User talk:Irelandwatch

hi , I am not involved or associated with any political party , anything I post on wikipedia is fact based non biased with sources , please talk to me and we will solve issues amicably . thanks

Gemma O'Doherty

Hello, I have been banned from editing Gemma's wiki page. When I say, "editing", I really mean trying to stop trolls from slandering Gemma with the aid of established editors like Bastun. I notice that the opening background paragraph is being used by the more impatient of the slanderers, which is contrary to what it should be about. Please could you at least edit the background paragraph with the following: "A Master’s graduate from University College Dublin, she was Chief Features Writer with the Irish Independent and has contributed to The Sunday Times, Daily Mail and Village magazine." source: https://gemmaodoherty.com/about/ instead of what is there. To keep the intolerant tolerant people from biting your head off, you could move their few sentences to a new 'Criticism' or 'Controversies' section. I would do this myself but I was banned by Bastun. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.83.250.132 (talk) 09:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could try familiarising yourself with Wikipedia's policies, 95.83.250.132, rather than trying to recruit a meatpuppet? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. —DoRD (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Irelandwatch (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #18253 was submitted on May 10, 2017 16:18:52. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Barrett

Comment moved here from a closed talk page section: Hi Bastun , in relation to the editors who agree , you say "four in this section" , are these editors admins ? also are there people involved in policing a section ? who are these people , are they ordinary independent members of the public , or are these editors organised ? if organised , by whom ? kind regards , Irelandwatch (talk) 11:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant if they/we are admins or not, that's not how WP works. You can find out if they're admins or not by checking their user pages yourself. I'm not an admin.
"Involved in policing a section" - no idea what you mean. We edit in accordance with policy. The most important policies are outlined in Wikipedia's Five Pillars. Please read those policies.
"Are they ordinary independent members of the public or are these editors organised?" There is no cabal.
Bottom line, Irelandwatch, is that there are multiple verifiable, reliable sources justifying the inclusion of content that is completely appropriate for the biography of a politician. WP is not censored just because you don't like it. This is the consensus among editors, and - while consensus may change - you have acted like you simply can't hear what we've said. You just keep saying the same thing over and over, without, apparently, reading or understanding anything anyone else has said. The discussion is closed. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bastun , you keep using the term "we" , which suggests something organisational , like there is a group of people involved in controlling content . just wondered Irelandwatch (talk) 16:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

Your recent editing history at Justin Barrett shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously - you're clearly edit-warring against consensus here, and we've been over this again and again. Please take it to the talk page or risk being blocked (and not by me) - Alison ^❤ 23:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019

Your recent editing history at Gemma O'Doherty shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Black Kite (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite (talk) Black Kite , Hi , I will do that , You appear to be the most reasonable among them , you must see for yourself by reading the talk page and the personal views expressed by BritishFinance and Bastun that they intend to create the most negative impartial account of Ms O'Doherty . I dont know Ms o'doherty nor am I a member of ACI but this is wrong whats happening on wikipedia . Its supposed to be impartial , that is not an impartial account by any means . Irelandwatch (talk)

Take a look at these remarks that were on the TALK PAGE .. If this does not show the Bias of the authors , I dont know what does

Wow, thanks for that. Hadn’t seen the 5G stuff (of which there is a lot), and the rest. Her twitter/YouTube material seems impossible to categorize, some very wild material in there that reads like infowars. Britishfinance (talk) 10:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Still chipping away on this BLP. It seems she was always an aggressive journalist in her Irish Independent days but did achieve things. However, when she was fired and won her court case, and her husband got sick and died shortly after, she seemed to really go full throttle. She creates a twitter account in 2014, and it is incredibly conspiratorial. Much more like infowars type stuff than even UKIP. There are whole Reddit posts on her descent into highly conspiratorial views. It is crazy stuff. Britishfinance (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2019

I have split out a twitter sub-section in her Opinions section. Interesting that she does rank well in terms of overall journalists for traffic. However, this subsection might be a useful device to "collate" other controversial tweets as they arise (I have seen this done on other similar BLPs), without affecting the rest of the article? Britishfinance (talk) 10:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Obviously, there's no issue if multiple sources have covered it. It ought to go in, in that case and Bastun has already re-incorporated that with more sourcing, which is good enough. But, quoting her tweets and subtly portraying her as a racist falls in clearly prohibited territory. It might be very true that she is a despicable person but even then, BLP needs to be religiously enforced. In the most cursory of glances, I came across a reliable source that mentioned her anti-abortion and anti-LGBT views and have already incorporated that during my initial edits. ∯WBGconverse 18:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits - they're good additions. I'm unsure about why we should or could confine her controversial views to one section. Livestreaming and livetweeting them are, pretty much, what she does right now: Christchurch? False flag! Notre Dame? An attack by the state on the church! A shop has kids' tops with rainbows or unicorns on? It's the trans gay agenda! The problem is sometimes this is going to be just livestreamed, other times it'll be something she raises at an ACI public meeting. How does one differentiate? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I have been banned from editing Gemma's wiki page. When I say, "editing", I really mean trying to stop trolls from slandering Gemma with the aid of established editors like Bastun. I notice that the opening background paragraph is being used by the more impatient of the slanderers, which is contrary to what it should be about. Please could you at least edit the background paragraph with the following: "A Master’s graduate from University College Dublin, she was Chief Features Writer with the Irish Independent and has contributed to The Sunday Times, Daily Mail and Village magazine." source: https://gemmaodoherty.com/about/ instead of what is there. To keep the intolerant tolerant people from biting your head off, you could move their few sentences to a new 'Criticism' or 'Controversies' section. I would do this myself but I was banned by Bastun. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.83.250.132 (talk) 09:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you could try familiarising yourself with Wikipedia's policies, 95.83.250.132, rather than trying to recruit a meatpuppet? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC) Maybe you could try familiarising yourself with Wikipedia's policies, 95.83.250.132, rather than trying to recruit a meatpuppet? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi - yes, but there does seem to be some consensus on the talk page that the current version is more compliant (in fact, the version you restored says some negative things about O'Doherty that aren't in the current version). Please discuss on the talkpage - thanks. Black Kite (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what? Warning an anon IP on your talk page that they're breaking a WP policy is... some sort of anti-GO'D conspiracy now? Woah. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What were you thinking? You blanked 30k characters, twice, which included a new "Personal Details" section, an expanded "Journalism" section (with her award-winning Mary-Boyle story, and her breaking the McClean case), a "Political" section that includes her views/comments on her failed Presidential bid, and her European MEP platform, an "Opinion" section that includes how well ranked her Twitter account is (a claim she makes which others have ridiculed in off-wiki forums), and an expanded "Awards" section; not to mention the improvements in the level of WP:RS in her BLP. Yes, the referencing for her "conspiracy" views have been improved, but that is not WP's fault, and in all cases, we are using independent secondary sources (not primary). During this process, several editors, myself, Bastun, Black Kite, WBG, Damac, and EdmundT have contributed/read the improvements. These actions and your history of being solely focused on two Irish BLPs, Gemma O'Doherty and Justin Barrett, imply that you may be straying into WP:NOTHERE. However, looking at the other edits you have tried to revert on this BLP (per the Talk Page), despite the strong WP:RS, also imply an issue with WP:CIR, or worse. You should be aware of the discretionary sanctions regarding BLPs per WP:BLPDS. Britishfinance (talk) 09:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Gemma O'Doherty shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Last warning. You have already breached 3RR. You've been reverted by three different editors. Any more edits against consensus will see you blocked. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You have been blocked for 72 hours from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~We do not tolerate legal threats.~~ Hum. Looking more fully and you and the one making the legal threats appear not to be the same individuals. I still have concerns that you two are associated however. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Doc James You made a serious allegation against me and now admit you were wrong . No apology ? for the record , I am not associated with anybody on here and you should take that back too . please apologise . Thank you . Irelandwatch (talk) 12:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have crossed out the comment in question and changed your block to 72 hours for edit warring. Your contributions are concerning. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:27, 14 May 2019 (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).

Irelandwatch (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been blocked unreasonably , As I explained on the talk page last week , I gave evidence that the sources used in paragraph 2 do not support the statements made .User:Black_Kite agreed that the paragraph needed to be re-written , I asked Bastun and Britishfinance to re-write the paragraph so it is more accurate but for some reason both have made up their minds that what is written is not going to be changed . I did not breach the 3 revert rule and all I asked was for an impartial imbalanced fully sourced paragraph that was factual . I cant understand how I can be banned for this but I suspect use Bastun has an agenda , he made a very harsh comment to me about catholics on another page . Please look into this ban , Dont let Bastun take control of my ban because it is evident now that use Bastun has an agenda .PS. Doc James said I made legal threats . I did not make any legal threats against anyone , why are you saying this ? Thank You , best regards Irelandwatch (talk) 07:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Based on what I have seen, I think the only way you should be unblocked is if you agree to a topic ban from Irish politics(broadly construed) and maybe religious issues too. Maybe others will disagree, but that's what I think. The block was reduced while I made this comment- so I would not go this far yet, but if you continue the attitude and manner in which you are editing, I think you might have to go down that road eventually. I urge you to change course now. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 12:23, 14 May 2019 (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.

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Irelandwatch (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #25185 was submitted on May 14, 2019 08:19:30. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James I'm having difficulty locating the legal threat; which edit is it? 331dot (talk) 11:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Will email you User:331dot. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional edits

Your edits have been promotional such as:

"an award-winning" ... "where it has been viewed over 1 million times"[1][2][3][4]

And yes adding it four times without consensus is edit warring. Okay changed the block to 72 hours for edit warring promotional content without consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing consensus for this on the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Doc James Hi , Those were not my inserts , "award winning" was not inserted by me and neither was "where it has been viewed over 1 million times" also not inserted by me , I couldn't change anything because Bastun wouldn't allow me to change it . also , I wasn't edit warring , All I asked was that Bastun explain on the talk page how the sources used in the then opinions section paragraph 2 supported the statements made .

An Admin User:Huon has since justified this stance by removing the paragraph altogether .

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

Reliable sources Challenged or likely to be challenged Main page: WP:SOURCES "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources"

"material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion"

Using BLPs to continue disputes "editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of a biographical article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all"

if you look at the talk page for O'Doherty , the position of admins clearly comes accross as strongly negative .

for these reasons I feel the ban is compeletely unjustified

regards Irelandwatch (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2019 (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).

Irelandwatch (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I feel my block is very unjustified . The initial reason given was "legal threats" and this was going to be a permanent ban . The admin that banned me then admitted he made a mistake but nevertheless was still going to ban me for 72 hours for edit warring and promotional edits even though it wasn't me that inserted the lines which are supposedly promotional , it was someone else , I am only guilty of removing a poorly sourced paragraph which has now been removed by another admin User:Huon who agreed that it should have been removed anyway . its bizarre . Irelandwatch (talk) 13:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only; the block has expired. Yamla (talk) 12:02, 18 May 2019 (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.

The page's history is there for everyone to see. On multiple occasions, while ignoring the edit-warring warnings on the talk page and above, you re-inserted the "an award-winning" ... "where it has been viewed over 1 million times" content, and failed entirely to engage on the talk page about those edits, even as you urged others to do so in your edit summaries. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yes , it is there for everyone to see , I did not break the 3 reverts rule or any other rule , please read Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons in particular this section "editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of a biographical article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all" .... On The talk page , you make a number of negative comments about O'Doherty therefore exposing a level of bias on your part towards the subject . I have not made any comments for or against O'Doherty and am only interested in neutrality which is why I questioned the paragraph now removed by another admin which vindicated my concern , a concern which you wanted to ignore . kind regards Irelandwatch (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You gamed the WP:3RR and received appropriate warnings as you approached the limit. You repeatedly inserted peacock terms to show the subject in a good light, and despite being reverted by three different editors, you kept re-inserting it, saying "discuss on talk page", without actually doing so. Your failure to acknowledge what you were up to and insistence that you were/are in the right will not help your case. The additional material you dispute had an additional reference added, but you ignored that too. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was pinged above: Those were not my inserts , "award winning" was not inserted by me and neither was "where it has been viewed over 1 million times" also not inserted by me - yes, those things were inserted by you. Repeatedly. If you can't even tell what you're doing, then it may be better to leave you blocked. Huon (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Huon , I reverted to a version where I had removed much of opinions > paragraph 2 , didn't realise that those other lines had been removed in the meantime . Although , isn't is strange that NO CONSENSUS is required for Admins to make whatever changes they like but for ordinary people who are genuinely try to make a living biography more factual , we need consensus . And THEN the Admins gang up on you and BAN or BLOCK YOU Irelandwatch (talk) 11:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"I reverted to a version" FOUR OR FIVE TIMES "where I had removed much of opinions > paragraph 2 , didn't realise that those other lines had been removed in the meantime" 4 or 5 times. Even though you used edit summaries such as "Talk to me . see talk page" and then didn't engage there when others did. Are you telling us you didn't notice the talk page being updated on your Watchlist, even though you noticed when you were reverted? Nor did you notice being directly pinged on the talk page? I mean, there's WP:AGF - but there are limits. (Also, you should probably stop the personal attacks above. There is consensus on the talk page - you're just ignoring it. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can the Admins please ensure RELIABE SOURCES are used , where claims of 'far right' , 'nazi' etc are made , trusted reliable sources should be used . I have seen people use opinion pieces as sources , also , the far right observatory should not be used as a source , its a campaign group which clearly has its own political agenda . Irelandwatch (talk)

How do you square what you wrote immediately above, with edits like this where you replace a reliable source with Facebook?! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Roderic O'Gorman

You have been warned multiple times about edit warring in the past. If you continue to revert without discussion you could find yourself blocked forever. I don't really have an opinion on the Roderic O'Gorman article. I don't even know who that is, but WP:CRITS is very straightforward when it comes to WP:BLP and labeling sections as "controversy." It's very, very rarely allowed. So please quit reverting edits and find a consensus. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 03:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nemov Can you explain two things.

Firstly, under what wikipedia rule do I need to find consensus in order to add a simple image. why is adding an image to the page so controversial ?? the image had been included before for some time and nobody complained.

ok , secondly, the rule you quote on including the word "controversy" in a heading does not say it is forbidden, it only says its not recommended. Therefore, why is it that you are not required to obtain consensus to change the heading that was in place for over a year ??? Irelandwatch (talk) 10:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1) If someone objects to edit it should be discussed until there's a agreement to move forward.

2) WP:CRIT answers this question.

Thanks! Nemov (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Please note this is four tildes, not three. By using three tildes, you are failing to include the timestamp. Thank you. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:54, 15 December 2022 (UTC) user:Redrose64 sorry about that . Irelandwatch (talk) 10:05, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]