two Volunteers, but remember Clune got buried in his home county, Clancy and McKee were buried together. What about what I was thinking, that he was innocent in the sence that he had no part in the planning behind the cairo gang? Now I know at the moment I can not reference it and probably won't but that would explaine the differences of opinion? --Domer48 (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to use that, you have stolen my thunder! Seriously though, I do have a number of sources to support the view that he was a Volunteer. --Domer48 (talk) 10:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is still productive to have a dialogue with Domer48 since it is not clear that I should assume bad faith in his case. There are many avenues you can pursue on WP, BigDunc, if you wish to have an "open and fair debate", but my talk pages aren't the best venue because of the very limited audience and my clear categorisation of you as "someone who can't recognise biased prose when it jumps off the page and bites them in the bum", BigDunc. Alice✉ 20:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Domer48: I need to do a little more research before I respond to your latest response on my talk page - I have rather limited access to Irish materials and I want to check a few facts before I respond further. I also feel it would be easier for both of us to arrive at some conclusions if it were a dialogue rather than a free for all (it might become more heated and less enlightening if all the various "POV pushers" that categorised the "Ulster Banner"/"Sectarian Rag" "debates" show up). Just let me know if you don't wish to continue a dialogue because you will be lacking support. Alice✉ 20:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
There she goes with the patronising Domer, thats step one seems like she has judged you too, very good at judging people she is, watch for the conditional apology removal when you dont tell her what she wants to hear.BigDunc (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the time being, the diff's which suggest I have a WP:COI would clear the air a bit. Alice, when you get to know me a bit more, you will quickly see that I do not need any support from anyone, I can do just fine on my own. A quick look at some article talk pages will show you that. By the way your holy trinity of editors would be included in those “POV pushers” you mention above. --Domer48 (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's useful to stereotype editors too much, which is why I put "POV pushers" in quotes (either normal or "scare") above.
I'm hoping that you've learnt a lot since those old diffs, Domer48 and that, if you answer some simple questions unequivocally, it won't be necessary to dredge up old edits.
And I do understand your stance that seems to jive with my own: better a rational dialogue than a free-for-all. Within a few days I will respond on my own talk page since it seems that we've at least agreed the basic format of a dialogue rather than a multilogue. Alice✉ 02:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Alice, the diff's you provided were on my civility, that has nothing to do with WP:COI. What I would like is diff's which you consider or suggest WP:COI. Please dredge up old edits, if they suggest WP:COI, because once that bug bear is put to rest, we can realy move on. What I have learned though, is that there can be a lot of accusations, but no substance to them, that is why on wiki we insist on diff's to support such claims. --Domer48 (talk) 08:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of having yet provided any diffs whatever (whether concerning civility or COI) with respect to you, Domer48. Are you confusing the 4 diffs I provided for BigDunc's contributions?
For me, civility is no big deal - I am pseudonymous after all and I certainly have not noticed your civility being a major problem - my main concern is editors that are technically smart but introduce a clever agenda of bias; plain vandals are much easier to deal with. Please be patient and within a week I think we will make real progress; either the air of unsubstantiated allegation will have cleared or you will have neglected/refused to answer pertinent questions. Alice✉ 10:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Alice how can I be expected to answer pertinent questions, if I do not know what prompted them. You do keep prompting me, and have said "if [I] answer some simple questions unequivocally, it won't be necessary to dredge up old edits." What edits? You have raised the issue of WP:COI in relation to my edits. I have asked you to provide diff's which illustrate or support your contension, and therefore allow my to address your concerns. In the absence of diff's, what are you asking me to respond to, an unsupported accusation? For me, civility is a big deal, because I have undermined my own case against those who use personal attacks against me (inclunding unfounded accusations), in the absence of WP:V and WP:RS to support their editing of the referenced information I provide. Could you please provide diff's which you consider unequivocally show a WP:COI or withdraw the accusation? Now you either clear the "air of unsubstantiated allegation" or you "neglected/refused to answer pertinent questions" that being, provide the diff's which support your allegation. One other question though, why have I being singled out and asked to "answer some simple questions unequivocally?" Have you asked the same of your holy trinity, or do you consider they have no questions to answer in relation to "a clever agenda of bias?" --Domer48 (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not appointing myself witchfinder-general, and on re-reading my post above I see it was poorly worded. Except for and User:Coloane, User:Corticopia and User:Perspicacite, I have not minutely examined other users' edits and I think you know the circumstances in which your Wikipedian behaviour came to my attentionon John's talk page. I did not choose you as the most egregious COI culprit or even because you were the easiest target. If you believe that others have been equally or more guilty, then please start a new section in my user space and provide a few diffs. Be patient - you've been generally regarded as being guilty of biased editing for some time now - so a week or two isn't going to make a lot of difference. I appreciate that knowing the potential evidence of guilt may be useful in preparing answers, but I think my questions are not that tricky that they actually need context to answer. Please go back and read the three (so far) unanswered questions again since if an answer were to be provided that might shorten the time to my next reply on my own user talk page. Alice✉ 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Domer hope you don't mind you jumping in here, Alice fistly have you any evidence that Domer has a COI in his editing of certain articles, that is a very serious allegation many editors including myself edit Irish related article because that is our area of interest. I would agree that Domer is a stickler for facts and will challenge small detail or points in article text, but that is to the benefit of the article, as that is what improves articles by ensuring that information is supported by WP:RS and not the opinion of individual editors summerising sources to suit their POV, by claiming that a source supports what they have written, when in fact it dosen't, which is quite common on WP.--Padraig (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this can be rapped up right now, if you do not mind me saying. I did not first come to your attention on John’s talk page as you state, you in fact introduced yourself into this long running discussion, and adopted a particular position. I have been civil and reasonable to-date in this discussion, despite your allegations of WP:COI. You have singularly failed to support such an allegation with any supporting diff’s, and have insisted in perpetuating this claim regardless. Having answered your questions in an unequivocal manner BigDunc has been treated to a continuation of claims and accusations, and you have dismissed their posts on your talk page because they had the affront to challenge you. Am I to be treated in the same manner? Now since you are incapable of providing any supporting diff’s to sustain your claims, your questions are moot, and to be blunt, irrelevant. Now rather than engage in circular arguments, either you provide the diff’s to support your accusations or you refrain from posting on my talk page. I do not wish to see one more post which attempts to lend support to an unfounded allegation, or to be asked to defend myself against such a claim. Now since it would appear to be the case that you intend to troll my edits and based on the fact you are not well up on the subject matter I imagine your interest will be purely technical and we will not be treated to long drawn out discussions on subject matter? Once again, do not post on my talk page if it is just to perpetuate unfounded and unsupported allegations. If there is to be a post, it will contain diff’s which support your claim of WP:COI, or it will be removed. --Domer48 (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dont feed the WP:Troll Domer this editor has not said anything constructive in this discourse except to repeat unsubstantiated accusations against yourself. Her opinion of me is typical trolling, It necessarily involves a value judgement made by one user about the value of another's contribution. And has said she will WP:ABF in regards to my future edits. Her clear POV can be seen here when bringing up the murder of Jean McConville in an unrelated topic BigDunc (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having made an accusation of WP:COI, they now need one to two weeks to find the evidence to support the claim. Not only that, but want me to defend myself against their accusation, despite not having provided any evidence. It's like this, do you have anything to say before sentence is pronounced, oh and by the way, we will have the trial as soon as your found guilty. We are not going to bother with any of that evidence nonsence, because three "POV warriors" I know say it is so. --Domer48 (talk) 09:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel I have to come in here. My impression is that Alice has completely misunderstood WP:COI. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. "Interests" here clearly means "advantage, benefit or profit, especially financial" (Chambers) and not simply being interested in something, otherwise the only articles any of us would be able to edit would be ones that bore the **** out of us! As an Irishman I can say that many, many people have views similar to Domer48; to respond to such views with "[Q1) Are you affiliated to any political party or movement and do you have close connections with a book, magazine or newspaper publisher?" is simply not reasonable - it assumes that having a particular POV makes you a suspect of some sort. Apart from anything else, there is no political party that stands to gain advantage benefit or profit from any article relating to 1848, 1916 or 1920, any more than membership of the Republican Party in the United States would be an "interest" as regards editing Theodore Roosevelt. I'm also uncertain what kind of lofty position you have in WP that you can say things like "either the air of unsubstantiated allegation will have cleared or you will have neglected/refused to answer pertinent questions." Perhaps you would to better to clear up the question of why Domer48, rather than any other editor of any other article, is to be subject to this "interrogation". Finally, your assertion that "for me, civility is no big deal" is frankly disturbing. Civility should be of paramount importance to us all. Domer has admitted to being uncivil in the past and instead of respecting him for that a number of editors, including yourself, have behaved with increasing hostility towards him. TBH, I thaink that if you simply reverted to your original apology, and left it at that, everybody would be better off. Scolaire (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Domer was not the only one subject to this I got the same treatment but I foolishly AGF answered her question which I had thrown in my face when I disagreed with her on something, so know she has said I am a POV pusher and will WP:ABF on my future edits. So I have all the sympathy for Domer in this too. BigDunc (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Scolaire thanks for the post on my talk page, regardless of were a thank you got me last time. I'm not going to edit on the Abstentionism article at the momeent as I misunderstood what it was about. I did not know it is really about abstentionism since 1918, as practised and preached. Dunc and Pádraig thanks also, Thanks again, Regards --Domer48 (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, so I can follow your request which I do not quite follow, his story is straight forward Irish history. I can put <Paul Bew, Redmond, John Edward (1856-1918), Oxford Dictionary (2004-5)> at the end of each line, paragraph and section, if this is what is needed, his story more or less follows Bew's biography ? Thanks for your support, Greetings Osioni (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Osioni, if you take a look at the Bulmer Hobson Article, as I now understand it, that is the way the article should be referenced? The Source section in down the bottom of the page, and above it is the notes/ references section. In the source section you put all the book details, and the references would containe simply the name of the book or authoe with the page number. First chance I get I will sort this out on the Redmond article if that is any help? --Domer48 (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your offer and good intentions Sony, I'll try a little home-work on it first myself, then check me out (I see Hobson has also been tagged, by the way !) Osioni (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Hobson Article had nothing in the way of referencing really. I have started to do some now though. If you read the rational for it on the talk page it should make it clear for you. I notice you are using the same reference style I used to use. It was suggest to me here that I change it to the same style as that on the Hobson Article. While I consider the style we are using is ok, I did take the suggestion on board, and accepted the logic of it. --Domer48 (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to the discussion where it was decided that people would be categorized only by things that made them notable, as opposed to things that they are? You are removing categories based on that assumption, so I am assuming a community decision was made. Please point me to it. Thanks. --DavidShankbone22:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David please read the category guidline on the top of the Article. I only removed those biography articles, were the person was not notable for their religion. The bio-Articles which are on this article are all notable because of their religion --Domer48 (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consider myself slapped. I never read the references or links. All I was looking for when I read the articles was weather religion played any part in what made them notable. All of the bio-Articles on this cat are now notable for their religion, and that is they way it should be. --Domer48 (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't there a consensus for these categories deletion? Also why do you only remove Irish Catholics and not Irish Anglicans, methodists, etc.? -RiverHockey (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RiverHockey why don't you lend a hand, and make a start on the Irish Anglicans, methodists, etc? If their religion did not make them notable remove them. Only some of the Cat's were deleted, and some are being abused, or not used properly. There are people who became notable because of their religion, or religion played a part in their notability, therefore some Cat's have a valid purpose. If editors object to you removing the Cat's from articles, open a discussion on the article talk page, and invite me to join the discussion. --Domer48 (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Domer. I have been keeping an eye on the articles favored by the IP we discussed here. The semi-protection has expired on M62 coach bombing and the IP seems to have found better things to amuse himself with that Continuity Irish Republican Army. I'm hesitant to semi-protect either for a significant period of time, but short protections and IP blocks may do the trick when he comes back for more.
I'll try and keep watching them as much as possible, but I'm also planning to take a bit of a periodic wiki-break this month, since things have gotten a bit too stressful recently. If this starts up again and I am not around, please refer another admin to this conversation and, hopefully, they will block and/or protect quickly. That should have a chilling effect on their disruption. Rockpocket08:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article User talk:Db10101, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at [[Talk:User talk:Db10101|its talk page]]. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Domer. Thanks for you comments on the subject of bans, you are one of the few people who appear to be focusing an the issue, rather than the personalities. Not surprisingly, everyone else ignored you suggestion and got back to the sniping. At the moment there are a few relevant sentences at WP:BAN:
"Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them."
"Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves....When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of core policies."
"Banned users sometimes return to Wikipedia using another user name. Obvious reincarnations are easily dealt with — the account is blocked and contributions are reverted or deleted"
These appear to leave a grey area, primarily as to when then re-adding good material of a banned editor becomes "proxying." My interpretation is that anything that would be considered a minor edit by a banned editor that is also an improvement (like a typo or grammar fix) should probably be left, or if it is reverted could be changed back without fear of proxying. However, anything that is considered a major edit by a banned editor, (the addition of subtraction of substantive content) should be reverted without prejudice and not re-reverted, even if it could be considered to be an improvement. The exception to this is if reverting would re-introduce WP:BLP or other such core issues.
Perhaps the policy could be worded better to reflect this. Sadly though, I think that is secondary to point scoring in the minds of many participants in the debate.
I also think re-igniting the Vk debate is a huge energy sink, that distracts from more important issues, such as ongoing problems regarding the flag issue. I must admit that I am not really familiar with the extensive background. However, as usual, there appears to be two very different sides to the same story. I hesitate to get too involved, but if no-one else is willing to help, I'll offer my assistance. I have already warned Astrotrain that he is close to being put on probation and challenged him to come up with some compromise proposals instead of edit-warring. Adding flags to articles for the sake of it offer little encyclopaedic value, but there may be some articles where compromise would be suitable. I'm hoping Astrotrain is smart enough to distinguish between these with his suggestions. Perhaps you could encourage other to view these proposals with fresh eyes and see if there is some common ground? Rockpocket17:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That’s sound Rock I’ve retreated from that discussion as you may have noticed. Two reasons 1) its going no were in a hurry and anyone involved is on a hiding to nothing, and 2) it goes way deeper than the issue at hand (hence my being ignored). Just looking at it so far the impression I get is that it makes the Troubles ArbCom look like a school boys picnic. This is on a much higher level, and way out of my league. I’ve not long celebrated my first year at wiki (went un-noticed), and spent some time going through the history. I’ve been involved in two detailed ArbCom’s, check usered up the ying yang a number of times and stalk by some serious socks (Mark and Frank that I know of), not to mention RfC’s and all in my first year? With the result I’ve been labelled an edit warrior, POV bandit and once to my amazement an Orangman (go figure). On the issue at hand though, all I was really trying to say was that introducing factual errors or in this case re-introducing them also goes indirectly against policy. The exemption you raised is a good one re BLP and similar to the point I’m making. Clearly though common sense should be used and I don’t think it is really that much of an issue, though a good pretence to settle old scores and dabble in a bit of one up man ship. On the flags issue though, that can and should be addressed. There have been a number of discussions on this, and despite it all the flag still keeps being introduced without any WP:RS to back it up. My view of it now though, is that it is just been done now as a piss take to be perfectly blunt. I have also copped onto something reviewing my edit history, editors who engage in this (a bit like the list of the dead issue) a very clever. By doing what they are doing, they can make good editors look like edit warriors because of reverting them. Any how, I’m just getting back to doing what I originally came her for, which is this. Thanks for the post though, and if I can be of any help let me know, Regards
You've made some astute observations here and you are, in my opinion, on the money with most of them. The problems over the Troubles occurred on two major levels. There are those who know how to play the "game", but are involved in problematic editing and those who were involved in anything but subtle problematic editing. The latter group have largely been dealt with, which should permit us to know focus on the former (who may or may not actually be salvageable as editors). However, the lingering arguments over VK and DL are distracting from that.
I haven't been shy about my insistence that the only way we can make this work is to root out the troublemakers and then focus our attentions on the content without the background noise of consistent incivility. We are close to that point. But compromise is the key, Astrotrain et al have to appreciate that flagcruft, for the sake of it, is not helpful and must focus solely on articles where flags are relevant. Once that happens we have to find some way or representing those flags in a manner that is informative and neutral. Maybe that is already happening, or maybe there is scope for change, I'm not yet sure. I expect, as is usually the case, there is a middle ground to be found, its simply a case of identifying those editors who are reasonable enough to appreciate that and marginalizing those that don't. Rockpocket19:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rockpocket, reading your comments above and on Astrotrains talk page, I would like to comment on them, on his talkpage your suggested dealing with each case individualy this is not veasible and already been tried, same with the flag mediation, the reason for this is that Astrotrain and other pro Ulster Banner editors has repeatly failed to provide RS to include the use of the banner in templates and articles throughout Wikipedia.
Astrotrains idea of a compromise in the flag mediation amounted to his insistance that the Banner could be used to represent present day Northern Ireland in any circumstance on WP ignoring WP policies on OR, RS and V. When this was rejected he then carried on edit warring on this issue resulting in most effected articles and templates having to be protected by admins, on a number of occassions he then recreated new templates to surpass protection of the originals to continue to push his POV. During the mediation I put forward proposals as to when the Ulster Banner could and should be used in WP, Astrotrain totally rejected that, as he insists the the Ulster Banner is still the un-official flag of Northern Ireland today, that was why the mediation was abandoned as Astrotrain made it clear he would continue to insert the banner whatever the outcome of the mediation.
I have no intention of going through the process of repeating the same arguements again on each article or template as the result will be the same, he will not or cannot provide RS to support his claims, and will only continue to edit war in any case.--Padraig (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Padraig your right in what your saying, and I have said as much above. At this stage Astrotrain is just taking the piss out of all of us. We agreed on the last discussion that you would represent the views of one side of the banner debate, and you more than represented the views. Regardless of the points you made, Astrotrain ignored the discussion and carried on regardless. Now I would not consider it to be at all fair to expect you to have to go through it all again. I for one will not be asking as the result will be the same, and you are right, he will not or cannot provide RS to support his claims, and will only continue to edit war in any case. That is what must and needs to be addressed. --Domer48 (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Happy belated wiki-birthday. I know we have had our moments, but its clear that you are a fine editor and a credit to this project. When I appear on your talk page it is usually to bitch and moan, but I also am well aware of all the fine articles you have written, particularly on Irish history. I don't know if you accept awards or not (feel free to delete it if you don't), but I think you deserve this.
Domer, I doubt a source could ever be found for that misspelling of MacBride. If memory serves correctly, and I would have to go back through the history, I believe there were two articles on MacBride, one under each version of the name. I believe "McBride" came first, and then an article was created with the correct spelling. I know Sean MacBride had a similar story. So, the "McBride" note was stuck in at the beginning to clear up any misunderstandings. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'16:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had to go a long ways back into the history of the Seán MacBride article to find the source of the problem, which was so absurd it does not merit repeating. One of those only-on-Wikipedia compromises that settles a dispute by repeating an error needlessly. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'22:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 17 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thomas Clarke Luby, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
The nomination of the article was by PFHLai (talk·contribs), who has a habit of finding good new articles to get a spot on the main page. A passing admin (cough) then chose a selection of nominations, including a few particularly appropriate ones for the day, and put them up on the main page for their 6 hours of glory! BencherliteTalk12:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, nice surprise on the day that’s in it. Today is the 150th anniversary of the founding of the Irish Republican Brotherhood. Dublin City council will place a plaque on 16 Fenian Street (originally Lombard Street) later in the year. --Domer48 (talk) 12:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well done domer-you have kept the home fires burning brightly on subjects and topics that are both important and more importantly correct for a year now..many hours with your head in the books and late nites sitting contently at your ríomhaire keeping information in the right place..Maith an fír....le meas Breen32 (talk) 13:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! I should have said that on your talk page instead of the AfD page. I did it without thinking. If you change your comment you can remove mine. Scolaire (talk) 08:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem Peter, I did check to see if there was an article, spelling was correst, and I got nothing. Still, I stand over my view that there term should be merged. I will have to come up with another example though. Regards, --Domer48 (talk) 08:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You left off the 'h' from 'tiocfaidh'. I was actually going to do a similar thing myself. After discovering that 'Tiocfaidh ár lá' was an article I considered using "cherishing all the children of the nation equally". If you Google "cherishing all the children of the nation equally" -proclamation you will get hundreds of results, all of them on-topic, even indeopendently of the Proclamation. But of course it doesn't have an article. I've made my contribution to AfD so you're welcome to use this. Scolaire (talk) 08:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have supported this suggestion, and put forward another example in its place. Now I will look very hard on you if you pop up with an article on “A Protestant Parliament for a Protestant people.” LOL, Regards --Domer48 (talk) 09:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just had a look, I should have known (or maybe I did). Would you like to look this over, comments or opinions welcome. What other ideas could I give people:) LOL. --Domer48 (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are but one of a vast and silent or silenced majority of fine Englishmen. That you use logic, reason and a willingness to investigate the history of Ireland is a testament to the character of most English people I meet. You are by far the most unbiased and even handed of editors on Wikipedia that I have yet come across. It just pissed me off that you should have to waste your time dealing with editors that have no other objective than petty point scoring. Having addressed the issues, they resort to personalising and snipping. The best answer to them is to keep producing the articles you have been, like Strangeways, fair play to yeh. --Domer48 (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work on the expansion of Charles Kickham. Another fenian with a decent article. I have to confess I am not a great fan of block-quotes, and I think his account of 1848 in Mullinahone might be lost without any great harm to the article. Otherwise it's a very nice job. Leaves me wondering when the article on the Confederation Club is going to be written. Scolaire (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with you about the Mullinahone bit, I might shorten it and place the full account in wikisource. I still have to do O'Leary and Stephens and before I even go near the Confederation Club, I have to do something about the Thomas Davis article. That article is really starting to bother me, and I have tons of stuff on him. So much to do and so little time I'm afraid. Anyhow, thanks for that, take care, Regards --Domer48 (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
lol Vandalism - don’t make me laugh your an IRA supporter
I did what you asked on the template talk page and checked out your recent edits. I want to try to explain what my problem is with long quotes. People read an encyclopedia because they want to be told in a concise way what happened, what was done and what was said. Forcing them to read large tracts of text defeats the whole purpose. What it important or exciting to the editor who put it in is "just another long boring speech" to the reader. And, of course, any reader who wants to read the whole thing can be pointed to Wikisource. I haven't liked the insertion of long quotes on any of the articles they've appeared in recently, and to be honest, I don't remember anybody else coming on the talk pages to say "I think they're really good." A short summary of the text with, if necessary, a very short quote from it will make for a far better article. Scolaire (talk) 09:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that Peter, and like with the Charles Kickham I'm more than willing to take your views in a positive way and act on your suggestions. As you can see on the Roger Casement talk page, I flagged it up the speech in Oct 07, looking for suggestions and got no reply. I agree with all you have suggested above, and also pointed to my own difficulty in how it should be addressed. I hope you agree that I can be reasonable, but just have no time for narrow agendas. I have responded on the Casement article, and have put forward suggestions on the Manchester one. The only problem is, my friend and their well polished chip has no intrest and even less knowledge to be even intresting. As we say, children my play while fools look on --Domer48 (talk) 10:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but I really think it's up to you to decide what are the essential points and do the pruning. It seems funny to ask them what they think should stay when you know they don't want any of it. Also, what I say about text in articles applies equally to text in footnotes; I think that just moving the whole lot down into a footnote is not a good solution. Scolaire (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll giving them the option to decide, because if I do it, it just allows then the oppertunity to bitch and moan. If they refuse the oppertunity, well I'm more than willing to have a go. I'm a bit tied up on the O'Leary article, and expanding the Stephens one a bit more. Once I have that out of the way, I will focus on the changes. If they don't want any of it, their going to have a tough time justifying it. I think you know what will happen when I attempt to do it? --Domer48 (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I note your comment regarding the inclusion of extra material on collusion. You feel the item wasn't agreed. May I draw your attention to the page history and the fact that it was SilkTork, the third party editor, who included this information. As far as all are concerned and I believe this includes ONIH, the article is now balanced and verified and requires no further major editing with the exception of verifiable new information. I have undid the changes and hope you will accept that, subject to further discussion?
Please do tell why this line: "taking responsibility for IRA operations in the six counties of Northern Ireland and also County Donegal" is permissible to describe the geographical limitations of the so-called "Northern Command" whilst in the body of the text but cannot describe the vague term "north of Ireland" in the first line? --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 23:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If as I suggested you read the entire article, why you are persisting in advocating an incorrect piece of information be added to the lead? Domer48 (talk) 08:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Domer, I've just noticed that you put the Tim Pat Coogan paragraph back into the Orange Order history page, in a place which was, in my opinion, even more irrelevant than where I deleted it from. The section that you put it in dealt with the prehistory of the Order - William of Orange, Battle of the Boyne etc, so I am totally unable to understand how a paragraph on the Order's benevolent activities, influence on America etc fits in there. In general the paragraph seems to be 'what Coogan says about the Orange Order' rather than any attempt to fit in with the existing structure of the page. If you think it is important information then I have no problem with you re-inserting the facts, as long as they are in relevant and appropriate places. Simply reinserting the paragraph in random places does nothing to improve the page.
I know we've had issues with this paragraph before, and I want to reiterate that if you want the information on the page, I don't have a problem with that, I just ask that you work it into the existing article rather than just dumping it in there. --Helenalex (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Domer, do you have the Kevin Barry article on your watch list? I could use some help over there, as I am already at 3RR, and an anon keeps insisting on adding the age of Pvt. Washington, without reference. It seems to me that we dealt with this sometime back and the consensus was to keep his age out of the article. Do you have any recollection of this? Thanks for your time and efforts. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'15:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, what you were doing there was disruptive in the extreme. Tag-teaming with Big Dunc to edit-war with Bonkers over a sock tag? Please don't do that again or you'll be just as likely to get blocked for disruption and edit-warring - Alison❤22:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can I make you aware that I have posted on the talk page for the Ulster Defence Regiment that I have made some sweeping changes to the entire article at my work page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GDD1000/UDR. I would appreciate your looking in, as you have been involved in the dialogue on this article. My intention has been to clean up the article, remove repetition and add new information. I believe there may be some syntax errors in the references and I would appreciate help or advice on that. Similarly I am willing to discuss anything you believe is contentious. I am repeating this request on BigDunc's talk page.GDD1000 (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You also made them to the article, don't ask me to review it and then just put in the changes? Now I'd object to them as poorly written cruft. --Domer48 (talk) 11:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Corporals killings.JPG. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check
That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
Domer we were doing quite well there until just a few minutes ago. I'm certainly not wanting to get into a war of words over who was right and who was wrong in the Ulster situation. IMO we have to concentrate on the bare historic facts as far as this article is concerned. I'm sure we can agree that the UDR and IRA were enemies but there are plenty of pages on Wikipedia about the IRA. I'm also sure we can make the feelings of both communities clear in the article. Please don't let personal sympathies stand in the way of us discussing this article in a clear and rational fashion. That's a plea.GDD1000 (talk) 13:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly unfree Image:Free the POW's Mural Belfast.JPG
I don't really see how that canges anything. Yes it recommends the clarifications are given in square brackets, and yes it reccomends that links are not generally provided in quotations, but if a clarification has an article which adequatly demonstrates the topic at hand without inserting clarifications, I don;t see why that shouldn;t be done. That is a bit of a bloggers perspective I suppose, but I don;t think the suggetion is any less valid for that.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have those pages scanned and ready to go. I need an e-mail address though. Could you reply to my internal e-mail to you please?GDD1000 (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Domer, I'm sorry, but I've got to tell you that you're fairly close to a page ban on Great Irish Famine. All you've been doing is revert, revert, revert. Please refrain from making reverts to the article for the time being. Ryan Postlethwaite10:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice Ryan, but it is obvious to anyone who cares to read the discussion that I discussed, reverted, discussed reverted, discussed, discussed, discussed, and reverted. Now has my conduct been disruptive? I don't think it has, but I welcome any advice on how to move forward. Thanks for the advice though, is very welcome, --Domer48 (talk) 11:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One more revert, or anything resembling a revert, and you will be page banned. Ways to move forward? Mediation, request for comments, third opinion, build a new lead from scratch ... but definitely no more reverts please. Angus McLellan(Talk)21:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Angusmclellan you will of course show good cause, and it would be helpful to indicate what I'm actually doing wrong? Have I breached any of our policies or guidlines? Have I not discussed all the changes? --Domer48 (talk) 07:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting is covered by Wikipedia:Edit war. As for Asmaybe (talk·contribs), we'll see. Thank you for the documentation. However, it is not up to me or Daniel or Ryan to decide on content. If you feel that people are straying away from what the sources actually said, as well as the talk page there is mediation, a request for comments, a third opinion, and all the various noticeboards. There's even one on "original research" these days. There is no need to get bogged down in argument. Angus McLellan(Talk)21:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitration has little or nothing to do with content, which would include discussions of page naming, except where there are policy issues involved. No original research has quite a narrow meaning. It does not include "I don't think that the source says what you think it does" disputes. You should be able to work those out on your own. As for the name, the likelihood of the current name being kept seems close to zero. I suggest you look for a second-best choice. As for the rest, try dispute resolution. Edit warring will get you (and anyone else who does it) banned from the page. Angus McLellan(Talk)09:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Domer48, I need to apologise to you for deleting your recent comments from my talk page. I was doing two or three things at once and also was carrying on two other WP conversations at the same time, and for some reason I thought your comments there were made by User:BigDunc, who I was talking with on a different page. (Must be the capital "D" in the name or something...) Your comment there was almost identical to one the other user had just made to me seconds before elsewhere, and I thought he was just copying his message onto my talk page so I knew about it, so I deleted it b/c I was fine to have the conversation where it was ongoing elsewhere. (If that makes sense ... — if not, just please accept my apology for deleting your comment; it wasn't intended to be a rejection of you or your comments, which I can understand it may have appeared to be. Good Ol’factory(talk)09:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then again, now that I review it, it was you that made the comment, but it was just on User:BigDunc's talk page, and I didn't realise it was you and not BigDunc responding. Hence my confusion. Anyway, see above for the apology. Good Ol’factory(talk)09:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that can help is a liberal application of cluestick to the other editor, since he has not even read the article with the purported dispute. Domer48 (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please. Just try to assume a little good faith on the part of other editors here. Discuss the issues with the article, and suggest changes by all means, but leave the personal attacks out of it. Consider this a formal warning - Alison❤22:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to argue my case by asking him directly on his talk page why he has repeatedly removed my addition to the IRA page (which is factual based - the IRA being a "paramilitary" organisation and not "military" one, with the latter being officially sanctioned by a country or government, and the former not), deleted my addition to the IRA talk page asking why it was not accepted (and I assure you I was not in for the personal attacks at this stage). I requested a third opinion (As you saw) but the user deleted my contribution toward it (as it was I who suggested it), said the third opinion wasn't needed, forget about etc, and the other moderated agreed. His reasoning for deleting it was listed as "nonscence"(sic), which in addition to being spelled wrong, is also UNTRUE. I mean, what is this a joke? If you don't see this, then I guess you really have taken it upon yourselves to turn what was supposed to be an open source of information into just another propaganda machine.Crieff (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that it is clear that the third opinion is for the IRA page, I can take a look there. Discussion regarding the 3O should be ther only and not here. Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote in the history of WP:V "Philip, please stop changing the policy, "Putting back the seperation of paragraphs" did not mention removing text"[2]
Domer, I think this is the second time you say that the image NoETA.jpg doesn't respect copyright policies, or that it violates any copyright. I've opened a section in the image's talk page, so I kindly ask you to explain there in detail why do you think that. ETA's logo doesn't have any copyright, as I try to explain in there. Thank you, Escorial82 (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You participated in a recent straw poll at Talk:The Great Hunger on a possible name change. This is a friendly notice that I have opened another straw poll, this time to find the names that editors are most opposed to. If you know of anybody who did not vote in the last straw poll, but who has an interest in the name debate, please feel free to pass this on. Scolaire (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're blocked for 31 hours, or until you apologise unreservedly for repeatedly calling Colin4C (talk·contribs) a liar, whichever is the lesser. No warnings? You know well enough what is and isn't acceptable, and Scolaire and Wotapalaver had already pointed out that this is not acceptable. Angus McLellan(Talk)16:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You want me to apologise unreservedly? I'm not apologising for the truth. Shall I be diplomatic and say "Colin4C has presistently said a source says x when it says nothing of the sort", isn't that just a polite way of saying the exact same thing? Domer48 (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would be acceptable, yes. "Colin4C says <some book> says <something> but it says <something else>" is civil. "Blah is a liar" is incivil unless there is clear and compelling evidence that it is true, and that evidence doesn't exist here because you are arguing about how to paraphrase and summarise. Have a nice weekend, Angus McLellan(Talk)16:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Since blocks are preventative not punitive I refuse to apologise for anything said, but I will not use those particular words in future therefore I should be unblocked forthwith. Domer48 (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
Blocks are preventative and not punitive but Angus's request was a reasonable one and by declining it you don't leave me with the impression that you've internalized his advice to you. Take all the time you need to do so, but I'm afraid I don't think an unblock is merited. Sorry. — John (talk) 17:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Blocks are not punitive, if Domer says he won't comment on any editor for the rest of the block, keeping him blocked would be punitive. One just has to look at the talk page to see that WP:AGF has not been shown to Domer from other editors on the page and the blatant stonewalling and antagonism that he has to put up with when asking a simple request of providing a reference. BigDuncTalk18:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
As a matter of principle, I'm not apologising for speaking the truth. As I pledge to make no comments about any other editor for the duration of the block, the block is now rendering solely punitive and therefore a breach of the blocking policy for me to remain blocked. Domer48 (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Call it educational if you like, gordon, but clearly the intent here is to punish Domer for his refusal to offer an apology that he does not feel is necessary or deserved. As BigDunc has stated, "Domer says he won't comment on any editor for the rest of the block, keeping him blocked would be punitive." This all seems rather clear. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'18:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Domer refuses to recognise the problems with his comments - "I'm not apologising for speaking the truth" clearly shows he still believes he did nothing wrong. Yeah, he said he won't comment on other users, but if he refuses to acknowledge his wrong doing, the block is far from punitive now. Ryan Postlethwaite18:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I refuse to apologise for my comments, that is different. I acknowledged the problem in my first post following the block, can't you see it? Domer48 (talk)
I can't see it. At this point it seems you're just playing with words. If you can see the problem, why couldn't you apologize for it? If you do not feel the apology is necessary or deserved, then you should stay blocked for a while to give you a chance to reflect on our norms of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Offering to observe these rules, which apply to all of us all of the time, for the duration of the block only, is not acceptable. --John (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any Admin watching this are condoning it with their silence, and pretending they did not see it. “Consider it educational, not punitive.” Have we just set a precedent here for being punitive, or petty? It is not gratifying but informative to see how the rules can be twisted and blatantly circumvented to make a point. I don’t feel the need to hold contempt for it, I simply acknowledge it exists. John please don’t post on my page, as you lack the wherewithal to be even amusingly petty. I have the choice of lying and saying I apologise unreservedly, or maintaining my self-respect, an easy choice. Wrong place for sackcloth and ashes folks, and I come out of it displaying more integrity coupled with a sense of humour. If given the choice, I would have given up my seat for Rosa Parks. --Domer48 (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry folks but I'm not intrested. Thanks Sarah, your honesty and willingness to say it like it is will always be welcome. Rock, yourself and Peter stand over “Consider it educational, not punitive.” I don't need to say anymore on the subject, other than I'd rather you don't post on this page. The fact that Admins were struck dumb on the Arbitration enforcement because of Angus McLellan's intervention illustrates the nature of this block rather well. Ryan, why don't you close it as resolved, and file it away. --Domer48 (talk) 08:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Domer, if you are going to delete my comments on your page, then please don't replace them with a misrepresentation of what I said. I did not endorse the position that your block is "educational, not punitive." Whether you chose to sit this out or not, you should be aware that the sort of language that led to this block will not be tolerated in future (from you or anyone else). Things are getting out of hand on that page, among certain editors, and if it continues in that sort of poisonous tone I'll take steps to restrict those who cannot edit civility and good faith from contributing there until they can. Please try to return to that page with a fresh pair of eyes and leave the mistrust and accusations in the past. I'll copy this message to the talk page for other editors to consider also. Rockpocket17:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So keeping someone block to teach them a lesson is to be incorporated into the blocking policy then is it. You said you would unblock me but it would not have consensus? Policy overrides consensus even I know that. You simply lacked the will, or the conviction of your own opinions. You also know this arbitration enforcement was a valid complaint and you again sat on your hands. Now one admin thought the Mentors should act on the complaint, and so they did. . One points to something not even in the complaint at all. In fact ignored the complaint altogether. Why add something that’s not relevant to the discussion I wonder? Another admin who normally deals with ArbCom enforcement then suggests that the mentors should act on the complaint, and we get this little pearl of wisdom from another of the mentors. What’s the lesson here Rock, file a report and get blocked? Now policy trumps consensus. Editors who deliberately add hoax references to support their own opinion is in breach of policy WP:V, present it is such a way to become misleading WP:NPOV and refuse to support their WP:OR when challenged. I will not apologise for that. Consensus among editors to keep unreferenced opinion which breach our policies is overridden by those policies. I did not misrepresent you at all. You sit on your hands and allow it. Don’t come on my talk page making excuses for your lack of principle in relation to the selective application of policies. So Gordon did not teach me a lesson. Neither did Angus and neither did Ryan but I hope you learned something. Apply the policies in a clear and consistant way and I'm a productive editor. Offer advice and suggestions, and maybe even deal with the cause of the problems in place of shaking a stick at the results or tackle the cause, not just give advice on how to do tackle it and I'm a productive editor. Being able to tell fellow admins that they are becoming part of the problem and not the solution and you become a productive admin.--Domer48 (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is one thing to have conviction of one's own opinions, but the key word is opinion. I have an opinion, which I expressed, but it does not supercede that of the blocking admin, nor that of the two reviewing admins. The unyielding belief that one's opinion is correct, and everyone else's is incorrect, is not conviction, it is arrogance. Its also, when administrative actions are concerned, what precipitates wheel-warring. So, I repeat my opinion: calling another editors a "liar" is not acceptable. Not during the length of any block issued for it, and not after that time. If you acknowledge that and pledge not to repeat it, I will unblock you because there is little justifiable reason for it remaining. If you continue to believe that is acceptable then the block will likely remain.
Finally, instead of stating what you think you know as a fact, you would have much more success in convincing people of your position if you express it an an opinion (which is what it is). For example, you state: You also know this arbitration enforcement was a valid complaint and you again sat on your hands. Two things: Its rarely a good idea to tell someone what they know, which you can't possibly be aware of. Secondly, you presuppose that I had even read that thread. For your information, this is the first I had heard of it. So, with those facts in your possession, you may wish to reconsider that sentence. Rockpocket21:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will not use those particular words in future hardly inspires confidence that you intend to be civil in future, rather than simply avoid particular words. Nonetheless, you should be aware that you will be unblocked on the understanding it is the spirit, not the letter, the you are expected to adhere to. A repeat of that sort of incivil language, not just a repeat of those words, will likely result in further, and longer, blocks. Rockpocket21:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey save the unblock! I'll do the 31, let gordon have his moment. The unblock should not have been refused to teach an editor a lesson. --Domer48 (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that is particularly helpful either. Blocks, or unblocks, are not be about admins having their moment. Personalizing everything in that way makes things more difficult to resolve. Anyway. I have already formally requested that Angus agree to let me unblock you. I hope he will agree promptly and everyone can put this behind them. Rockpocket22:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have unblocked you, Domer, on the understanding that you remain civil in future, particularly in reference to stating your opinion of other editors as facts. " What X states currently (dif) does not appear consistent with what they said previously (diff)" is a civil way of making the same point that got you blocked. It also provides ample opportunity for the person to clarify any misunderstanding that could resolve the inconsistency.
Angus tells me that he is considering how, within the remit of the ArbCom remedy, how we should resolve these WP:V-interpretation related incidents. I don't have an answer for you myself, but I do know that cool, calm discussion is infinitely more likely to resolve them that name calling.
I hope you, and the other editors that you were discussing the issues with, will read my plea on the talk page and take it seriously, because your knowledge on the Famine is second to none. Thanks. Rockpocket23:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"It also provides ample opportunity for the person to clarify any misunderstanding that could resolve the inconsistency" - now there's an interesting quote. Now let's see what happened last time I discovered an inconsistency and tried to resolve it, right here. I assumed good faith that the sentence could be sourced by the book in question and that maybe I was missing something obvious, and politely asked if a chapter number and quote could be provided:
Having read the source indicated, and the page numbers provided I have been unable to find the text which supports the text below in the article. Quite possibly I reading a different edition, mine being published by Anchor Books, ISBN0 385 72026 2. Could the editor please provide the chapter number and a quote to help me narrow it down? "Emigration reached new heights and the infamous coffin-ships crossed the Atlantic in large numbers carrying people fleeing from the famine."
Colin's responses:
Is Domer really saying that in his edition of Keneally's book there is no reference at all to the Irish emigrating across the Atlantic in, inter alia, 'coffin ships'? Irish emigration due to the Famine etc is the theme of the whole book! Such emigration is extremely common knowledge in Ireland and elsewhere, is mentioned in hundreds of books and IS supported by the reference given. It is not original research.
As per the policy read it for yourself: Thomas Keneally (1999) The Great Shame. London: Vintage: 135-40
As per the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability Big Dunc read it for yourself: Thomas Keneally (1999) The Great Shame. London: Vintage: 135-40. If you have a different edition look at the index under "'Ireland': emigration from; and 'illness and death on emigrant ships'". This should convince you that at the time of the Famine the Irish emigrated to America, and died aboard ship in great numbers due to fever etc. Have you never read about this before? I thought it was common knowledge not something I made up. If you doubt this all you have to do is open the book and read the words. Please keep up!
The policy says nothing about 'exact quotes'. Please keep up!
Plagiarism is not allowed on the wikipedia. By the way Domer's addition to the verifiability policy has now been reverted. It is no longer policy. See Wikipedia: Verifiability.
I just read it. Domer's additions have been reverted.
I think you will find you are wrong, Domer. Check it. Or put back your alteration to the policy.
You'd better change this policy as well then: "Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is something of a dick-move in itself, so don't bandy the criticism about lightly. Calling someone a dick can be considered poisoning the well (a logical fallacy that is a special case of an ad hominem attack)."
You want me to quote the whole five pages? Yes or no? Violate copywrite? Break the law? Yes or no?
The text is a summary of information from the whole 5 pages of the book, which is why I cited 5 pages rather than one or two or three or four. As I do not have the time or the energy to transcribe five pages here and as it is against copyright anyway I have added an online ref to the text. I hope that satisfies you!
Check the history of Verifiability for yourself, the part about direct quotes from books being produced on request was in there for the duration of the discussion, and it was not a passage I originally added. How many "ample opportunities" did Colin4C have to produce the quote, or otherwise resolve the inconsistency?
Much has been made of the word "infamous", which neglects that "Emigration reached new heights" is still an outstanding issue. Dealing with "infamous", apparently it is ok for an editor to "summarise" and add POV terms which do not appear in the original text. I shall use a different example for the sake of argument, and someone who is dead to avoid any BLP problems. If I have a book and there are five pages talking about the activities of Oliver Cromwell in Ireland, is it ok to summarise my opinion of the content of those five pages and describe him as a "tyrant" in the article despite that word not appearing in the original text? Surely the issue is not whether another source could be found that describes Cromwell as a "tyrant", but whether the source I have said describes him as a "tyrant" actually does so?Domer48 (talk) 23:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Qualitative adjectives, especially those with a whiff of hyperbole about them, should be avoided. Even when explicitly sourced, they should be attributed. Rockpocket01:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if it helps here are a few explicit references for that descriptor:
Raymond E. Crist, Migration and Population Change in the Irish Republic. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 30, No. 3 (Jul., 1971), pp. 253-258: "Those that survived the famine and the Atlantic crossing in the infamous "coffin ships" were tough indeed."
Tim Rutten, From `great hunger,’ hope sprouts. LA Times August 23, 2006: "Those waiting vessels have come down to us in history as the infamous “coffin ships” on which more than 20,000 immigrants died within sight of their promised land." (This also has an interesting take on the name issue: "Most of us know it simply as "the potato famine." But because the majority of its victims suffered and died innocent of English, its name in Irish better conveys the catastrophe’s simple terror: An Gorta Mor – “the great hunger.”")
Michael J. Farrell, Irish Famine Museum topical as Rwanda, National Catholic Reporter, August 12, 1994: "Many left for America or England, thousands of them dying on the infamous "coffin ships" before reaching the promised land."
Brian Wharrey. The Jeanie Johnston The Proud Irish Emigrant Ship is Reborn, Quebec Diocesan Gazette, May 2003: "The infamous “coffin ships” [are] most notably associated with the thousands of emigrants who perished on the transatlantic voyages in 1847. An estimated one and one-half million Irish people emigrated from 1845 to 1851, upwards of 30-45% dying in the “coffin ships” on their journey or shortly after their arrival at their new home."
Here is a references for the "Emigration reached new heights" statement:
Emigration To North America In 1847, The Ships List: "The year 1847 was a unique year for emigration. Famine in Ireland leads the list of reasons for the increase in the number of emigrants in that year."
Sadly you seem to have the same problem with sourcing that other editors have, you try and match a source to an existing sentence rather than matching the sentence to the source. From what I can see, the source you have provided would source "Emigration was higher than in 1846", but not "Emigration reached new heights". Unless of course the word "unique" is a paraphrase for "new heights"? Domer48 (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually trying to find a way to resolve what I, personally, see is a rather lame debate to the satisfaction of everyone. When writing good articles, we don't source every single word back, Domer (not least because of copyright issues). Our best articles have plenty of paraphrasing for the sake of readability and we use our judgment to determine how to condense material into our own words. I happen to think "Emigration reached new heights [in 1847]" is a relatively accurate summary of what happened, and I think "The year 1847 was a unique year for emigration. Famine in Ireland leads the list of reasons for the increase in the number of emigrants in that year" supports that rather well (because it was clearly higher than any other year, and not just higher than the year before because this is written from a historical perspective, and it was also "uniquely" so). I'm assuming your goal is to have accurate information in the article. So could you tell me, do you have reason to doubt 1847 marked the height of emigration during the period? If not, how would you prefer to word a sentence stating that, because it seems a pretty notable fact? If you do doubt it, could you perhaps provide a reason why, because if you have a better source stating otherwise we could use that instead. Rockpocket17:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is all well and good Rock, but paraphrasing is labeled "original research" when the shoe is on the Irish foot, so to speak. Sarah777 (talk) 07:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to Webster, paraphrase means "a restatement of a text, passage, or work giving the meaning in another form" - yet no less a body than Arbcom concluded that, in my case, this was original research. So one can readily understand why people with a different perspective would expect equal sensitivity to possible WP:OR. Sarah777 (talk) 07:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah, is there any chance of a diff to that conclusion on Arbcom? Because I think that goes to the heart of the problem here. It's my belief - and I believe that the people in conflict with Domer take the same position - that you have to paraphrase what the source says, in other words, the article has to be original writing. Once you cite a source whose text you are restating in another form, you can't be accused of original research. If Arbcom said otherwise I think Arbcom was plain wrong! And yes, I can understand why people with a different perspective would take a strong (and mistaken) message home from that. Scolaire (talk) 08:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Domer, apologies for posting on your talk page when you asked me not to, but please don't remove this because I think we might be on to something here. Scolaire (talk) 08:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The famine meets the United Nations definition of genocide and hence the modern meaning of the word. But while these facts were not disputed the balance of "verifiable sources" didn't use the precise word and thus using it was deemed WP:OR by Arbcom to even suggest that it might be genocide because the word "genocide" was only coined in 1900 or thereabouts and therefore wasn't used by contemporary commentators who described it as genocide, but, since it wasn't yet coined, didn't use the exact word. (Note that the "genocide" issue is now discussed in the article!). But that manifestly wrong decision was the basis for me being put on some sort of "permanent watch" which facilitated the recent extremely punitive measures and threats of bans which I had to endure recently (one full year after the Arbcom decision). Sarah777 (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please be aware that the mentors appointed by the arbitration committee to oversee The Great Hunger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) have determined that you shall be banned for one month from editing the article and its talk page, and for one further month from editing the article only, as noted here. The talk page ban will expire at 12:00 UTC on 23 July 2008 and the article ban at 12:00 CET on 23 August 2008. Please do observer this editing restriction. Failure to do so may result in you being blocked. If you have any questions, please let me know or leave a note here. Regards, Angus McLellan(Talk)12:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If any editor be banned from this page, it should be Colin. He has caused disruption by insisting false referencing and citation. Dormer48's input is very important to this ongoing discussion. A rather over-reactive development, may I add. 93.107.67.124 (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide evidence of "good cause", given that I currently feel I am being punished for past "crimes" when I have already improved my behaviour following certain incidents. Domer48 (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good cause? On the talk page: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]; looking at [10]you managed an average of 8-10 edits a day to the talk page, and that would be objectionable in itself in these circumstances. Reverts on the article, those you'll be able to find as well as me. A "pattern of behaviour" thing. While no one diff is damning, a hundred make a damn good case. Angus McLellan(Talk)17:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see one diff there that is since my block, so am I being punished (or "educated") for past behaviour or not? Regarding the reverts, how many have there been since I was "asked" to refrain from reverting on 29 May? Domer48 (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should have looked at the edits just before those in the history [16][17][18] etc, where edits I made were reverted without discussion taking place, something you are supposed to be preventing. Domer48 (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't, and don't, see any connection there. If Ryan does, well you'll need to ask him why that is. Aren't five or ten reverts enough? How many do you think you should have been allowed, per day or per week? Angus McLellan(Talk)22:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Highest edits out of last 250 edits "The Great Hunger"
Colin4C
78
Dormer48
45
Wotapalaver
23
I think the above table sheds a new light on the topic. Colin4C appears to be in the lead in the editing/revert field, almost twice as active as Dormer48. 93.107.67.124 (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't had time to look into this in detail but it appears that there is a lack of understanding at senior Admin level hereabouts that tu quoque is a natural, understandable and justified reaction when justice is not seen to be applied evenly and fairly. Could Angus/Ryan etc please simply provide diffs to "offences" committed by Domer since the block only, in the clearest possible manner, so that we may see what the justification for this punishment is? Sarah777 (talk) 06:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How many reverts have there been since I was "asked" to refrain from reverting on 29 May? Put another way, having been asked to refrain on the 29 May, did I in fact do as requested? Yes or no? --Domer48 (talk) 08:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CU should be able to tell (1)Operating System, (2)Browser, (3)Screen resolution, at least. Mine are, (1)Windows XP, (2)MSIE 7.0, (3)1024x768. If any of your data is different from mine, then CU would immediately know. Wikipedia is doing you a great dis-service if they ignore your CU request. Sorry if I have caused you any problems, it was not my intention. Admins should take note. There is most probably a cookie too that the Wikipedia CU can trace. Really they cannot ignore your request, unless there is something more subtle going on that's not apparent at the moment. Maybe try a different CU, as according to Ryan's page, he nominated Alison for adminship. He shouldn't have interfered with the CU request.93.107.78.102 (talk) 23:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, not doing that, I'm sure you are above reproach. But Domer made a CU request, and it wasn't answered by CU, only by Ryan, who is not a CU. Like the old adage, "Caesar's wife must be above suspicion." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.78.102 (talk) 00:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I ran the checkuser, as requested and can state that Domer48 (talk·contribs) is not socking, to the best of my knowledge. However, I cannot comment on the mobile IPs and have no way of connecting or distancing them from Domer in any way. I've just no way of knowing. I can state that Domer48 has never used a mobile IP under his logged-in name and I personally consider it unlikely, from a style and behavioural impression, that the anon editor is Domer - Alison?00:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry about the rather weak exoneration above from the CU page, but it's something that I have utterly no control over. What should have been said is, "there is absolutely not a shred of evidence to link the two editors". Sadly now it seems, a bit like Scottish Law, the CU has bestowed the "not proven" verdict on your "case". And I must add, there was not a shred of evidence for Ryan to make the accusation in the first instance, and that should be emphasised. 93.107.78.102 (talk) 02:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A certain banned user on WR has pretty much owned up to being our mysterious cell phone IP addy. Should I let GH know of your appreciation for getting you into this situation? SirFozzie (talk) 23:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
C'Mon guys, it took you that long to work out who our mysterious cell-phone loving friend was? I thought it was obvious from his first comment, hence this. This is par for the course for GH. He sets himself up as a crusader to help certain editors, yet all he has done since he was banned is set them up to take the fall for his poor behaviour.
Please don't leave on the back of this, Domer. I may as well state now, since my opinion is rather inconsequential anyway these days, that I don't believe a unilateral ban is the answer here. I do think the way you have been conducting talk page discussions has contributed to the problems on these articles, but you are certainly not alone. I think things were being worked though, largely due to Scolaire's focus, and thus banning you is not necessary. All I would ask is for you to take a step back from the rule book a little. You are so focused on the letter of policy that you can't see the wood for the trees sometimes.
As I said to Dunc privately. I'm not sure there is much I can do but urge the mentors to reconsider: perhaps on the basis that it could be implemented if things kick off again, but to give you a chance to show that it will not.
My final, rather self indulgent point, would be to point out that Domer is absolutely right that there is not consistency across the board. It appears that it depends on who you are, as to whether you get blocked for calling another editor a liar. I'm not sure whether that is much help to Domer now, but it did strike me as somewhat ironic. Rockpocket01:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fully apologise Domer - I was wrong to ever suggest you were using an IP to evade your ban. It's obvious who it was now - hope you can forgive me sir. Ryan Postlethwaite01:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rock, I will defend your integrity anywhere to anybody - but I just wish you'd realised a bit sooner justice is relative or is not justice at all - its what I have been saying all along! :) Sarah777 (talk) 01:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that Fozz, it cleared the air. Alison as usual you have gone beyond what is considered normal in your efforts to help and assist an editor. You were under no obligation to help and you did and you can't ask for more than that. Am I pissed off about the block and then the page ban, of course I am. I've been around long enough to know shit happens. Will it stop me from editing on wiki, please get real. I don't know were the idea sprang from that I was leaving, but that is probably wishful thinking. In the past I have been at the bad end of Banned editors and their socks on the Article and I came through it. I will take your advice Rock, and there is a lot of truth in it and I accept that. I will also accept Ryan's apology (through my teeth of course) because that is the way it is and pettiness is not my strong suite. Now as to GH, could you do me a favour, and go fuck yourself! I can slag editors of to beat the band, but it is never personal. You have a well polished chip on your shoulder and you need to get over yourself. Now why don't you leave Alison the fuck alone, because while I can on occasion curse her from a hight, I still think she is a decent skin, and one of the best admin's on the site. On a lighter note, Sarah, I always get a buzz when your name appears on my talk page. ;-) --Domer48 (talk) 10:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Domer :) I just don't think Rock is remotely deserving of being de-sysoped or that he is dishonest as is being suggest. I detest campaigns of intimidation against anyone - (having been often on the receiving end!) And I enthusiastically second your remarks to GH. Sarah777 (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Domer, thank you so much for setting the record straight on this one, and for your kind words. For the record, it can now be clearly stated that Domer48 is in no way connected to those anon edits, and that the culprit was banned editor, User:Gold heart. I'm really sorry you had to go through all that nonsense and finger-pointing. That's not right. I just wish there was something else I could have done. You're a super editor, Domer (when you're not edit-warring :) ) and I just want you to know that. Right now, you're adding a lot more encyclopedic content than people like me are, and that means a lot :) Thanks again, fellow-nortsoider ;) - Alison❤18:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll not revert your reversion r.e. the alleged POV but I have to say that I cannot see any consensus on this issue present on the talk page, far from it in fact. That said, I am sure that you are scrupulous to present non-British sources as being POV too so it won't inject any bias into the articles you edit. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for lining up the boxes. Of course it's ok. I don't know how you did it, as I am not only vision-impaired, but very, very HTML/programming challenged. I suppose I'm learning. I like copy and paste programming best.
I use Jaws for Windows, and it doesn't display things as they are normally shown, which makes editing a trick. Doesn't do pictures either, I'm afraid. Trying to look at the screen is not good for me, so I avoid it.
Love your user page, btw, it has inspired me to write, and I don't know if that's a good thing, but it is definitely a fact.
Hi. I was wondering, seeing as you described [Category:State terrorism in the United Kingdom] as a POV category, ought the same apply to [Category:Terrorism in the United Kingdom]?
Thank you, Sarah. Those are exactly my sentiments. Yet one exists quietly for years, and the other is deleted shortly after its creation. One Night In Hackney recently argued at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration that I ought to be banned from Wikipedia, and one of the reasons cited is that I created a POV category. Here's your hard question now, Sarah. Will you join me in recreating the deleted category, or in requesting the existing one be deleted?
Actually, and this is straight from ONIH, that category has nothing to do with the reasons he thinks you should be banned. He thinks you should be banned because you're "a tendentious editor who wouldn't know NPOV if it smacked you in the face with a lump hammer". Domer48'fenian'18:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ONIH specifically referred to my use of that category here, so to contend that "...that category has nothing to do with the reasons he thinks you should be banned..." is more than a little off the mark. But we digress. I've asked you a straightforward question above. Will you answer it?
I'm not going to get into an edit war with you but my edit summery quite clearly states that Girvan confirms they were murders because that what they were arrested for, charged with and convicted for. So why change it when there is a perfectly good reference? Cheers ww2censor (talk) 03:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't neutral to state opinion as fact in that way. That people were convicted of murder isn't in dispute, but why use a loaded term to describe the events when more neutral ones are available? Domer48 (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Section 24 is quite clear. The copyright status expires "70 years after the date of the author". Thus, this image is still copyrighted because Whelan died in 1956. I have changed the license accordingly. Please add a fair use rationale permitting its use on the subject's page, Mark F. Ryan. -- Robocoder (t|c) 13:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mark Ryan Fenian.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Mark Ryan Fenian.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.
If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the image can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{non-free fair use in|article name that the image is used in}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the image. If the image has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Mark Ryan Fenian.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- Robocoder (t|c) 06:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[19]: May I ask how "Also Pte Matthew Whitehead was may have been only seventeen" is a personal attack? (Yes, some of what you removed was appropriate to remove, but could you take a look and restore what was not?) - Jmabel | Talk21:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notice how on the 13 August report I’m told that no current warning was given? That’s strange since no current warning is needed, only for the editor to be aware of the rule? Now the accusation is made that I was tag-teaming the editor, but I had not edited this article since the 24 July?
Despite the final warning, however, they still don’t get blocked. Well they were, but then they were unblocked because the blocking admin did not see the entire situation?. Which was?
Now some papers are fine, the Belfast Telegraph for example
And even Republican one, if just to make a point 83-86, 93-96, I did not add any of them.
For riveting discussions here is a good example. And as for reasons to revert here is one. The reason I’ve used this example is, if you have been reading this it will look familiar as they did not like it then either.
This article has now been fully protected for a week due to your edit-warring. Please take the matter to the talk page. You've been here long enough to understand how the process work, and edit-warring to get your POV across will not work and will just get you blocked - Alison❤20:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To get my POV across. I've been on the talk page, and not a peep at of you. Take it to the Troubles ArbCom? Because your one sided opinion is getting boring. If you make an accusation, try back it up for once. --Domer48'fenian'20:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with you Domer I to get a edit war warning when all I am doing is removing unsourced material like I said I would on the talk page. It appears some editors can do as they feel.BigDuncTalk20:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Back up your accusation, point to were I'm putting in "MY POV"? I've used that talk page by the book. Not once have I commented on the other editor during the discussions. Dispite the accusations being made left right and center. I have chose to ignore them. I have focused on the edits and the edits only. Now any time your asked a question you run off. There is still outstanding questions you never answered, the last time you accused me of something. So point to the diff or run off again. --Domer48'fenian'20:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, dear. Well, I guess that settles that then, Domer. Honestly guys, quit tag-teaming Thunderer (I know you're both at it). That's you also, Dunc. C'mon, and less of the abusive sockery charges. Checkuser clearly states that this guy is not an abusive sockpuppeteer - Alison❤00:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've got to say, I'm pretty disappointed over this. You both were managing to work together and I go off-line for 24 hrs and suddenly we are back to accusations of sockpuppetry and tag-teaming? As you can see, it didn't get either of you anywhere and, to boot, it resulted in a protected article so I can continue the copy-editing I was doing. Great stuff from both of you. Rockpocket01:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alison spare me. Tag-teaming! That is one piss poor excuse! Is that really the best you've got? Now I'll raise your Checkuser at ANI when the block expires. You can't back up your accusations when asked, but you can come on here with this crap. Rock, you were doing a good job, keep at it. Use the edit requests. --Domer48'fenian'07:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I opened a sock report here, with cleaar evidence that the editors were one in the same. A Checkuser was carried out and closed by the same Checkuser? Result, "checkuser shows no evidence of abusive sock-puppetry." GDD1000 with a major conflict of interest first started causing major disruption on the Wikipedia article on his former regiment in April. After causing large amounts of disruption with his POV pushing, use of unreliable sources, additions of vast amounts of copyright violations to articles and so on, GDD1000 stop editing in late May. Alison gave this editor a clean start under a new name, and has deceive other editors by allowing them to edit the same article pretending to be a brand new editor. Now the use of the term tag-teamed has been put about quite alot. It's a red-herring, and not one diff to support it. I request to be un-blocked to pursue this matter. Since the block was correct and warranted, I will not for the period of one week edit any article on wiki, confining myself to ANI and following any advice offered. In addition, I will not post to any editors talk page other than my own.
Decline reason:
No. You edited disruptively, were blocked, now you are requesting an unblock, throwing wild accusations here and there? I'm afraid that unblocking you will lead to further disruption and flamewar. As such, declined. MaxSem(Han shot first!)10:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
"Throwing wild accusations" despite no discussion having yet taken place? Your opinion is my unblock will “lead to further disruption and flamewar?” Based on what, your initial accusation? I request to be un-blocked to pursue this matter, confining myself to ANI and following any advice offered. --Domer48'fenian'10:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Now the use of the term tag-teamed has been put about quite alot. It's a red-herring, and not one diff to support it. I request to be un-blocked to pursue this matter. Since the block was correct and warranted, I will not for the period of one week edit any article on wiki, confining myself to ANI and following any advice offered. In addition, I will not post to any editors talk page other than my own. Since my previous request was declined because of wild accusations, I wish to pursue the matter through the proper channels. Since blocks are preventative, no punitive, I’ve indicated my intension to address my behaviour in a constructive way, in an attempt to remove the cause of contention.
Decline reason:
This is arrent wikilawyering. You have a history of edit warring and clearly were engaged in the same on this occasion. You muts know that 3RR is a bright line that must not cross. You did, you got blocked. Congratulations. If you have any issues that you want to address you are welcome to do this after your block expires but shortening this block will only encourage you to continue this behaviour that precipitated a general edit war on an article covered by an arbitration committee probation. Instead of casting wild accusations you would be as well to take the time off to consider how you could have handled the situation better. — SpartazHumbug!12:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
You muts know that 3RR is a bright line that must not cross?
And then there it is again "casting wild accusations" and arrent wikilawyering? If you read what I said, I've accepted the block and have not asked for anyone for a shortening of it. I've asked for the oppertunity to address this behaviour that precipitated a general edit war. --Domer48'fenian'12:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I've accepted the block and I'm not asking for anyone for a shortening of it. I'm asking for the oppertunity to address this behaviour that precipitated a general edit war. I wish to pursue the matter through the proper channels. Since blocks are preventative, no punitive, I’ve indicated my intension to address my behaviour in a constructive way, in an attempt to remove the cause of contention.
Decline reason:
"I'm not asking for anyone for a shortening of it." Then stop using the unblock template: that's for requesting that a block be lifted. You'll have plenty of chance to edit properly once the block expires. Mangojuicetalk12:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
unblock|I request to be un-blocked to address the issues that precipitated a general edit war at ANI. Since the block was correct and warranted, I will not for the period of one week edit any article on wiki, confining myself to ANI and following any advice offered. In addition, I will not post to any editors talk page other than my own. Since blocks are preventative, not punitive I'm making this requesst.
I have protected your talk page for 6 days to prevent you further abusing the unblock template. You asked to be unblocked you got the answer. Persistantly making requests that essentially restate the same request is disruptive. I have e-mail enabled so if you want to let me know you will desist I'll unprotect the page. SpartazHumbug!13:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think they prefer their trials on Wiki without the victim speaking! We then get conviction by repeated assertion. But the offense seems to be "Template Abuse" (!) and ironically it was triggered by an Admin attacking Domer for "Wiki-laywering" while said Admin was.....eh.....Wiki-lawyering! (Wiki-lawyering is what the Admin Community accuse those seeking consistentcy and fairness of engaging in). fairness isn't a right on Wiki, it is a privalage. Sarah777 (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{{gblock|incivility, disruptive editing, and not letting go of the sockpuppet thing despite having been told to repeatedly.|72 hours}}
Unblock requests should include promises to let the sock puppet thing go, and probably promises to restrain yourself to reporting Diffs.--Tznkai (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promises to let the sock puppet thing go, and probably promises to restrain myself to reporting Diffs? I'm the only one who has used diff's? --Domer48'fenian'07:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. No more nonsense about the Thunderer and GD whoever, and socking. None. Zero. Zip. Nada
2. You did use diffs, but your conduct has shown you cannot use them civily. So, you would be limited to supply only a diff. One hyper link, maybe a one word comment. Thats it.
An editor with a history of disruptive editing is allowed to take on a new user name and carry on in the same way as before is not right. I will not be cowed into silence by anyone when I know I’m right. Your block is puerile and beneath contempt. Now provide diff’s to back it up, or say nothing. Because you and Alison are standing over this and you know its not true. --Domer48'fenian'18:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So help me, Domer, I'll extend your block to indefinite right now so long as you intend to continue your campaign of bullying and harassment of this editor. You've been asked again and again and again to leave him alone, yet you refuse to do so. You're not privy to the facts in that case much as you protest that you do. You don't. Leave him alone already. I will not have you drive this editor from the project and frankly, don't make it a 'him-or-me' situation because if you do, you'll be found wanting in the balance. So stop the bullying already - Alison❤19:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Alison, I’m going to let it drop right now, not another word on it. All I want is, the next accusation made about me that you demand that it is supported by diff’s. If I’m uncivil to anyone, I will walk away for a month and not edit at all. I will not get into a revert war with anyone on any article. All I ask is that an admin will address the policy issues on the talk pages when a discussion has run its course. Now, dose that sound reasonable to you? --Domer48'fenian'19:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good decision Domer you are being reasonable now and you have stated that you will let it drop so let this please be the end of it. BigDuncTalk19:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does, Domer, and thanks for saying what you did here. You're a super editor - I've had tons of dealings with you in the past. You know the score. I don't want to see you blocked for any reasons, but I have to apply all things equally. If someone in the Unionist camp is pulling socking stunts (like, say, David Lauder :) ) or harassing others, you know what I'm going to do. Either way, if you get accused of stuff I want to see some evidence and, yeah, diffs would help a lot. I'll do my best to see you get treated fairly in whatever's going on. What you're saying does sound reasonable - Alison❤19:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Due to your edit warring on numerous Ireland related articles, I have placed you on the probationary terms available to administrators under the The Troubles. This probation does not self expire, but can be lifted at administrator or community discretion, especially if the terms of probation are not violated.--Tznkai (talk) 23:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have provided noting to back up your accusation of "edit warring on numerous Ireland related articles." I was blocked for 3RR on USC article for a week. Despite your allegations, I'm a good and productive editor. My grammar may be a bit of, but I abide with all our policies on WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. Not one Admin, has bothered their arse to enforce any of these policies. The usual cop out being it’s a content dispute or some other nonsense. You allow WP:OR, WP:POV and WP:SYN and don’t do a tap to deal with it. Now if you can’t take my honest and frank manner, that’s your problem, don't wave a stick at me. Now I’ll sit out your bad block, because I would not dignify it with an unblock request. Your a bully with a few extra buttons thats all, and I always stand up to bullies. Now have a read of this, and work on it, and you will not need this. In other words do your job. --Domer48'fenian'18:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Domer, I feel sorry for you - this place is becoming a joke. I've never seen a more unevenhand and spurious decision in my entire life and that including anything that has ever been handed to me.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like editors to address their recent accusations of me here, including supporting diff's. Unless diff's are provided it is impossible to offer a defence. I will use diff's to support my comments at all times.
Ryan is human and makes mistakes like the rest of us, he accused me of being a sock and then apologised and recently here with Sarah, were they retracted their accusation.
I was page banned on the Hunger Article, mentioned by Ryan above. I ask a question in relation to that ban, and it has yet to be answered. The discussion can be found here, and the question I asked was here, and repeated here and here. The same question was raised by another editor here and was still not answered.
Would editors like to comment on this page ban and weather they considered it correct? I ask because of the comments by Ryan above, and consider under the circumstances should be addressed. --Domer48'fenian'11:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please, I've asked for diff's and could you include the talk page discussions which went along with any reversions I've made. Reverting without using the talk page is considered out and out editwarring. Please give examples of incivility on the talk page? Since it takes two to edit war, please include the sanctions placed on the other editors? As article mentors please include diff's of your attempts to address the problem, something like we tried here and failed? --Domer48'fenian'12:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan since you did provide some diff's I'd like to say thank you, since you did raise the issue of "edit warring" could you possibly answer the question posed then which was here, thanks, supporting diff's would be helpful. --Domer48'fenian'13:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of course. When you were blocked for disruption on Great Famine (Ireland) it was to stop the problem in the short term. At this point, we (the mentors) discussed how we could stop the problems with the article. At that point in time, we found that you had caused a lot of trouble on the page and that overall, you were seriously hindering movement forward through edit warring and incivility. We decided that the best course of action would be to ban you from the page for a month. We based this not only on immediate problems, but a history over a number of weeks of the same disruptive behaviour. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter13:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan as I outlined above, please provide diff's? I have reviewed the diff's you did supply and none of them show edit warring. Your last post did not include any diff's at all, making it impossible to respond to I think you'll agree? --Domer48'fenian'13:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan it was you who raised it at the ANI, not once but twice, and I’m asking you to support your comments with diff’s. I think that is reasonable for me to ask. Please consider the comments you have made, and respond to my reasonable requests thanks.--Domer48'fenian'13:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Needs to be posted on Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement
I would like this placed on the ANI discussion which is titled “Domer.” I have provided diff’s to support my view that referenced information is being removed and that the reasons are not correct. I will provide a similar report on the subject of “Attribution” which is also subject to the same removals despite third party intervention and advice. In addition, I will compile a report on the section titled “Subversion in the UDR Report” again subject to continues removal.
I would like editors views and opinions on the insertion and removal of this information. Is the information correctly referenced, is it relevant to the subject matter, is its removal disruptive? Thanks
I started editing the article on the 8 September. I added additional referenced information here, and an additional reference here. It was then removed here, with the edit summary “Not correct at that time. A Republican POV.” It was also removed here despite the additional reference, with the edit summary “Incorrect - Republican POV.” I added it here with additional information, in addition to here with an additional reference. It was again removed here with the edit summary “Nationalist opinion is of no consequence when talking about Catholic recruits,” and here with the edit summary of “corrected POV.”
They also removed this here, though I did not add it. Some of it was restored here however it was reverted again here with the edit summary “Removing POV – again.” I removed some information and replaced the original information, now with three references here, and it was quickly removed again here with the edit summary “rem POV on B Specials.” It was re-added here and removed again here, with the edit summary “Incorrect POV has no place in this article.”
I attempted to add it again here, but it was removed again here with the edit summary “removing POV - see talk.” This is their talk page comment here, and the full discussion here.
While not accepting the referenced information that then added this here, and here. They then add this commentary here, describing it as an assertion and including more commentary here. They then add this analyses here, which I removed here, and adding this referenced information here.
I then used a completely new source here and added a Google books link to assist verifiability here, which they later removed here.
This information was then moved here and then add information here. I then added this addition here, which they then asked to be moved to another section here.
I then removed some of the commentary they added here only to have it replaced here. They then added this for some reason here. I had added this information for clarity here, but they removed it here with the edit summary “It's a separate artilce - leave it at that please. This isn't about the B Men.”
I again removed the addition of opinion into a referenced statement here with the edit summary “you have been asked by an uninvolved admin not to add your opinion” but they inserted it again here with the edit summary “It's not an opinion. I can cite that no cases were ever proven.” I again removed it here and asked “cite them then, and qualify the reference used.” It was again added back here, and they then added this here. I then added “Attribute, and remove qualifying statement from referenced source” edit here and I introduced Rocks solution here.
They then started to remove the referenced information again here with this edit summary “remove improper qualification” which I then replaced here with the edit summary “please don't remove referenced information.” They then modified the information here with the edit summary “removing incorrect assertion” and here which I changed here.
They then added their own opinion here with the edit summary “changing to reflect the fact that "reputation" wasn't in existence in 1970.” I again replaced this here with the edit summary “Please don't change sourced information, the information is supported throughout the article.”
They then started again here with the edit summary “Do not try to assert that something had a reputation before it actually had time to gain one. See Talk.” This is their talk page contribution here, the full discussion is here. I reverted again to reflect the sources here. It was again moved here, with additional information removed, which I had to replace here. This also was then removed here.This discussion should clarify some of the thinking behind its removal? --Domer48'fenian'17:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"I have provided diff’s to support my view that referenced information is being removed and that the reasons are not correct. " Being right doesn't ever excuse edit warring or incivility. Ever. Go read WP:DR--Tznkai (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ANI isn't the content police and frankly you can discuss this civilly and rationally on the talk page of the article once your block expires. SpartazHumbug!19:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is an ongoing discussion of which I'm apart, I would like my contrabution placed in the discussion. Why do I have to wait for my block to expire before it can be posted? --Domer48'fenian'19:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Needs to be posted on Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement
There were a number of issues in relation to attribution. Before I ever started attributing statements, I raised it first on the talk page here in the last paragraph, and was agreed to here, last line in the second last paragraph, "Potter. I can't see any harm in attributing statements to Potter. There may be occasions when I need to draw your attention to items if something appears glaringly obvious." In addition to this they considered that they had not used any opinions of Potter in the article here.
Again before I even began, a third opinion was sought, and Rock responded here. My view of Rocks opinion on An Phoblacht, would be the same for any " obvious partisan associations" and would include Potter?
When I attempted to start attributing statements I ran into trouble here. I was told that my attempts at attribution were well poisoning. I was informed that the A Testimony to Courage - the Regimental History of the Ulster Defence Regiment 1969 - 1992, John Potter must be "taken as gospel."
By attributing statements I was then told I was attempting to start a Contrived Edit War, and there was no consensus to attribute Potter. I had even informed him that there would be no 3RR reports from me and this had been agreed.
Rock then gave a third party view here, and again here on attrabution. Based on Rocks input I tried to apply it here but I was expected to take Potter as fact.
I then set about attribution, based on the advice given and I commented here, but was again told Potter has to be treated as fact and needs no attribution.
I was then accused of synthesis here, Rock again stepped in to help here and again here.
I then showed some real synthesis here. They next remove attributions wholesale and comment here.
Now if editors review the Article page history they will see this all play out. I will put up the diff's if editors think it is more helpful?--Domer48'fenian'20:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Some of the stuff recently added here (in relation to a "counter balance" to the widely referenced negative reactions) is probably fine, but it does stray into "analysis" a little too much, and may be a little long. If at all possible it may be worth while summarising so that the message is: "Widely publicised accounts at the time suggested the rebellion and the rebels were ill-received amongst the general public, while other reports and more recent analysis suggest that (in working class areas in particular) the rebels were cheered and well received". And leave it at that. This newly added text pre-supposes that the reader is familiar with the subject and resources mentioned, and borders on WP:ANALYSIS. (FYI. Some of the other reasons for this apparent sway in opinion are left out: like sympathy after Connolly's execution, the fact that 3,500 people were interned though only 1,600 took part in the rising, marshal law and curfew remained long after Easter, Griffith's internment, etc). Guliolopez (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Guliolopez, none of the analysis is mine, it is all cited by the authors, sorry if this is not clear from the text. I'll review it tomorrow. As to the other possible reasons such as Connolly's execution, the fact that 3,500 people were interned though only 1,600 took part in the rising, well that simply has not been included. I really think it should, though that has nothing to do with what my additions are addressing. I hope this is helpful, and clarifys the issue of WP:ANALYSIS, since I don't add my own opinions to articles. Thanks. --Domer48'fenian'22:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Guliolopez about the length, although I understand that you want to present the evidence in order to scotch the myth of the Irish peaople being totally opposed to the rising (I know it was a myth for my grandfather as he and a number of his friends joined the Volunteers in Donegal during Easter Week when he heard a rising was on the go in Dublin - they were obviously in support of it!). Have you read '1916 as history' by C. Desmond Greaves which is only a small booklet (about 40 odd pages) but packed full of information about the rising and the publics reaction - such as cheering the volunteers etc. EoinBach (talk) 11:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I started editing the article on the 8 September. I added additional referenced information here, and an additional reference here. It was then removed here, with the edit summary “Not correct at that time. A Republican POV.” It was also removed here despite the additional reference, with the edit summary “Incorrect - Republican POV.” I added it here with additional information, in addition to here with an additional reference. It was again removed here with the edit summary “Nationalist opinion is of no consequence when talking about Catholic recruits,” and here with the edit summary of “corrected POV.”
They also removed this here, though I did not add it. Some of it was restored here however it was reverted again here with the edit summary “Removing POV – again.” I removed some information and replaced the original information, now with three references here, and it was quickly removed again here with the edit summary “rem POV on B Specials.” It was re-added here and removed again here, with the edit summary “Incorrect POV has no place in this article.”
I attempted to add it again here, but it was removed again here with the edit summary “removing POV - see talk.” This is their talk page comment here, and the full discussion here.
While not accepting the referenced information that then added this here, and here. They then add this commentary here, describing it as an assertion and including more commentary here. They then add this analyses here, which I removed here, and adding this referenced information here.
I then used a completely new source here and added a Google books link to assist verifiability here, which they later removed here.
This information was then moved here and then add information here. I then added this addition here, which they then asked to be moved to another section here.
I then removed some of the commentary they added here only to have it replaced here. They then added this for some reason here. I had added this information for clarity here, but they removed it here with the edit summary “It's a separate artilce - leave it at that please. This isn't about the B Men.”
I again removed the addition of opinion into a referenced statement here with the edit summary “you have been asked by an uninvolved admin not to add your opinion” but they inserted it again here with the edit summary “It's not an opinion. I can cite that no cases were ever proven.” I again removed it here and asked “cite them then, and qualify the reference used.” It was again added back here, and they then added this here. I then added “Attribute, and remove qualifying statement from referenced source” edit here and I introduced Rocks solution here.
They then started to remove the referenced information again here with this edit summary “remove improper qualification” which I then replaced here with the edit summary “please don't remove referenced information.” They then modified the information here with the edit summary “removing incorrect assertion” and here which I changed here.
They then added their own opinion here with the edit summary “changing to reflect the fact that "reputation" wasn't in existence in 1970.” I again replaced this here with the edit summary “Please don't change sourced information, the information is supported throughout the article.”
They then started again here with the edit summary “Do not try to assert that something had a reputation before it actually had time to gain one. See Talk.” This is their talk page contribution here, the full discussion is here. I reverted again to reflect the sources here. It was again moved here, with additional information removed, which I had to replace here. This also was then removed here.This discussion should clarify some of the thinking behind its removal? --Domer48'fenian'17:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There were a number of issues in relation to attribution. Before I ever started attributing statements, I raised it first on the talk page here in the last paragraph, and was agreed to here, last line in the second last paragraph, "Potter. I can't see any harm in attributing statements to Potter. There may be occasions when I need to draw your attention to items if something appears glaringly obvious." In addition to this they considered that they had not used any opinions of Potter in the article here.
Again before I even began, a third opinion was sought, and Rock responded here. My view of Rocks opinion on An Phoblacht, would be the same for any " obvious partisan associations" and would include Potter?
When I attempted to start attributing statements I ran into trouble here. I was told that my attempts at attribution were well poisoning. I was informed that the A Testimony to Courage - the Regimental History of the Ulster Defence Regiment 1969 - 1992, John Potter must be "taken as gospel."
By attributing statements I was then told I was attempting to start a Contrived Edit War, and there was no consensus to attribute Potter. I had even informed him that there would be no 3RR reports from me and this had been agreed.
Rock then gave a third party view here, and again here on attrabution. Based on Rocks input I tried to apply it here but I was expected to take Potter as fact.
I then set about attribution, based on the advice given and I commented here, but was again told Potter has to be treated as fact and needs no attribution.
I was then accused of synthesis here, Rock again stepped in to help here and again here.
I then showed some real synthesis here. They next remove attributions wholesale and comment here.
Now if editors review the Article page history they will see this all play out. I will put up the diff's if editors think it is more helpful?--Domer48'fenian'20:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I returned to the article on the 8 September until I went of, not once during that time did I comment on the editors motivation or on them personally. However, I received a barrage of accusations, insinuations and plain and simple personal attacks. I have outlined some of this below, and kept it in sequence as it appears on the talk page.
They then accused me of POV editing saying that I had made strong representation to remove some information which is not sympathetic to the Republican POV, and that I was using questionable sources and filling the article with accusations and allegations, later to be told that this was a Republican propaganda method. They then continued in the vein with Already we're seeing what this agenda is Domer, saying that I was “selectively gathering quotes in order to slant the synthesis of the article to a deliberate and known Republican POV. That this was "propaganda" and, a case, "well poisoning" again, and that I should keep my "edits to a neutral POV.”
They then carried on and started to describe my edits as being "factually incorrect" "and appear to be based on Republican POV" that they were "very coloured" and that I only knew history "from a Nationalist perspective.” They again not for the first time that I was "making edits which were both incorrect" and "which appeared to be well poisoning." They suggested that their “in depth knowledge of the subject is invaluable" at that point "in keeping the article free of POV."
Notice how on the 13 August report I’m told that no current warning was given? That’s strange since no current warning is needed, only for the editor to be aware of the rule? Now the accusation is made that I was tag-teaming the editor, but I had not edited this article since the 24 July?
Despite the final warning, however, they still don’t get blocked. Well they were, but then they were unblocked because the blocking admin did not see the entire situation?. Which was?
Improper Edit Summaries
See
"Removal of sourced and reference information" for some examples
Having used both English and Irish papers I got this resonce. However they use references 83-86, 93-96 I did not add any of them. Now some papers are fine, the Belfast Telegraph for example. Also on sources here is a good example. And as for reasons to revert here is one. Again on sources some must be taken as gospel. Regardless of what anyone says. While other are well, of no consequence. The point is however, these authors would not be or consider themselves to be Nationalist and definatly not Republican? --Domer48'fenian'12:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have placed the edits on the Ulster Defence Regiment here to be reviewed by Editors.}}
AE case closed on 5 October 2008 at 18.02 by Rlevse. All Troubles Articles placed under 1RR. The template below was posted on the Ulster Defence Regiment on 5 October 2008 at 20.00 [24] by SirFozzie.
>
This article is currently subject to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case, as laid out during a previous WP:AE case that closed October 05, 2008. If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the guidelines laid out in the above link. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it on this talk page first.
Editors will note: If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it on this talk page first.
Article was Page Protected on 14 October 2008, 20:10 by SirFozzie [25]
I have placed the edits on the Ulster Defence Regiment here to be reviewed by Editors. The edits of User:BigDunc and User:Domer48 were all subsequently reverted. I have omitted all format / grammar edits, however were formatting was also reverted I have included them.
Edits and contributions since the 5 October 2008, 20.00. - 14 October 2008, 20:10
I will put together some diff’s on talk page contributions, on how they relate to main space edits. I have refrained from putting forward any analysis, until this has been reviewed. --Domer48'fenian'17:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your report was nothing less then another attempt to force The Thunderer off that page. Both he and BigDunc are working together and there is no reason why you can't either if you would only put aside your prejudices against them. I know that you don't accept the conclusion that he is not a returning banned editor but that is the consensus and you have to work within it. You were well aware that two admins had already looked at the 1RR because there was posting on the talk page about it. I consider your report was disruptive and I think I should remind you that the recent discussions have left you with a personal probation. Please try to put your personal feeling about The Thunderer to one side or you will find yourself at the end of further administrative action. I assure you that no-one wants to go down that road but you will force it upon us if you are not able to interact with them in a way that does not create further disruption. Administrative and community patience with nonsense in troubles related article is now over. SpartazHumbug!09:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't take me blocking Thunderer for 24 hours as carte blanche to do any further reversion of his work on the UDR article. He's informed me that he's asked a neutral administrator to look at the edits in question and I'll not protect the page until such review has been done, but let's not make a volatile situation any worse, ok? (I'm not saying you guys will, I'm just covering my bases here, and I'll leave a notice for Dunc as well). SirFozzie (talk) 12:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intension of make any edits in the absence of the Thunderer, and any edits I do make will only be made after discussion on the talk page. I do however consider his last edit a breech of the 1RR. As this is in breech of AE, in my opinion his last edit should be reverted, and Thunderer unblocked. This is a learning curve, and I still do not understand about "Multiple single reverts are not strictly against the working of the 1RR" I thought a revert of an editors work is a revert? --Domer48'fenian'12:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you have the time and inclination, I could use some back-up over at the PIRA article. Some joker thinks that saying "British rule in Northern Ireland" is POV. I say it is a simple statement of fact. Oh, and if you have Tim Pat's IRA, can you check the validity of the ref this guy added? I do not have the book to hand, otherwise I would do it myself. Thanks, Domer. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'17:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I'll check the reference. I've pointed out about the 1RR on the talk page and their talk page, it should bring the discussion back to the talk page and away from the reverts. Get back to you in a bit.--Domer48'fenian'19:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I was not clear at first what he was up to because of the way the edit showed up in the box, but the language in question is not POV. If the Brits are not occupying Northern Ireland, then the word occupying has no meaning. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'23:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there...I was just over at Ferry Baot's userpage, dropping him a vandalism warning, and I notice you'd welcomed him. The date on your welcome message, though, says "24 February 2007" as its date. For a minute I thought "wow, FB has been here for nearly 2 years and this is the first vandalism he's ever done?" but then I looked at the talkpage history and realized you'd only placed that welcome today. The only thing I can guess is that you copied the message of whomever welcomed you, and the date came hardcoded in the copy. Either way, it's no huge deal--I just thought I'd mention it in case you hadn't noticed. Thanks! Gladys J Cortez08:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what happened. I was going to post a vandalism warning if they kept it up, I reverted their edits before I posted the welcome. Thanks for that, --Domer48'fenian'08:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Domer. I have placed you, Dunc and Thunderer all on a one month topic ban from Troubles related articles. See here for details of your topic ban. SirFozzie (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Coolacrease: the True Story of an Incident in the Irish War of Independence", 470 pages, Aubane Historical Society, by Paddy Heaney and other contributors. Launch by Senator Pat Moylan at Offaly History Society, Bury Quay, Tullamore, Co. Offaly, 8 p.m. Thursday November 6 2008. The book contains copies of all the relevant source documents. In particular, the Land Commission documents on which RTÉ claimed that its version of the incident was based, but which the Land Commission denied that RTÉ had access to. Pat Muldowney (talk) 06:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that Pat, I'll get a copy during the week if possible. It should be very intresting, and looking at the number of pages, detailed. I might be able to get down to the Launch just looking at the date? --Domer48'fenian'07:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My primary assertion was that the community was exhausted with you. I'm particularly interested in arguing with you over minutiae or your supposed rights (no one has rights on wikipedia, except perhaps the right to vanish), but I will humor you, but you will have to wait until I take the time to do so. The issue remains however, that you have little community support for example that AE thread has hardly a nice thing said about you, and more than a few people saying that your the 1 month topic ban is not enough.
So, in otherwords: I think the community is exhausted with you, and I think you think they are too: you just don't think they should be, because you don't think you've done anything wrong. Fine, tough, but the burden is increasingly on you to show otherwise. I will get to what you have done wrong when I have the wherewithal.--Tznkai (talk) 12:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have made accusations, you are being ask politely to back them up and you are decling to do so. Now this discussion is not the wiki community and you do not speak for the community, they can speak for themselves if they wish. Please don't think for me, or tell me what I'm thinking. Just support the accusations you are making agains me, and let me defend myself. --Domer48'fenian'13:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first accusation I made is that the community is exhausted with you. The second "accusation" I made is that that the combination of you, thunderer, and Big Dunc ends in disruption and failure. My opinion, based on a simple logic test, is that because you are the only common element in the Thunderer/Domer problems as well as the Thunderer BigDunc Domer problems, and there are less Thunderer/Bigdunc - Domer problems, that you are the problematic element. The article history of UDR shows that the disruption exists, the previous so called accusation is an opinion, or read on the community: that you can see for your self in the thread and various other places. Don't take my word for it, ask around.--Tznkai (talk) 13:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the last AE show me were I have I have been disruptive, uncivil or edit warred? You do not speak for the community, this discussion is not the community, if you want their opinion open a RfC on me. Now support these with diff's.
Domer48 on the other hand, seems to have exhausted any trust or faith the community put into him.
...Domer48's value to that part of the project is outweighed by his disruptive behavior.
If you insist. this edit could not have been designed better to be inflammatory. You reinserted a massive amount of text that was in a sub article. Because it was done "without discussion," but there is plenty of Talk:Ulster Defence Regiment#Changes discussion going on here started two days before you reinserted the text. For the record statements such as you made here are correct: our opinion on what is good content is a perfectly relevant to how an article is written. this change was made "per talk." and since it was reverted, I can only assume that the implication that there was agreement based on talk was is untrue. That will have to do to start.--Tznkai (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. The bullet points about you exhausting the trust of the faith of the community is my observation of the community, and while you and others are certainly welcome to disagree, an RFC is not the only way to gauge community opinion, we also have policy, AN, ANI, AE, talk pages and so forth. Of the two organized proposals on AE for example, both singled you out as particularly unhelpful. What does that tell you? We can drag out the RFC process if you insist,but that may not end how you want.--Tznkai (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is going to be any further movement on this, to be honest, Domer. I think it is unfortunate, and the ultimate loser will the balance of content in the articles you are banned from contributing to (though it isn't clear to me what they actually are, which is kind of ironic considering the apparent importance of being specific in Vk's topic ban). I don't agree with this solution as I'm sure you don't, but such is the way of the wiki that sometimes you simply have register your disagreement and accept it. My advice for you now is to do your best to demonstrate that you can be a force of compromise on other articles then, at some point in the future, appeal the topic ban. Rockpocket23:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rock I think your right that there is not going to be any further movement on this, thought Tznkai has indicated that they have something in the works? I would not be too down over it just yet, Wiki has a way of bouncing back, and I don't think the community would allow an editor to be topic banned without reason? As things cool down and editors take a more considered view, they will review the recent issue and see how I was both reasonable and polite during talk page discussions, and followed the advice I was offered. I don't think we have yet reached the stage were an Admin can topic ban an editor from hundreds of articles because of an issue with one. Do you think it is in your gift as an admin to have such control, or would it be acceptable to the community? I don't agree with this solution as I'm sure you don't, and neither will all right thinking members of the community. We just have to have faith, and while mine is brused its not broken. I will deal with what ever comes along, and will continue to follow your advice. thanks --Domer48'fenian'07:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Legacy Derek Warfield.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 04:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Liberté '98 Derek Warfield.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 04:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Sons of Erin Derek Warfield.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 04:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya Domer. Your best move would be to get the country article moved (and the island article) first. Others might views the moving of RoI's related articles as an attempt to put pressure on the country article. We both know, how messy that could get. GoodDay (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For, amongst other things, attempting to out another editor repeatedly after being told not to by numerous people, your account has been blocked indefinitely. SirFozzie (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? Domer is blocked indefinitely (by the same Foz who blocked me indefinitely I note). For what? Was his "crime" worse that mine? (Memory jog; I was three weeks blocked for, basically, nothing). Sarah777 (talk) 22:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Providing details on who Domer48 is outing/bullying would defeat the purpose of blocking him, because of his threaten to out, now doesn't it? An outside admin/checkuser confirmed the issue at hand, if you don't trust Fozzie, and I assume you don't trust me, try trusting him.--Tznkai (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as you [meaning me] just emailed me to attempt to give evidence to try and out another editor, I continue to support these topic restrictions. MBisanztalk19:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have your [SirFozzie] email, can you emailuser me so I can forward? It was a clear threat that if I did not withdraw my support for sanctions on Domer, he would out another editor. MBisanztalk20:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have been privately shown some of the evidence that resulted in this block and I agree that it is proportionate and necessary. Sam Korn(smoddy)22:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC) (My highlighting)[reply]
I too have been privately shown the emails that are being used to justify this block and NO I can't see any attempt to out another editor and I feel they should be posted on wiki I am that confident that there was no intention to out the real life identity of any editor. BigDuncTalk13:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Domer. I am not aware of the details of this, so can't comment either way. If the information you shared with MBisanz was what led to these sanctions, for whatever reason, then sharing them with other editors is probably not going to help you. I think you would be better served going straight to ArbCom by email, since its highly unlikely anyone is going to unblock you without being in possession of all the information. Rockpocket20:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I would definitively undertake not to out anybody, nor to connect any present accounts to past account.
Decline reason:
I have to decline this for the moment, due to concerns. Other admins, please do not unblock without first contacting the blocking admin. — JehochmanTalk21:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
A denial is all well and good. It would be a stronger unblock request if you undertook definitively not to out anybody, nor to connect any present accounts to past account. I am guessing that is already your intention, but it would not hurt you in any way to say so. JehochmanTalk21:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to edit your unblock request. It will be reassuring to show that you understand the requirement not to do such things. I have reached out to the blocking admin to discuss this. If you don't mind, can we wait a bit and see how he responds? I've seen the email and think this block might be a misunderstanding, and hence, unnecessary. JehochmanTalk21:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again Jehochman, is it any Admin in particular who has expressed concern or all three? If they wish to email me, being at a disadvantage, I’m unaware what those concerns are, I’ll be more than will to address each and every one. --Domer48'fenian'21:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't ask me why, but I've just had a long chat with the blocking admin. Based on the above assurance that there will be no further "outing" attempts (on or off wiki), it seems that the following set of conditions would likely lead to an unblock, should you agree:
You are strongly encouraged to participate in the mediation process.
You may edit article talk pages in a positive way with the intention of moving articles forward, and without personal attacks or BLP violations during the course of the mediation. Tendentious editing, personal attacks or BLP violations are zero-tolerance, and in the unlikely event they are needed, blocks will start at one week and double in length for repeated breaches.
Your return to article editing will be in accordance with the proposal outlined by User:Tznkai on the WP:AE page (link to be added after that thread is archived). Successful AGF participation in the mediation process will likely lead to a return to editing once the mediation session is concluded, regardless of whether it is through the recommendation of the mediator, or through a review of sanction at WP:AE.
If you are willing to undertake abiding by the above conditions, I believe that SirFozzie will be willing to lift the indefinite block. Please respond here on your talk page, so there's no question who said what - and also because it's likely either SirFozzie or another admin will respond further to you as I am about to go offline for an extended period. --Risker (talk) 06:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a couple of points:
Why is the unblock conditional? I agreed "I would definitively undertake not to out anybody, nor to connect any present accounts to past account." I did not threaten to “out” any editor, and most definitely did not threaten MBisanz. I'm more than willing to take Jehochman advice and consider it to be “a misunderstanding” and let it go.
I have agreed to participate in the mediation process, a number of times, and would look forward to it, indeed welcome it.
I agree that tendentious editing, personal attacks or BLP violations should have a zero-tolerance. I always edit according to policy and no editor has said that I have engaged in personal attacks or BLP violations.
Tznkai’s proposals on AE are a completely separate issue on a completely different subject. How and why are they being linked to this unblock request? To link a block based on “a misunderstanding” to the AE proposals is curious?
In an effort to move forward, I would suggest a Request for Comment on the current AE outlining the issues and concerns and arriving at an agreed set of proposals. I have made some considerable efforts to facilitate this by providing the Diff’s for the discussion at Review of edits on UDR and will place them here for your connivance. Having reviewed this I would welcome and appreciate any and all advice offered on how I can continue to improve my editing and talk page skills.
Hi again Jehochman, I have to date not received any emails from anyone outlining their concerns for me, as you mentioned above. I have emailed one of the Admin’s outlining mine, and hope to hear back soon, as this has gone on long enough. I would have absolutely no problem with you having a look at any un-published concerns and give me your opinion publicly or privately. I would prefer the former, as there is too much of this of wiki discussion and there is nothing I not happy to share with the rest of the community.
Now Risker has outlined a conditional unblock proposal. One condition of it was that I accept Tznkai’s proposals on AE. Dunc has suggested an amendment on AE to those proposals and Tznkai has says they have no objection to the amendment. I’m now willing to accept all of the conditions outlined by Risker. I not happy about it at all, but if it moves this on so be it. Below is the conditions:
Proposals (Amended)
BigDunc and Thunderer are under 0RR restriction until a mediator reports BigDunc and Thunderer have entered formal mediation.
Domer48 will join mediation, but under a strict indefinite topic ban on Ulster Defence Regiment and subpages thereof, and a strict 1 or 0RR on all other Troubles related articles in addition to voluntary terms with the mediator.
If in the opinion of a 3 editors referee panel, in consultation with the mediator, Domer48 has successfully participated in mediation, Domer48's topic ban is rescinded.
Not part of the proposal per se, but the article specific 1RR restrictions as applied by previous AE thread are continued, but should be revisited later--Tznkai (talk) 00:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
As far as the issues with Domer editing the Troubles, I think this is adequate, more than really. I'm not convinced yet that Domer understands what got him into hot water with the indef block though, and I'm unwilling to unblock him until I've received some sort of assurance that he gets it, or at least knows how to modify his behavior. (Domer: feel free to e-mail me if you want to argue with me using the sensitive details)--Tznkai (talk) 02:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there is nothing but vague circumstantial (or some such) "evidence" against Domer, why is he still blocked? "To link a block based on “a misunderstanding” to the AE proposals is curious" .
It certainly is; and that is exactly what happened me. I reverted a "merge" (deletion) that was executed without following proper procedure (in an area that had absolutely nothing to do with The Troubles, Ireland/Britain or anything remotely related) - got blocked indefinitely by Fozzie and then ended up blocked for weeks while they pondered my "civility"; which was totally unrelated to the initial block. Sarah777 (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have now been sent quite a lot of information and it seems to me what happened was that in the interests of a level playing field Domer emailed an Admin who was taking part in an ANI discussion with other Admins (who had more information at their fingertips) and said something to the effect of "You do know account A is account B right?" That is not outing at all, but quite different. I have certainly received and sent such emails myself in the past and expect to continue to do so, some such emails have been sent to me by very important Wikipedians indeed. One example springs immediately to mind when such actions finally brought to an end an entire POV army of socks and clones - Admins and checkusers were quite happy for such speculation to be emailed on that occasion. As usual some Troubles' Admin has jumped the gun again. If something soon isn't done to supervise The Troubles, its admins and editors the pages may as well be deleted - all of them. I for one don't know what to trust and believe in them, I expect others feel the same. I hope some Admin reading this will now have the sense to unblock Domer. Giano (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I sort of tried to unblock him but got signals originating from Sam Korn (Checkuser) and conveyed to me by SirFozzie that there were non-pubishable concerns. Therefore, I denied the unblock request and told Domer48 to take up the block with the relevant admins by email. I have seen the email which is allegedly a threat to out, and it isn't in my view. Hopefully the blocking admin and the Checkusers will get together soon and arrange an unblock. JehochmanTalk15:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unpublishable and secret seems to be the current excuse of the moment for getting one's own way, perhaps it is taking over from incivility as the new way for enemy disposal. Giano (talk) 15:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have never had any dealings with Sam Korn (Checkuser), and I’m at a loss to know what their concerns are? Now I was offered a conditional unblock, which I have accepted. Is it now the case that there are additional hurdles I have to jump through? I didn’t attempt to out anyone. I didn’t threaten MBisanz with anything. I’ve accepted conditions linked to a separate issue. I’m accepting conditions imposed on me without any justification for them being put forward in the first place. What more could anyone want? If the conditions for unblock were not enough, why were they put forward? --Domer48'fenian'16:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They want to punish you Domer. To teach you a lesson. Why was I blocked for 3 weeks even after it was admitted the original block was a mistake? Same reason. They dragged up the "civility" weapon from ancient history and spent 3 weeks "agonising" in some internal game-play (for which, according to Fozzie I should be greatful!). Bottom line - don't mess with the in-crowd. Sarah777 (talk) 01:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c)I'm going to give some general background, since so much of the cat is already out of the bag. Domer has been specifically warned against saying account A is account B to begin with, unambiguously and totally. Not in general mind you, in this particular A and B. This information is not supposed to be shared. I am willing to release the full context of the e-mails to any checkuser (who have essentially been cleared for private or in this case, semi private information.) Unfortunately, the one checkuser who could really step in and give us some sort of clarity is Alison, who was involved in this early on, who is on indefinite wikibreak, and has by most accounts, been through hell. I have been avoiding bothering her because of compassion for her situation. I would like for her to remain on break if and until she comes back to Wikipedia of her own accord.
Now, Domer and I were in e-mail communication, and the topic of a past abusive action of Domer's came up. In the course of the discussion, the "A is B" issue came up in a particularly hostile manner, and Domer demanded that I make Mbisanz remove a certain comment on wiki. I told Domer to ask him himself, Domer sent that e-mail, and Mbisanz interpreted it as Domer threatening to reveal A as B on wiki, an interpretation that is reasonable, and also can be seen in his e-mails with me.
A couple salient details I wish to mention. First, this is an old issue where Domer was told repeatedly to drop it, and that his efforts have in the past been interpreted by an outside admin (Alison) as bullying. This is a large part of why the involved admins, myself Mbisanz and SirFozzie have reacted strongly: this looks like a repeat offense. Second, while there is some room for interpretation, on who Domer was trying to bully, it is clear from the context of the e-mails that Domer was trying to bully someone. Third, Domer has an out: the Arbitration Committee, and to which I add that Domer has already threatened to file a case against me, so he might as well avail himself of it, since he apparently believes that he is right, I am wrong, and the ArbCom will see the light the same way. Fourth, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case Domer was already on thin ice his protestations to the contrary aside, his contribution log (and for that matter, block log) have shown Domer's repeated poor behavior, which has been itemised by myself and others before. Note the additional voices of yet another outside admin laying down sanctions, and two admins tried their best to help only to be chewed out. If this is a conspiracy, its a really huge one.
Finally, if Domer gives permission, I am willing to post the contents of my emails with him, except for the identities of A and B.--Tznkai (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To Giano's point: we need people on ArbCom who have different points of view. The current committee seems much too prone to circling the wagons when there is criticism. Yes, "secret evidence" can be a convenient excuse for tyranny, or it might be a legitimate concern. If the community had more trust in the people who held the secret evidence, and if there were stronger checks and balances (e.g. Arbs who might actually disagree with each other in public), that would be a good thing. JehochmanTalk17:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Amen to that Jehochman. We have Admins happily banning editors because they claim they are suspected socks of banned editors. Now we have Domer blocked, not for outing anyone, but (apparently) for saying that "Handle A = Handle B". I imagine North Korea is run along similar lines, though perhaps with less defensivness in the ruling caste. Sarah777 (talk) 01:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that all emails be posted up here and simply A and B certain names. I gave an undertaking to an Admin that I would desist in a particular line of discussion. I kept to it and let it drop. Now it was Tznkai, in the absence of any justification for their proposed sanctions raised this particular issue into the discussion. I emailed them and told them I was unable to respond and told them why. I’d given an undertaking on this. I asked them to remove their comments and they did. This is missing from Tznkai’s account above.
MBisanz who like Tznkai could not justify the proposed sanctions, they in fact had to strike some of their proposed evidence, and refused to strike the rest despite Alison’s intervention, started to proceed down the same road as Tznkai.
I emailed Tznkai and asked them to say it to MBisanz, and ask them to ask MBisanz to remove their reference to it, and was told to do it myself. That’s exactly what I did.
MBisanz response was to make a post on the discussion making accusations, and on their talk page.
I was then indef blocked.
Now Alison has described me as a super editor, despite some major differences of opinion. Like Alison, despite our differences I too have defended her when banned editors have made attacks, and I have been quite forceful in my defence.
Now I don’t think it would reveal any editors account if the email I sent MBisanz was posted here, by applying the A and B. Let the community decide.
So lets deal with the unblock, and if Tznkai wants to continue the discussion with ArbCom on the other matters I’ve no problem at all. If at all, it should be done in the open, so both the community and ourselves can learn from our mistakes. I agree completely with both Jehochman and Giano with their comments above. --Domer48'fenian'17:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! I read the Tznkai link as part of reading myself into this case; the arrogance of Tznkai's tone in that exchange is breathtaking. "When this recent AE came up Moreschi and Angus McLellan immediately singled you out. Doesn't that strike you as indicitive of something?". Yeah, sure does T'kai. But not what you seem to be suggesting. Sarah777 (talk) 01:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, I'll read through them? Could you please put up the email that was used to indef block me? Thats the one editor what to see? --Domer48'fenian'19:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, it’s Mbisanz that has me here. They get an editor an indef block and don’t take part in this discussion. Why not “ping” them and invite them to contribute. I have given the ok for the email to be produced. --Domer48'fenian'19:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been watching this entire discussion and no, I did not get you blocked. I commented on an email you sent me, another trusted admin asked for a copy of it, I sent him a copy, and without consulting me further, he blocked you. MBisanztalk19:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on look at your comments above that you posted, thats what got me blocked. Now do you want to put the email with the threats or will I do it for you. Going by your post above, I would have blocked an editor. Now could you please post it for the community to decide. --Domer48'fenian'19:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thats grand, I've already ok'ed it. So could an Admin with it, or I'll email it to them, do the A and the B on it, just so it is done right thanks --Domer48'fenian'19:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Domer just copy and paste it and change the A and B section. I'm sure if you tried to change anything else you will be swiftly pilled on it. BigDuncTalk20:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The email I sent:
"MBisanz are you the only one who dose not know yet that A is B? Withdraw your last comment, remove it. I have given an undertaking not to raise the matter, therefore I’m not in a position to respond. Check the history of the discussion, tznkai has removed their comments already. Thanks D"
Oddly, and somewhat disconcertingly, I find myself (partly) agreeing with Giano. Perhaps I am missing something, but I really can't see how, from the email above, one could come to the conclusion that "It was a clear threat that if I did not withdraw my support for sanctions on Domer, he would out another editor." In fact Domer explicitly states the opposite, ("I have given an undertaking not to raise the matter, therefore I’m not in a position to respond."). Is this really the only basis on which the block was enacted, or is there more to this that we are unaware of because of privacy concerns? If its the former, then I do think this is a horrible misunderstanding. We should unblock and get back to the issue at hand. If its the latter, then having a discussion with half the pertinent information isn't going to help. In that case everything should be presented to ArbCom and we should let them decide. Rockpocket01:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I read that as Domer was telling me to remove my support of a sanction on him, or he would no longer honor his position of not raising another user's identity. But I didn't block, another uninvolved administrator blocked based on his reading of that email and apparently other information of which I am unaware. MBisanztalk02:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I can maybe see how one could find an implied threat there, but surely you can also appreciate that, taking it at face value, it could equally be a request to remove the information because he gave his word and therefore can't respond to it. In my experience Domer tends to be quite blunt, if he was going to give you that sort of ultimatum, he would done so perfectly openly.
I appreciate that you didn't block, but your comment would certainly appear to precipitate that course of action ("a clear threat ... he would out another editor"). Like you, I too am unaware of other information, but would you concur that on this evidence alone the block could be the result of a misinterpretation? If so would you agree that the burden is on this other evidence to justify the block? Rockpocket02:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is possibly a misinterpretation of exactly who Domer was trying to bully, but I have no doubt in my mind he was trying to bully someone. Second, and more pressingly, "A is B" is a taboo subject for Domer, and he knows it, having been told point blank to let it go, which explains the zero tolerance. As to WHY he's been told to let it go, that falls within the "other information' category. Domer's been skating on thin ice, and he was warned by Alison, an admin he apparently respects: but he isn't apparently quite getting it. Third, and this is most important: Domer still does not understand (at least by my estimation) that he screwed up bringing up the issue ever. Domer's past on this issue has been abusive, and he is apparently immune to the criticism he has been given from all quarters, including those he respects, that what he did was bullying and totally out of line. It is this display of attitude that explains why Domer was banned indefinitely, and why that ban should remain until he shows he has at least somewhat gotten it.
As a note, the work on AE that precipitated this e-mail is somewhat a separate issue, or at least could have been, but they were resultant of entangled events. I personally am satisfied that Domer deserves a chance at mediation and productive editing, but I am not satisfied yet that he understands why three immediate admins and then a completely outside party all interpreted Domer as using the "A is B" line as bullying. So, could I, Mbisanz and SirFozzie misinterpreted Domer's statement? Certainly, but much of that lies at Domer's feet with his unrepentant attitude and history of abuse on the subject.--Tznkai (talk) 02:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is possibly a misinterpretation of exactly who, or what Domer was trying to bully, but I have no doubt in my mind he was trying to bully someone. Have you any idea how ludicrous that sounds? Sarah777 (talk) 03:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying, Tznkai. Not being party to the other information, I can't really comment further. I just hope it gets sorted out. Rockpocket04:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rock there is no other information! If there is, put it up for the Community to review. I still have one issue, and I would like advice on it, my email is open. --Domer48'fenian'09:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've read through everything now. There is simply no case at all against Domer. I demand that some Admin (including you Rock) lift his block NOW. Pronto. Not tomorrow, not in 10 minutes. Now. Sarah777 (talk) 01:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just give me a second while I pick up my pickfork and round up a willing mob.... Please Sarah, this isn't helpful. If a mistake has been made, then it will be resolved. But the principle actors are spread across the world and as such it will take some time to get to the bottom of things. Based on what we have read here, I agree that it does seem unwarranted. But rather than presume that its an other example of bias against Irish editors, or even an unfortunate crossing of wires, consider that it is possible that there is more to it than this. Lets wait until we hear from those editors whose interactions led to the block before acting. Rockpocket02:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remember Rock, I've been in that dock. I've Zero Tolerance for dodgy Administration. It is easy for someone on the sidelines to be calm, but some of us are getting really really fed-up of all this. (I attach no personal blame to you Rock; we see simply things through a different lens I guess). Sarah777 (talk) 02:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is not going to be a unilateral unblock without terms that address the problem behavior. Tznkai, Risker, myself, and a couple other admins are trying to come up with a set of terms that will allow Domer to edit productively. SirFozzie (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK Domer, they are saying you are guilty. Personally Foz, I think he was editing more productively before you blocked him. I could be wrong of course. Sarah777 (talk) 03:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would it help if I put "without unduly disrupting the encyclopedia" at the end of my statement, Sarah? I've actually communicated a suggested set of terms to a couple people with similar views to Domer to see what they think.. I want to get their feedback (see if it's a non-starter, too restrictive, not restrictive enough, etcetera) before I post them publicly. SirFozzie (talk) 03:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What can I say Foz? - that wording is much better:) If Domer feels he can agree to terms I certainly won't encourage him not too and he seems pretty willing to accept anything that will get him out of prison. If you get something Domer accepts I'll not protest, but there is really no excuse for delay beyond 24 hours; my fear is this could run to weeks, as my case did. Sarah777 (talk) 03:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have to sleep sometime you know ;) But if the two people I sent it to give it the thumbs up (one of them actually suggested something similar), I'll post it sometime this evening your time. Trust me, I want Domer back too. I'm tired of all of this.. when Domer and I were discussing this via email, we talked about all the names of editors who've fought these wars, and are no longer on WP (either left, or shown the door). There were too many names on that list to be happy about another one possibly joining them. SirFozzie (talk) 04:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two points:
Why did Risker offer me a conditional unblock proposal only for it now to be removed. Removed after I accepted all of Tznkai's conditions? Why have I not been unblocked? What has this block to do with anything else, was the block correct or not? A number of Admin's and Editors consider it to be wrong, and yet the ones who imposed it have to decide what conditions they want to impose?
Tznkai, you and me should visit ArbCom, because your consistent accusations are wearing thin. Is there any Admin / Editor willing to act as a neutral third party? I will present my views, supported by Diff's and Tznkai presents theirs (with diff's) and we let the community decide? The one question I would like answered is, what did I do wrong? If I don't know what I'm supposed to have done wrong, how can I address it? --Domer48'fenian'09:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having logged in for the first time in 18 hours I find it incredible that Domer is still blocked. All on the say-so of a bunch of junior Admins, not even one of our illustrius Arbs. The email is banal and obviously been passed arownd "in box-to in box" with added provisos and interpretations which have grown like a game of Chinese wispers until no one is sure exactly what it is supposed to mean, which is probably exactly what it says. For God's sake stop acting like a bunch of prats and unblock him now. Giano (talk) 12:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm somewhat offended by this, and not by the part where you say we're acting like a bunch of prats. Also, I can't understand why you think that demanding and insulting people will make this move any faster forward.--Tznkai (talk) 13:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you are not suggesting that if some third party, over whom Domer has no control, insults you (Admins, plural) that you'll make it more difficult for the prisoner? Please clarify. I'm banking on Fozzie lifting the block zip fast when he comes back tonight. Sarah777 (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I declined Domer48's unblock request based on a review of the situation.[189] I have continued asking for information to ensure that my decision was the correct one. My understanding:
There is a history of abuse, including the involvement of real life matters (confirmed by a Checkuser).
Some of the evidence has been Oversighted, so we cannot explain things fully here.
There is also a history of edit warring.
These facts have been represented to me by multiple reliable parties. I suggest that Domer48 contact ArbCom if they wish further review of the situation. Admins should not unblock without fully understanding the facts of the matter. JehochmanTalk13:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I got asked as an Arbitrator, to look at this just now. A quick review of the discussion above suggests the following:
Jehochman asks that no action is taken until the evidence that he states exists, is considered. This is reasonable, if such evidence exists, and should be a very quick point to resolve. Jehochman - please forward it now or tell me where to look for it. Feel free to sum up what issues you feel exist if any that are not reflected fully in the above discussions. I'll comment on its significance when I've read it, so there is as much transparency as possible. I may check with others before commenting.
The emails and statements above that are attributed to Domer48 can probably be read both ways. To read them one way or another is not an act of malice. What the discussion does suggest is that personal information was released, and there is a concern the user may repeat it in future or engage in other troubling conduct. It also suggests that Domer is willing to agree upon a set of reasonable conditions about future conduct that will meet the concerns of the community and will allow him to resume editing.
Sarah, a case where there may be private or oversighted evidence due to privacy breach or the like, can take some time to resolve. Your requests for pitchforks all round and stating there is a wish to "punish" is not helpful [190], nor is it consistent with the above posts many of which show experienced admins aiming to understand and resolve the concerns. The policy Wikipedia:Assume good faith - and it is an enduring policy, not a mere option - applies to you every bit as much as others.
FT2; thanks for reminding us that Wiki policies apply to everyone. It would be very easy to forget that if one went merely on the evidence of one's eyes. It seems to me based on Jehochman's summary above that he is actually admitting that Domer was blocked for an offence (outing) for which there is no evidence but that now Domer's release is conditional on things like "there is a history of edit warring". Am I reading Jehochman's comment incorrectly? If not, this bears a striking parallel to my own case and certainly would undermine my ability to indiscriminatly assume good faith. (I'm assumimg you are not suggest that we must assume good faith even in situations where that becomes rationally impossible?). What I'm trying to do is to establish good faith in a case where my assumption of it appears to have possibly been wrong. As for your comment that the email "could be read both ways", the only version of the email I've read couldn't, in good faith, be read two ways. In my opinion. Sarah777 (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How the hell have multiple reliable parties come to this conclusion is beyond me. Why is everything being done here behind closed doors. The emails have all been made public from what I can see nowhere is Domer attempting to out another editor in fact on the contary. Edit warring has been mentioned here too this is a ruse as it was never mentioned as the reason for the indef block and as for Oversighted information I am very sceptical that this in fact happened. Could the oversighter please confirm that content has in fact been oversighted where Domer has I pressume outed, as why would you oversight if not to protect the real life identity of another editor. Someone here is telling lies and it needs to be sorted rapidly. BigDuncTalk15:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly the kind of matters that we're trying to find out, all of us. There may be good reason for concern, there may not. The quick answer to your questions are - 1/ privacy and harassment matters including allegations will often need to be handled off-wiki to some extent or even entirely. That's to prevent harm and protect users who may be named or affected; 2/ We're trying to pin down these answers as we speak, and will do so as soon as Jehochman and others provide details. If it were believed likely that some non-public or oversighted information is involved, then they could not provide these details until an arbitrator or other user with Oversight access was around, hence part of the likely delay; 3/ If there is in fact no further significant evidence about any problem beyond the few comments posted above, I'll say so. 4/ One reason something may be oversighted and the user not blocked is for example, a comment may look innocuous and be oversighted, and yet if the user did repeat it, it may be start to look like evidence of repeated carelessness/"fast and loose" with others private information. 5/ WP:AGF - those users handling this are themselves trying to address concerns. There is no basis above to assume their handling is motivated by bad faith, other than reasonable concerns of the form "I don't see why there is a block" or "How did they conclude this". Which of course depends on interpretation and information, which may not all be on wiki. Which is what we're finding out... FT2(Talk | email)15:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Domer - please hold on a little, I'm looking into this. If there are any questions or there is information thats relevant, and others' privacy is involved, I may email you with it rather than post it here. I'll do so as soon as I hear from those I've asked for their information, above. FT2(Talk | email)15:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Last night I looked at a proposal for conditional unblock that seemed entirely appropriate, and fully expected to see it posted here and approved this morning. I have no idea why this has been escalated to the point that an arbitrator has had to get involved; the issues were not nearly as complex as that. Sorry, Domer. Risker (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quick update - I've just checked and found there are possibly relevant oversighted edits logged. They were not from within the last week, and without discussing with someone familiar with the case, I am not able to determine their relevance, or what if anything they may signify. But yes, there have been privacy-oversights, yes, user privacy is a correct use of oversight (it's one reason it was created), and yes, waiting for an administrator with oversight access or arbitrator to review them, is therefore appropriate, if those edits may be relevant. Still waiting for more explanation on any private matters to determine whether anything relevant to the block comes out of this, though. FT2(Talk | email)16:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely a case of too many cooks here. If those edits were oversighted more than a week ago, they are not relevant; Domer48 was only blocked 4 days ago, with respect to off-wiki emails he sent on that day. Risker (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and for the benefit of those sweet little Admins discussing blocking me on IRC, I am not about to fo "ballistic" at all - so don't trouble yourselves, just carry on amusing me, one of the few things those particular Admins do do well Giano (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently: "Someone should tell Giano to butt out. His presence doesn't help, and is likely to invoke his civility restriction shortly." Giano (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! A pre-emptive strike the Americans call that. It seems that as Domer's block for "outing" is running into evidence-deficit territory he is now being held for what he might do based on what he might have done in unrelated matters like "edit-warring". Sarah777 (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What the bloody blue blazes is going on here? Before I went to bed, I sent an email to Dunc and someone else (I don't have their ok) regarding proposed terms to unblock, and when I woke up 15 minutes ago, I was fully expecting to be able to present them to Domer, and then unblock. Now things are worse then they were before.. let's all take a minute to breathe. Domer, if you promise not to get to angry at me for suggesting them, I'll post them here, now. SirFozzie (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Such discussions shouldn't be occuring on IRC. They should be here (at Wikipedia), for everyone to read. Wikipedia matters should be dealt with on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was more a discussion on the possibility of taking me out of the equation. Do you want the logs? It's totally stupid that Domer is still blocked, and as usual it is me that has to point it out. Giano (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think a bit of a queue has formed to do that! Foz; you will have to cease issuing "indefinite" blocks. It seems you lose control of the situation afterward. Sarah777 (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And this edit is Fozzie [191] is rather late in the day, you shpuld have thought of the consequeces first. Why not just blow the storm out and unblock him, all this talk of secrecy is getting out of hand, my imagination is running riot so God knows what will be being said on IRC in a couple of hours the way they play Chinese whispers there. Giano (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, unless you have something others do not have (see Scott's quote elsewhere) your imagination IS running riot. I did think of the consequences, Giano. SirFozzie (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid "Scott" is telling fibs elsewhere. I expect you are all hoping I will post the logs, then you can block me. Anyway we are rather deviating from poor Domer. Giano (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was waiting for an indication from Dunc that he had received my email, but since that's not forthcoming. (he's probably smart and out having a pint on a Friday night. Actually wish I could join him if that's the case!)
Suggested terms:
A) Domer either gets a mentor or joins the ongoing mediation
B) Semi-topic ban.. (Dunc actually suggested this, banning him from articles relating to the modern Troubles (1969 and onwards, but allowing him to work on Irish History articles, etcetera), To be reviewed let's say.. at the end of the year?
C) 0 RR/1RR (various folks suggested either)
Support, in general. I'm not a big fan of 0RR, as I've seen it gamed far too often, but probably could live with 1RR. I do strongly recommend active, and heartfelt, participation in the mediation. I also would strongly urge Domer48 to spend a little more time in other areas of the encyclopedia; it's very easy to develop a form of tunnel vision when working in narrow areas. Working in a variety of areas will help change the focus from being an editor of Irish topics who happens to edit Wikipedia to a Wikipedia editor who happens to work on Irish topics. Risker (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support A; oppose B and C. We all need a mentor. How is a 'topic ban' or '1RR' related to a charge of "outing" someone? What is the crime here for which we are discussing the punishment? Sarah777 (talk) 18:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah, just to be clear. Domer is already under a full topic ban, unrelated to the block. He has indicated that, as far as he is concerned, that is equivalent to a site ban. The proposal above reduces the topic ban; I rather doubt he is going to oppose that. All of the articles he regularly edits are already subject to 1RR. As I recall, Domer48 has already more or less agreed to mediation; mentoring is another option, provided he can find a suitable mentor—and by suitable, I mean an editor in good standing, who has little or no involvement in articles related to Irish topics. He's coming out ahead on this. Risker (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal I put on AE were I would propose an article ban on the UDR page and a strict 1 or 0RR on all other Troubles releated articles. Also Domer joins myself and Thunderer in mediation and let the mediators and the referee panel decide if he has changed his editing patterns this was endorsed by Tznkai. I emailed Fozz and ask if he would agree to the terms I had put to AE and he said no. So I wouldn't endorse the current proposal by Fozz. I feel this whole drama can be sorted out and I said it before is all is needeed is an Admin to step up to the plate and enforce policy. As regards bullying I totally disagree with the claim as it was put to me too without a single diff produced to back up the claim. Now I see it is being brought up again without diffs this is nonsense. BigDuncTalk19:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to inform editors the proposals I made are all stemming from the AE were Fozz topic banned myself Domer and The Thunderer and are not to be seen as a way to get this bad block lifted. BigDuncTalk19:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have now had emails from Tznkai, Jehochman and SirFozzie, and broadly, they all do agree now and the case makes more sense. My reading of the back history of this case is that because of these reasons, it was possible in good faith for different users to interpret the case in different ways. This is the summary I have so far:
Domer48 is an editor on "The Troubles". He and others have been disruptive in the past, enough to be topic banned in this heated area. He feels his edits were not as disruptive as some suggest; others disagree - a common enough problem in editing disputes. My own view tends to suggest the past editing was disruptive. As part of that past editing, Domer was highlighted as taking part in bullying and possible outing of a user with a genuine reason to wish for pseudonymity, as many users in "The Troubles" may have. Alison helped to handle this case.
In the current block, there were concerns about privacy again, and combined with the use of the word "oversight" and misinterpretation of an email, it led to concerns he was outing people, had implied he would, or was going to. These were serious concerns, and could not be fully checked by administrators since some material was believed to possibly be oversighted as well. When there is reasonable belief in a concern of this kind, administrators sometimes block to prevent disruption or harm, with a view to agreeing reasonable conditions to allow an unblock, per WP:INDEF. This is what was done. The concern that there was oversighted material led to a slight delay while an Oversighter or Arbitrator was found, leading some to speculate hidden agendas.
It seems that upon review, there are no unknown issues here and any agreement on future conduct can therefore proceed. Domer48 hopefully will understand this as an indication how seriously respect for other editors is taken, and will exercise great care in future, after editing resumes.
Additional background information:
There was a case of bullying/wiki-harassment in the none-too-distant past, and serious "Troubles"-related WP:OWN issues. Domer48 is represented as being one of the primary players in the bullying issue, and as being also told to cease (and didn't). The user he is said to have bullied had genuine real-world reason to be concerned about outing issues (or at least wishing to stay private), like many other users who edit on The Troubles do. A number of users including Domer48 were topic-banned in relation to that matter. The bullying may or may not be historic at this point. Domer has come up more than once at WP:AE.
Emails between Domer48 and Tznkai in the last week, submitted in private to me as an Arbitrator, reflect and support these impressions; after checking, they confirm Domer has been of concern as an editor (and denies it), but also he has shown willingness to consider conditions or restrictions that would help keep him out of problems.
Tznkai confirms he used the word "oversight" to signify usual reviewing of the indef block, not in regard to oversighted edits. Jehochman has emailed me with an indication of the history, but does not include links to any oversighted edits either.
Tznkai states: "In the meantime, Mbisanz, who was also aware of the above, having also received an e-mail from Alison [who handled the initial harassment/outing issue], also made the comment that Domer had been abusive in the past. Domer demanded that I tell Mbisanz to remove the edit, and I told Domer to ask him himself. Domer sent the e-mail to Mbisanz, who interpreted it as a threat to out the editor on Wiki, (which I maintain was reasonable), SirFozzie, also aware of the previous incident from Alison (I believe), asked to see the e-mail, and blocked Domer indefinitely, apparently under the belief that Domer was attempting to out the user."
It should be emphasized that Domer had been disruptive, and uncaring of other users' privacy, in the recent past of this dispute, and this is a factor when assessing the current block and also in future editing. A number of users in nationalism related disputes, including The Troubles, rely upon relative anonymity. For them, it may be important. Other users need to respect that and if attention does need drawing to A=B, ask an administrator for advice by email.
I may be exceedingly dense; but I'm still unclear exactly what Domer is being punished for. You say that the "outing" charge isn't sustained. Good. But now he is being sanctioned for some older beheaviour that had nothing to do with the block? Is that correct? Sarah777 (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would appear to be the long and the short of it. If the first charge doesn't stick then drag up another to save the admin's face.(Yes, I am still here IRC in spite of lies from one of your number) Giano (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't reviewed this block, per se. There are enough reviewing admins to do that. The issue is that there was confusion what was going on, the background of it, and what to make of the recent events and "outing" concerns. What I'm doing is summing up what seems to be the actual events and issues related to conduct and privacy, hopefully so that normal discussion of an unblock and any conditions needed on editing, can now resume. It's purely there as information for any user in this discussion. FT2(Talk | email)19:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha -- no, it's just information and summary, because of the concerns that there might be private or oversighted material, and so on. FT2(Talk | email)19:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is something I have become all too familiar with in discussions, which are accusations with no supporting evidence. I’m disappointed that FT2 at no time contacted me for my view before posting. Just maybe, there is another side to the story or that they my not have got the full picture, or possibly another misunderstanding / misinterpretation. I deny the charge of bullying, harassment, disruption and WP:OWN and I can support this view with diff’s. The only thing being presented here is comment and opinion. FT2 could you possibly provide a summary of my issues and concerns? --Domer48'fenian'19:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The issue I am addressing is not the one you're asking about. I'm addressing two very specific issues here - 1/ Was any private or oversighted information relevant to the block, 2/ With different administrators disagreeing on some points, what exactly has gone on to lead to any misinterpretation? Concerns exist about conduct, and also, you have denied that there is a basis for them. That's mostly part of the background, covered in depth by previous discussions, and is well within the remit of many administrators and other users here to consider as part of the unblock discussion. FT2(Talk | email)19:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FT2's summary agrees with my understanding of events. As the outing issue is finished business, all that remains is to deal with edit warring behavior. SirFozzie has posted unblock conditions above that seem reasonable. I recommend Domer48 accepts them. JehochmanTalk19:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll not wheel war with User:SirFozzie, but I agree that the block should be undone. If there has been edit warring over The Troubles, any administrator can apply the necessary sanctions without Domer48's agreement, though of course it would be better if Domer48 agreed. JehochmanTalk20:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To Domer, the block had no foundation. He was told by several administrators not to do what he did (tie A to B, on OR off WP, so to speak). So to others, the block has a very solid foundation. But that's arguing over a situation that's pretty much resolved. Why do I have the feeling that if we unblocked Domer now, it would be "Show us something AFTER he's been unblocked which would necessitate this?" SirFozzie (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can't you just unblock them and apply whatever discretionary sanctions are available and necessary to prevent further edit warring? I see no reason to keep Domer48 blocked in order to compel his agreement to sanctions. An agreement under duress is as useless as a screen door on a submarine. JehochmanTalk20:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The block was without foundation! Now, if you check the discussion on AE, you will see that it was Tznkai who introduced the subject and not me. I said it to them and they removed the comments. Please lift the block, and we can discuss the sanctions in a reasonable and clam manner. Thanks, --Domer48'fenian'20:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tempted to say no, considering the fact that you rather flagrantly violated the topic ban previously.
But until you hear otherwise, from me, or a consensus of admins on AE:
Terms:A) Domer either gets a mentor or joins the ongoing mediation (Domer's Choice, strongly suggested that he join the mediation) B) Topic ban.. on Irish articles dealing with the modern Troubles, 1969-present day.. to be reviewed at the end of the year, and C) 1RR on ALL articles
OK, as I thought I saw through the fog a while back, the facts are thus:
Domer was blocked for "outing" someone or trying to.
Domer denied the charge and after two days the Admin Community agree the block was a bad one; in the sense that Domer was not guilty of trying to "out" anyone.
Instead of apologising and unblocking; the Admins go back to past alleged breaches by Domer (for which he was already sanctioned) and now seek to impose additional conditions; for no apparent reason whatsoever?
Yes, you certainly are, Sarah. It's not that the block was bad , but that reasonable people are certainly able to see it two seperate ways. Domer may not have meant to "out" A=B with his email, but it certainly appeared to reasonable people. SirFozzie (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a neutral observer, this stinks. Double jeapordy. You say that reasonable people are certainly able to see it two separate ways. So then, you're saying that he's guilty of attempting to out someone? If so, sanction his ass. If not, he is innocent. This just looks like a stinker of a case where an admin is slapping sanctions on an editor for an imagined offense with top secret evidence. Doesn't work like that. Let the admins call it first. Guilty = sanctions. Innocent = block lift + apology. 207.181.210.6 (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way any reasonable person could suggest that I a) threatened an Admin to remove sanctions b) threatened to “out” anyone, and c) tried to get an Admin to file a case against anyone. Please let that be the end of it. --Domer48'fenian'20:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Several reasonable people have suggested at least B there, Domer. But you're right. Let it die. Domer, is there any autoblocks we need to worry about? SirFozzie (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Domer, can you confirm that before this block you were under the following sanctions: (1) Topic ban.. on Irish articles dealing with the modern Troubles, 1969-present day.. to be reviewed at the end of the year, and (2) 1RR on ALL articles? Sarah777 (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, he was straight topic banned from ALL irish articles (a ban which he ignored), so he's coming out ahead on the deal, as has been explained to you previously above Sarah. SirFozzie (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop now. The block was wrong. Forcing sanctions on me to be unblocked was wrong. Now I’m willing to put it down as a misunderstanding. If we are to WP:AGF:assume good faith, it should be accepted as being wrong. Now leave it at that. --Domer48'fenian'20:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is agreed that a resonable person may conclude he didn't mean to do. Just like a reasonable person may conclude he meant to do. SirFozzie (talk) 21:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or it just shows that you appear to have a personal vendetta against Domer, and that by "reasonable to conclude he meant to", you actually mean that you are not willing to assume good faith and will be carrying out a future personal vendetta? I'm reading this right, yes? Let's cut to the chase and stop weasel wording. That's what you're really saying. 207.181.210.6 (talk) 22:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hullo, random IP address person who just happened to find this discussion.. if I had a personal vendetta against Domer, would i have unblocked him and tried to find terms? Or would I have just locked his page and told him to take it to ArbCom? Think on it. SirFozzie (talk) 22:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi back atcha. Yeah, under pressure from the majority of "reasonable" folks, you unblocked. But doing it in such bad grace and saying above that the block was justified and not wrong, and that you personally didn't agree with it (couched in weaselly words) - yeah, I'd say your private face got exposed behind the public mask. It'd take a really BIG admin to admit to being wrong but that you were acting to preempt a possibility of an outing, as opposed to continuing to pursue Domer with secret evidence and insinuated acts. Yeah. A Really Big Admin. I won't hold my breath on you though. 207.181.210.6 (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I previously agreed to Riskers unblock proposals, which were proposed by Tznkai, modified by Dunc and placed on AE. The ones I accepted offer the referees a much better opportunity to review my conduct and editing style. I will place both here side by side for editors to review.
These are the ones I accepted:
Domer48 will join mediation, but under a strict indefinite topic ban on Ulster Defence Regiment and subpages thereof, and a strict *1RR on all other Troubles related articles in addition to voluntary terms with the mediator.
If in the opinion of a 3 editors referee panel, in consultation with the mediator, Domer48 has successfully participated in mediation, Domer48's topic ban is rescinded.
Not part of the proposal per se, but the article specific 1RR restrictions as applied by previous AE thread are continued, but should be revisited later--Tznkai (talk) 00:55, 27 October 2008
These are the ones proposed / imposed:
Terms:
A) Domer either gets a mentor or joins the ongoing mediation (Domer's Choice, strongly suggested that he join the mediation)
B) Topic ban.. on Irish articles dealing with the modern Troubles, 1969-present day.. to be reviewed at the end of the year, and
C) 1RR on ALL articles
Now the question editors my reasonable ask is, why place my self under such strict observation? The answer is, I know I can edit well, and conduct my self in a manner compatible with our policies and guidelines. Another question reasonable editors could ask is why accept sanctions, if you don’t believe you deserve them, and in the absence of any justification for them? The answer is simple and selfish. With this many editors watching me, any hassle and aggravation I get from edit warriors and POV merchants will be noted, and I will receive the protection all editors on wiki deserve and should expect. Now is that not reasonable, and honest? --Domer48'fenian'20:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it was my belief (and Dunc said so in an email to me at the time) that because you didn't know how long the mediation would take, you wouldn't accept a topic ban that could last months. If you prefer what you put up there.. yes, I can acccept that. SirFozzie (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is where we were before the whole block/unblock drama was initiated. Its fairly clear to an outsider this the block was a result of misinterpretation and misunderstanding, rather than mischief. It seems entirely just that Domer be permitted to accept the conditions that were in place at that time. I also think these are better conditions, because they do give Domer the chance to demonstrate that he can part of the solution, while protecting against disruption if he can't. I support giving him that opportunity. Rockpocket21:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The longer I'm being watched the better for me. Why topic ban me from hundreds of articles, when the problem is on just one? I think that the 0RR should be 1RR like everyone else, and you suggested that yourself. So is that agreed then, Tznkai and Dunc's proposals. Now could someone invite me to mediation, I don't want to gate crash?--Domer48'fenian'21:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Domer, you'll want to find the request for mediation and ask to join in the right section, you have to file it though, we can't file it for you.--Tznkai (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There have been a lot of conflated issues here, and more than a few strong personalities conflicting with eachother. In this, much of what was at issue in actuality, Domer's block, has been lost in abstractions and discussions, and the general melodrama that occurs when a lot of people don't trust eachother and don't have all of the information argue.
So, we have a profound failure of trust. There are, if you believe some of the voices here, no mistakes: only malicious actions and cover ups. It is here we see why the assumption of good faith is so important: without it, all mistakes are actually evidence of bad faith, and thanks to the vagaries of text communication, there is no reliable way to tell. As a purely practical matter, accusations take a lot of time and energy to deal with: energy better spent on fixing the problem
Without pointing blame at anyone in particular, I would like to say that this issue was overblown, or at least overwrought. If nothing else, something we can all agree on, is that it has taken far too long, and far too many people to get it to any state of resolution.
So, on that note, I would like to apologize to Domer for length and stress involved in resolving the issue. We have wasted a profound amount of time and energy on this, and I apologize for my part in it.
P.S I will be without reliable internet access until late Sunday. SirFozzie and FT2 are specifically authorized to use my communications with them in any reasonable or appropriate manner, based on their discretion. Everyone else will have to hold their damned horses.
You are correct, and I have reverted myself. I did not recognize the IP and the edits, especially without an edit summary, looked like vandalism. Thanks for your message setting me straight. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'23:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Domer48, Thanks for signing in on the UDR mediation page. I've asked a question on that page about including another participant. Also, would you please give us an opening statement and comment on what you think mediation would achieve on the case talk page? Sunray (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the history of that article, so thank you for the link to the ArbCom decision. The most informative part is that you were among those sanctioned. The "principles" you point me to are in fact just the basic rules of Wikipedia, and indeed, I take them quite seriously. It would appear that you might be the one bringing an agenda to the table. For the benefit of a relative newcomer, do you want to tell me what that agenda is, or do I need to guess? Hiro Antagonist (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I was sanctioned, and all editors coming to the article are subject to the same sanctions. Please be also aware of talk page guidlines and confine your comments to the edits and not the editor. As a newcomer to the article please read the talk page history and you will notice a number of discussions on WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Thanks, --Domer48'fenian'20:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the citation on the talk page, the strong balance of probability is that the claimed oath is fictitious, so I've outright deleted. --Red King (talk) 23:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your note on the MedCom talk page. If you are referring to T.'s creation of a sandbox page on the UDR, how does this affect our Terms of Editing? Sunray (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying that. Yes I see these as a violation of the terms. I'm not sure why T. has made these edits. In any case I have left him a note about it. I hope you do not not take this as your licence to also violate the terms. Sunray (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Sunray for assuming bad faith as to my intensions, since I have not at any time suggested I would violate the terms, I don't find your comment helpful. If however it was an attempt at balance, I would also find it unhelpful, and suggest you direct your attention towards the clearly identified source of the problem, and not the editor who brought it to your attention. --Domer48'fenian'08:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point about "equal" gaming of the system. I also appreciate your acknowledgment of your own responsibility. I don't want to belabour the point. I have recognized that you have taken considerable initiative in this case. If you get the point we've been making about finger pointing, let's move on. Tomorrow is another day. Sunray (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Domer, I have given this sort of comment as an example of the kind of behaviour that is unhelpful (see previous section). Each participant is responsible for their own behaviour. Comments about what the other guy is doing are not on. Would you be willing to acknowledge that you understand this and will make the necessary adjustments?"
Indeed you have Sunray. The comments are unhelpful and commented upon, yet the behaviour is not? So don’t comment on the other guy, despite giving the two fingers to the whole process of mediation, ok that’s fine. I will make the necessary adjustments and will not report any editors conduct on mediation, but rather at the appropriate forum like WP:AE or WP:3RR. I also noticed the comment on WP:AE, which seems to be keeping in line with most of the comments here in that its selective. Thanks for that, --Domer48'fenian'20:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I try to call them as I see them. In a mediation that occurs mostly relative to behaviour on the case talk page. In your case, you wanted specifics and so I commented on something I saw at AE. But the important thing is to realize that there is a community out there who see what is going on -- maybe not all at once -- but editors are nevertheless accountable for their own behaviour. Sunray (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to be a bit more relaxed on my talk page, a bit more frank and open if you know what I mean. So if you’d like me to respond, it would have to be with the understanding that my comments on this page will not be used as examples of any type of behaviour on say mediation? Would that be ok with you? If not simply don’t respond, I’ll understand. --Domer48'fenian'21:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have been away most of the day, but thank you for bringing this to my attention directly instead of continuing the nonsense on AE. I am reviewing the matter.--Tznkai (talk) 23:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is clearly a significant problem, and I intend to get to the bottom of it. I am not going to block anyone yet: there are several "guilty" parties, but I'm not yet sure if any one deserves more severe sanctions than the other. I am going through the contribution logs slowly and carefully. Ideally by the time I am done, the point will be moot. If not however, everyone is going to have a bad day: some much worse than others. Preliminarily, I have this to say to all of three of you:
The one blame I am willing to lay on equally all three of your shoulders is this: you responded to reverting by reverting. This is the fundamental error in your method: all edit wars, revert wars especially are incredibly harmful, far more harmful than leaving an infuriating edit while you pursue editors on the talk page or seek outside assistance. It is just Wikipedia. There is no benefit to reverting an edit now that can't wait for a mediator, admin, third party, or a well measured post on the talk page to step in instead.
Mediation is not about policing, and it certainly isn't about policing eachother. You maintain your end of the bargain, even if the other person doesn't hold up theres at the moment. Besides the fact we need to accept that good faith mistakes can be made, there is naked self interest involved: the party that follows the rules best and in the best faith gains an advantage over the other. If the admins are slow, or hands off for the moment, or longer, that can be frustrating: but we are volunteers with busy lives, and other concerns both on and off wiki. Patience is hard, but it is so necessary in mediation.
The report I have heard from the mediator is that all three of you have broken the mediation agreement. Despite his obvious frustration, he is still willing to come back to the table if all of you are. Something you should remember: the mediation is for all of you. After this latest stunt, the community at large and the admin corps, from what I have been told, is frustrated and upset. They are not particularly caring for which one of you is more to blame than the other.
As far as I am concerned, you are *all* out of reversions, under any circumstance. No more reversions unless the reverted edit is so severe you are willing to endure a block - even if you are right.
--Tznkai (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S: I am aware there has been progress. I hope that this will be the low point in the mediation process, and things will improve rapidly after this.
I've not had much chance to be online this weekend. I'll try to catch up with things tomorrow. I've some thoughts on an alternative approach, hopefully I'll some chance to draft something along the lines I'm thinking, but I probably won't have time for that before Tuesday evening. David Underdown (talk) 14:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I agree with you about the talk page, and think the admin was wrong to revert your deletion. But, now that a discussion has begun, it's best to leave it be. The statements by the user, though, were long-winded, and had little or nothing to do with improving the article. Meltygirl's response, though, was right on the mark, and I hope that it will put the issue to rest. The so-called "historical accuracy" section was quite slanted. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'23:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Domer, I'm going to be very busy probably until Sunday, and only able to edit sporadically until then, but I will try to spare what time I can to get to the bottom of these problems. I'm sorry to say, but you're not going to get much quality attention from the admins that frequent AE because of the world class, top shelf Wikipolitics bullshit thats going on. (To be blunt) Ideally, that little melodrama will get resolved soon, but I wouldn't bet on it. If you can be patient, I can do my best to sort this through. E-mail me the usernames users you're concerned about, and I'll look into it.
As a quick note, editor's personal opinion *is* a legitimate ground to edit from, when that opinion is on the style writing, not on the truth or falsehood of the content. You can of course disagree, but don't just say "its against policy." In addition, when using the Undo function, use a detailed rationale unless it is strictly vandalism: page blanking, patent nonsense and so on. Other than that, from a quick scan of your recent contributions, you've been playing ball, and I want you to know I've noticed that
Thanks Tznkai, I hope it goes well. I did try to keep the mediation going but under the circumstances it proved impossible. While there are issues which were yet to be resoved, we now have a basis of understanding. I have learned from my experiance of mediation, reflected I hope in efforts on other articles I edited recently. --Domer48'fenian'18:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've put a few sample things on the North Irish Horse talkpage. Largely though it's just how British Army unit naming practice works, if there's something in brackets in the middle of the unit title like that, it's part of the official name. In particular, see Category:Royal Artillery regiments and you'll see similar practice for a number of RA regiments, sometimes place name derived, sometimes maintaining the name of a previous regiment that was converted to an artillery role. David Underdown (talk) 11:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed the island & the republic have identical names. But they must remain seperate articles. If they were merged, the charge of Irish Nationalism PoV, would be made. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Talk is cheap, and paper never refuses ink. You will get all kinds of accusations, and what is the alternative to Nationalism PoV? This is an Encyclopedia, we only deal with sources that are WP:RS and WP:V, accusations are simply that, accusations. Don't you agree? We are not here to pander to editors sensibilities. --Domer48'fenian'21:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But things like that don't happen here Domer as you should know by now the POV pushers scream the longest and loudest and sources don't come in to it. BigDuncTalk21:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dunc in that case, you open a discussion and set clear ground rules such as comments must be supported with sources. This rules out the comment merchants. You request an outside mediator to ensure that the agreement is kept, and then you request a page move, to be reviewed by the mediator, and determined on the strenght of arguement and the sources provided? Now if there was a strict watch kept on civility and the WP:TPG you would have the makings of a good consensus, one difficult to over turn. But that is just my opinion. GoodDay if I though we could agree on the above conditions, I would be the first to make the call. --Domer48'fenian'22:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well when the election is over, run it by the ArbCom and I know if we get enough good will editors on board, we will have the makingings of a first class discussion and an agreed solution. --Domer48'fenian'22:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to be the party pooper, but that will never fly until there is unification. We have distinct articles on geographic/historical/cultural entities from political entities. See Korea for an example. Showing with every source in the world that the Island and the State have the same name will not supersede this, since we have a mechanism of disambiguating between them. The only way we would have a single article if Ireland (both the state and the island) was a single entity. Rockpocket22:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The odds and the vocal pitch dose not faze me at all. The weaker the argument they have the more vocal they become, hoping that yours becomes lost it their hyperbole. Now a discerning Admin would cut through this hyperbole and extract what is relevant and dismiss the rest in an ideal world. The only way to address this is to keep your comments succinct and to the point, and hope an Admin picks up on it. Why not draw up what you think would be a good set of ground rules for a discussion, and I’ll work on it with you? --Domer48'fenian'22:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asking me? If so, I think I'll decline because I not only think it is doomed to failure, but I also think it would leave the encyclopaedia worse off. I think its imperative we have two articles, one describing the island, one for the state. The issue that needs to be resolved is what each of them, and the page that disambiguates between them, are called. My already stated preference is Ireland (state), Ireland (island) and Ireland as the disambiguator. In articles where there is potential ambiguity, I would pipe depending on what is most appropriate grammatically and contextually. That might be ROI, it might be Irish Republic, it might the the Republic, it might be Ireland, the state, or it might be Ireland, the island. Its all about context. Rockpocket22:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rock I'd never dream of putting you in such a position. LOL. I was just having a knock at your arguement on the other talk page, did you notice I'm sanction free now. If I never go back to AE it will be still too soon. --Domer48'fenian'22:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your message on my talk page. If you think it is clear that this editor has engaged in specific attacks upon you or behaved in an uncivil manner, then there is a problem, and since this editor has engaged in troublesome exchanges with both myself and SirFozzie and made accusations against us that we are disruptive and/or engaged in a vendetta against him, then it may not be a good idea for me to get further involved, because we are already at the point where we may be too involved (and ence viewed by other administrators as not being guaranteed to be independant or unbiased enough) to take any further action. I suggest you mark each incident of incivility by means of a suitable templated warning on the editor's talk page, and report then to WP:AIV once the warnings have got to the last level and a further incident of personal attack has happened. Unless some other administrators are prepared to take this case on, and relieve both myself and SirFozzie from being the target of his accusations, which may end up becoming much more nasty, then perhaps this is a way to deal with the matter. However, if you haven't already, I imagine you may well get labelled as a harrasser and being engaged in a vendetta as well. I know it is probably not what you wanted to hear, but disruption of this type can be quite tricky to deal with in the context of wikiepdia and other administrators who sometimes differ in their interpretation of how to behave. I think you can guess what I think would be appropriate. DDStretch (talk)16:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that User:ddstretch and I do understand the position both you and SirFozzie are in. Would you have a link to the editor templated warnings. I used to have it but can't find it. Thanks again, --Domer48'fenian'17:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. My apologies for not replying earlier to your follow-up question: I was preoccupied with real-life matters this evening. I should have provided a link to the templates myself, but I see you have them now anyway. Let us hope there is a change in approach before any further escalation becomes necessary. DDStretch (talk)23:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another possible appropriate action to take would be to go back to the Arbitration Enforcement people on Arbcom and ask for them to take a look at what Moorewtin is doing.: I see today, as well as repeating that I am engaged in personal vendetta, he has repeated posting messages on my talk page, despite me asking him not to, and, more significantly for Arbcom, he is making inflammatory comment on Northern Ireland and Talk:Sinn Féin. I think this needs to be dealt with with some urgency, hence the request to Arbcom may be best now, though I am aware of the upset that this normally causes to anyone involved. DDStretch (talk)10:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears events have intervened at the minute. While I’m loath to have to go to AE, (never again being too soon) if it continues it seems like the only alternative. It would be moot to raise it now however, but hopefully this will have a salutary effect. Thanks for the advice it is appreciated, --Domer48'fenian'19:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I had alerted SheffieldSteel earlier to is latest actions. When you wrote "While I’m loath to have to go to AE, (never again being too soon)", all I can say is that I know exactly what you mean. I am in the middle of my second one (which also involves Mooretwin) and they are truly mind-sapping and awful. DDStretch (talk)19:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for the advice; I was starting to run out of options. I hope this will be the end of it, and we can get back to editing in a more constructive environment. I will be more than willing to draw a line under this, and return to the assumption of good faith, but if you could keep the articles on your watch list for a while I be very grateful. I will bear in mind your suggestions, and if needs must I will follow through on them, thanks again, --Domer48'fenian'19:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've followed up your post on AE, Domer, and despite the fact that I may not be the fairest judge for him right now, I agree that enough is like way too much. SirFozzie (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I've a real pain in the arse with it. I'm more than willing to assume good faith, and draw a line under the past, but it is not looking good at the minute. I do hope when they come back from the block that they change their attitude, but that post on their talk page is just a platform for a rant. I will not allow their conduct to affect mine, and I will not allow myself to be drawn into a slagging match. I've copped onto myself, and it is working out for me. Thanks again for that, --Domer48'fenian'23:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you ≈ jossi ≈ for that, I really hope it helps. In this case "It takes to to tango" dose not apply. I'm more than happy for Admins to monitor my edits, and to draw my attention to any edit they feel needs to be corrected. Thanks again, --Domer48'fenian'09:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...has been reverted. Criticism != partisanism. If you feel it's necessary, you're free to provide a balancing quote from a similar source, but the inclusion of that quote is not a patent violation of WP:NPOV. Dppowell (talk) 13:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have put WP:OR back into the article. You have removed correctly referenced information, and did not bother to join the discussion. Now take it to the talk page, because you are wrong on both counts. Thanks --Domer48'fenian'13:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the one who added the source, please read the discussion first will you. The sourse says "While Sinn Féin (variously translated as ‘Ourselves’, inelegantly as ‘We Ourselves’ or incorrectly as ‘Ourselves Alone’)." Now do you want to address your introduction of WP:OR?--Domer48'fenian'13:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya Domer. IMO, Northern Ireland, England, Wales & Scotland should not be listed on any Countries lists. Personally, I prefer the description constituent country for all 4. GoodDay (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that User:Snowded, I'll ignore it for now. I've asked for an outside opinion, and will wait to see what they think I should do. Jossi was very clear about this on their talk page, and I'd hoped they would have moved on from their block. I was mistaken. Thanks again, --Domer48'fenian'23:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Domer, would you mind if the stuff from the mediation that was to do with sourcing on North Irish Horse was copied to the article talkpage? I'd jsut like the work I did on checking out the sources to end up somewhere slightly more relevant. David Underdown (talk) 09:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I just wanted to respond to your posts on my talk page. While I'm not interested in delving into the depths of your dispute, as I am not involved in any step of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process and have no desire to be, I would like to comment on what the situation on my talk page looks like, to someone completely uninvolved. Mooretwin was completely within his rights to ask me to explain the reasoning behind my close on the requested move of Special Category Status. I am not taking anybody's side in this, but when 2 editors show up on my talk page to criticize an editor who made a reasonable request of me, it looks extremely like tag-teaming. I am not accusing you of tag-teaming, I am merely stating that a disinterested observer on my talk page could reasonably make that conclusion. This is something of which you should be careful in the future. While you may be in the right, it is easy to get so worked up over something that you don't realize that you've crossed a line. Just thought I'd let you know, as a helpful note. Cheers,--Aervanathlivesinthe Orphanage15:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aervanath, if an editor makes an accusation against another editor such as "User:Domer48 amd User:Big Dunc - editors with a history of personal conflict against me" well then your well within your rights to challange it, no matter were it is posted. Would you not agree? You will also notice that this is not an isolated incident, in fact is ongoing and persistent. Would you agree that it is easy to get so worked up over something like this, and I do agree that a line has been crossed. Thanks for the note, --Domer48'fenian'15:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I neglected to check the Discussion page of WoI article, so missed the explanation of recent changes. I think Michael Laffan's book "Resurrection of Sinn Féin" might provide some interpretation of the primary sources, though it's written from a point of view which is hostile to the form that the independence movement took. Pat Mul. 78.144.217.94 (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries Pat. The discussion did highlight the issue, and the rational behind the challange is sound. I have Michael Laffan's book, and your right about its hostile point of view. --Domer48'fenian'14:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
