User talk:Setanta747

Archived discussion pages:

Wiki Football Project

Do you know how to make an article part of the WIki Football Project? It's been drawn to my attention that Solitude (football ground) is not part of the project. Perhaps other articles on grounds are the same. Mooretwin (talk) 10:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New requested move at Flag of Ireland

You are receiving this message as you took part is a past move request at Flag of Ireland . This message is to inform you that their a new move has been requested GnevinAWB (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikipéire

Hello,

If you spot this user in any guise, please give me a shout. I am prepared to block them. Kind regards, :) --Jza84 | Talk 00:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while

Mal, just saw your reversion of my edit on the Irish people article (tricolour v st patrick's cross) from a few weeks ago. Still laughing at that one, complete with a "no personal attacks" warning. Anyways, we haven't locked horns for a while, I hope you've been well. Windyjarhead (talk) 10:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hullo! I see you changed the flag on that article. I would argue that Patrick's saltire has as much 'official' use (what ever that means!) as the flag you replaced it with, and is probably more recognisable. I'm not going to bother changing it though, as the one you put in is also representative of the whole of the island.

I'm not doing too bad - keeping busy in 'real life'!.. what about yourself? --Setanta747 (talk) 16:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New project

Hi,I've started a new project Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration and i was wondering if you'd be interested in joining . If not can you tell me what changes if any could be made to change your mind? Gnevin (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gnevin. Thanks for the invite - it looks worth considering, though how workable the idea is in a practical sense I have no idea. Leave it with me. Cheers. --Setanta747 (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

WP:Arbitration_enforcement#Setanta747--Tznkai (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Setanta747, I have blocked you for 7 days, as this is a second violation of the ArbCom ruling. Black Kite 19:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And unblocked, per consensus above. However, also per consensus above, if there are any more occasions where you use misleading edit summaries to sneak in contentious material, the above block will be reinstated. Also (and you know this really), any use of the Ulster Banner (apart from articles on the flag itself) needs to be thrashed out on the talkpages. Black Kite 00:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry - you know that inserting the Ulster Banner into flag pages is a contentious edit, and a summary of "disambig template" is clearly misleading. Also, your latest edit is yet another attempt to make an end-run around general consensus, and I have reverted it. You need to show that the UB is the current flag of Northern Ireland to include it. Black Kite 14:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry - my edit comment was not "sneaky" and, as I already told you, I resent your accusation that it was. You need to show good faith and I'm starting to get annoyed by your tone. My point has been made. Drop it.

As for my recent edit - it is a perfectly good compromise.. not a "get around". I shall be reverting it back until the issue is resolved. --Setanta 14:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tend not to assume good faith when editors are relentlessly pushing their POV in articles. The issue is already resolved - the UB is not the flag of Northern Ireland. There is a reasonable case for it to be made in certain minor circumstances - i.e. use by sporting bodies - but to insert it into a "list of flags by country" article is purely a factual error. Since you are under ArbCom restrictions, reverting it back would not be a good idea. Black Kite 14:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you might see as "relentlessly pushing POV" others see as attempting to improve Wikipedia. The issue is obviously not resolved, as my edit has proven. The fact is that the flag of Northern Ireland is the only flag which specifically represents Northern Ireland. The Union Jack, which is what you reverted to - notably pushing your own POV, by the way - is not the flag of Northern Ireland. It is the flag of the United Kingdom.

I would suggest that you are also subject to the Arbcom ruling, by the way. Reverting me in the first place wasn't a good idea.

I believe that including both flags or, if you like, both of our "POVs", is an acceptable compromise until the issue can be sorted out. Suggesting that the Union Jack is the flag of Northern Ireland is purely a "factual error" - thus my initial edit. --Setanta 05:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no POV here, as you would know if you investigated my history of dealings with the Troubles. I have sanctioned troublesome editors from both sides (i.e. [1]) and indeed was the person who brought the original sockpuppetry case against Republican editor Vintagekits. You, however, do, and until you prove that the UB is somehow the current flag of Northern Ireland your additions of it to articles will continue to be reverted. This isn't by any means POV - it would be ludicrous to be showing the flag on NI as being the Ulster Banner when our very own article contradicts this. Black Kite 18:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously do have a Point Of View, otherwise you would probably not have reverted my edits, made any suggestions of "factual error", or any suggestions that another editor was "relentlessly pushing their POV". I am not discussing you past actions regarding any other editors, and articles relating to Northern Ireland, nor am I going to give you (or subtract) points for your actions for or against "Republican editors".

I do not have a POV other than that of factual accuracy over a sense of offence by some editors on Wikipedia.

You have suggested that you want to engage in an edit war (by saying, "until you prove that the UB is somehow the current flag of Northern Ireland your additions of it to articles will continue to be reverted"). You are not only showing POV here by suggesting I have to prove that the flag of Northern Ireland is the flag of Northern Ireland, you are also going against Wikipedia guidelines by using Wikipedia as a source in your argument.

You do not seem to understand that the flag of the United Kingdom is not, specifically, the flag of Northern Ireland. I should probably tell you that until you prove that the UJ is somehow the current flag of Northern Ireland your additions of it to articles will continue to be reverted. --Setanta 16:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are clearly under the firm impression that you are right and everyone else is wrong, it appears pointless for me to continue to discuss this issue. Black Kite 19:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Equally, since you are clearly under the firm impression that you are right and everyone else is wrong, I could also suggest how it appears pointless for me to continue to discuss this issue. However, I am quite willing to discuss it. --Setanta 19:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ya haven't convinced me, that the UB is Northern Ireland flag. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undoubtedly you will never accept it, GoodDay. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist though. --Setanta 19:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of flags by country

Hiya Setanta. It's best to remove England, Northern Ireland, Wales & Scotland (along with other dependencies) from that article. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to provoke more edit wars GoodDay? You really should know better than to suggest this. --Snowded TALK 17:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an 'edit war' provoker. I've also mentioned dividing the article into sections. I've no control over Setanta's conduct on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would hold no one responsible for Setanta's conduct, but you are fully aware that deleting those countries flags would spark a reaction. You do attempt to stir things up from time to time as you know, :-) --Snowded TALK 18:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed them once (noting in my 'edit summary', it may be reverted & that I wouldn't revert again). Ye must control ye supicions, as I'm not atempting to stir things up. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay, I would accept your proposition as an equal alternative to the one I had made (which was subsequently reverted by Black Kite) as a type of compromise until such a time as a definitive 'solution' can be found. I also appreciate your attempt at compromise. Perhaps some text should be added to the introduction too, explaining that the list includes only those countries which are fully sovereign states, or what ever phrase or term would best suit. --Setanta 05:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've not problem with having England, Wales, Northern Ireland & Scotland in the article; as long as they're properly located (for less familiar readers out there). As for the Ulster Banner? it's not NI's flag (hasn't been since 1972). Northern Ireland has no flag of it's own (unless you count the Union Jack). Anyways, it's best you don't make edits or more importantly 'reversions' on that article. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the constituent countries being in the article either, so long as there is consistency regarding the flags the article is about.

The flag of Northern Ireland is most definitely the flag of Northern Ireland. It hasn't been the flag of the Government of Northern Ireland since 1973 because the Government of Northern Ireland was abolished in 1973. I think I should make attempts at compromise on the article until this issue is sorted. Unfortunately, Black Kite seems intent on ignoring any and all attempts, by me, at doing so. --Setanta 16:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ulster Banner is a non-starter. Northern Ireland, effectively has no flag. PS: please don't make anymore edits/revertings concerning the Ulster Banner topic; stick to the talk-page. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that Northern Ireland does have a flag - the flag of Northern Ireland is Northern Ireland's flag. As for edits or reverts to the article, I don't see that I have been restricted .. certainly not any more than your good self. --Setanta 17:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get a consensus Setanta. Edit warring is not the answer, never was & never will be. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's pretty hard to even think about a consensus, considering every single edit or compromise I make is simply deleted - even to the point of me being accused of vandalism! I don't recall suggesting that edit warring was the answer to anything. --Setanta 18:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Have you been offering your compromises on the talk-page (only)? GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. As far as I'm aware, I've used a combination of being bold and discussing the issue on the talk page. --Setanta 19:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Setanta, can I ask you what you think of the proposal first put forward by Matt Lewis in July at Template talk:Country data Northern Ireland. I confess I am no expert on N.Ireland, but I believe this could solve the problem of N.Ireland having no flag to represent it on wiki. I have made a comment at that article. Cheers. Titch Tucker (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Titch I'm just here to respond to a couple of messages on my talk page, but thanks for the notification. I'll be sure to look it up when I have a bit more time, later.

I'd just like to say for now though, that Northern Ireland does have a flag to represent it on Wikipedia. The problem is that some editors feel that they must take offence at it, and must remove it from the 'pedia because of that. --Setanta 19:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AE

You are once again being discussed on AE, I invite you to comment, lest sanctions be leveled without your input.--Tznkai (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joy.

So, are you indicating, by this comment, that sanctions are definitely going to be made against me if I do not comment? Would it be worth my while even commenting..? I'll have a gander shortly - thanks for the notification. :) --Setanta 16:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland naming dispute compromise proposal

You may be interested in an all-encompassing compromise proposal tabled in respect of the Ireland naming dispute at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force#Appeal_for_an_all-encompassing_solution Mooretwin (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AE Report

I have filed a report here because of you reverts and the tone on the talk page. Please read the talk page guidlines, and please be a bit more civil with editors, there is no need for your comments. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong with my "tone". You were also possibly in breach of the spirit of the Arbcom. Feel free to read and respond to the comments I made there. --Setanta 15:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought

From what I'm reading, the meaning of Sinn Féin is fairly obvious to those who are familiar with the Troubles. However, remember, we're not writing articles for experts, we're writing it for someone who has no idea about the Troubles, like I was, before I got roped into all of this by volunteering to mentor someone. Providing refs, especially simple ones like this [2] is useful to someone who doesn't know the whole situation, and helps us neutrals out.. That's why providing it is useful for us clueless Yanks who don't know jack about things.

Also, Domer is right that the behaviour could use a bit of a spruce up. It's the easiest way to get in trouble and reignite all the sniping and name calling, and quite frankly, I think you, me, Domer, everyone, have had more then enough of THAT for some time to come.

Now, Domer is right that you violated the parole on the Troubles... but this time, I'm going to let it go, because well, unlike others involved here, I haven't seen any problematic behaviour from you in a while up till now. But try to take my advice to heart about making articles useful for people like me (well, not like ME, but I think you have a clue what I mean ;) ).

Have a happy and safe Christmas season. SirFozzie (talk) 09:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, SirFozzie, I see little, if any, difference between "we ourselves" and "ourselves alone" - given the context! It seems to me to be splitting hairs to some extent. I don't see the need to litter the article with multiple citations and attempting to provide citations for the suggestion that the sky is blue.

I don't see any problem with my behaviour either.

I do appreciate what I regard as a logical approach to this case by you. I've expanded on all of these comments and more on the arbcom request itself.

Have a good one yourself! If I suggested that I hope you get lots of socks this Christmas, you might take that the wrong way! Although.. I actually need socks this year! :) --Setanta 16:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That you don't see any difference between "we ourselves" and "ourselves alone" is really not our concern. That it is not the correct translations, and you added it known this dose concern us. Now when you try to add incorrect information it will be challanged and removed. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 18:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That you think I don't see any difference between "we ourselves" and "ourselves alone" is really not our concern. However, since you brought it up, perhaps you would care to explain the difference as you see it.

When you try to add incorrect information, or remove correct information, it will be challenged and removed (or re-added). --Setanta 20:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Christmas

Thanks for the Christmas wishes, I wish you and yours all the best for Christmas and New Year. BigDunc^Talk 12:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categories ...

Hello. Hope you're well and that you had a nice Xmas. You nominated Category:Loyalists imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict, Category:People imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict and Category:Republicans imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict to be speedily renamed last month. You may have missed it, but they were knocked back. If you'd still like to have them renamed - and why not? the article is The Troubles - you'd need to do a full CfD nomination. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalism to your userpage

While checking to see that the illiterate's vandalism to your userpage was cleaned up, I discovered said page. You're the first left-of-center Unionist (U.K. sense) I've ever encountered. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC) (unionist only in the U.S. sense; republican only in the Irish sense)[reply]

It appears the IP hates us both with the same venom :) BigDunc^Talk 22:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounded like a looper to me - a real extremist! --Setanta 10:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked II

You are blocked for 48 hours for edit warring on User:Keithgreer/User Devolution, as explained at WP:ANI#User:Setanta747. Sandstein 18:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought, why not create your own userbox, based on User:Keithgreer/User Devolution, at User:Setanta747/User Devolution? You could use the flags of your choice, and I'd be willing to (semi-) protect it if you have concerns over edit warring? --Jza84 | Talk 19:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After further discussion on the above ANI thread, I've extended your block to reinstate Black Kite's previous 1-week block. This was reduced on the understanding that you would stay out of conflict on 'Troubles'-related subjects, which unfortunately you have not been able to do. You can ask for independent review by using the {{unblock}} template. EyeSerene^talk 20:26, 7 January 2009 (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).

Setanta747 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As usual, troublemakers being the first to complain, get someone blocked. Please see my comments and the text copied from the complaint below for rationale as to my unblocking.

Decline reason:

The first line of your "comments" is "Firstly, may I state what a waste of time this bullshit is." And that's really as far as I had to read. Abusive unblock requests are never granted. — Smashville^talk 17:03, 8 January 2009 (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 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).

Setanta747 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Unfortunately someone took exception my opinion, or to my use of a swear word perhaps. Wikipedia is not censored and I am not censoring myself. I have an opinion and I am expressing my opinion. I am an honest person and I will not be dictated to by thought police. I would appreciate a more mature admin actually taking a look at what I have taken the time to present in my defence (see below) and not simply dismissing me off-hand. Thank you.

Decline reason:

You're welcome. Crudeness is not a useful tool when you're asking admins to act on your behalf. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:23, 9 January 2009 (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.

--Setanta 15:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion copied from complaint

As I cannot pass comment on the actual complaint, having been blocked before I was notified of any such complaint, I was not able to counter-argue or state my case. Thus, I have copied and pasted the text from the discussion below.

I was directed this way by an admin who refused to act due to a "conflict of interest." This user is engaging in Tendentious editing over at User:Keithgreer/User Devolution and has broken the 3RR rule, ignoring an attempts on my part to start a discussion on his talk page. (He is simply reverting those too.) The user has performed over 12 reverts on this page over the same matter and refuses to engage in discussion. He has been blocked before for this type of behaviour and has not learned to either stop edit warring or stop tendentious editing. He has also started edit warring at The Twelfth and regularly edit wars in order to push his own pov. Can he please be blocked, so that the disruptive editing can stop?78.16.30.201 (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very odd, this dispute, but Setanta747 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaging in longterm edit warring at User:Keithgreer/User Devolution (edit | [[Talk:User:Keithgreer/User Devolution|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and has already been blocked in the past for editwarring on templates. I've blocked him for 48 hours without first notifying him of this thread, since he apparently does not want to be contacted about this. The reporting IP is likely another of the longterm edit warriors on that page; I've blocked it for 24 hours. Sandstein 18:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the edit history of User:Keithgreer/User Devolution and the contribs of User:O Fenian and the IPs involved (78.16.233.121, 78.16.36.214 and 78.16.30.201), I'm hearing some quacking. However, I'm concerned that Setanta747 seems to be unable to leave it up to User:Keithgreer as to whether or not they agree with the change to their userbox, and at the obsessive behaviour demonstrated in edit-warring over such a politically-charged subject as the flag of Northern Ireland given Setanta747's previous record in this area and their awareness of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. I have no argument with the IP 3RR block, but I think there may be a case for reinstating Black Kite's 1-week block on Setanta747 (which was provisionally unblocked early). EyeSerene^talk 18:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I edit from British Telecom IPs, not ones in Ireland. O Fenian (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify? BT Ireland have BT ips in Ireland, and have been used by Wikipéire (talk · contribs) in the past. --Jza84 | Talk 19:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not in Ireland. Given the tendentious, incorrect, and sometimes offensive Loyalist-agenda driven edits that Setanta747 makes, it is hardly surprising more than one Irish person may revert him. O Fenian (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that O Fenian is not Wikipeire. (This is per a private Checkuser I asked for about various issues in this area) SirFozzie (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, though being involved I won't re-instate the block myself, that needs to be done by an uninvolved admin. It is certainly actionable under the remedies of the ArbCom ruling. Black Kite 18:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like modifying another admin's actions without very good reason, so I've asked Sandstein if he'll take another look at the block length. And I apologise to O Fenian for apparently putting two and two together and making five (some of Wikipeire's socks were in the 78.16.xx range though, so maybe that was the quacking I heard!). EyeSerene^talk 19:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point me to the relevant ArbCom remedy or other sanction that Setanta747 violated through his conduct? The link by Black Kite above goes to a proposed decision. Sandstein 19:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is on probation according to this log, and he has also been edit warring on The Twelfth to restore his version, 1, 2, 3. O Fenian (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the log O Fenian has linked to shows a one-year probation from April 2008, and also has two previous rv blocks recorded (for 48 and 72-hours respectively). I know I'm being lazy by not providing diffs, but ctrl+F 'setanta747' on the page will get you to the relevant posts. EyeSerene^talk 20:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm from continental Europe, so bear with me: how is User:Keithgreer/User Devolution related to The Troubles? It seems to be about the UK, not Ireland. – With respect to the Twelfth edit warring, I don't think a lengthening of the block is needed at this point, but I won't object to other admins lengthening it. Sandstein 19:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, the edit-war has been over substituting various images of the Flag of Northern Ireland into a userbox. The flag issue is politically-charged, mainly because the various flags used over the years have become associated with sectarian positions and are therefore held by some parts of the community not to represent other parts. EyeSerene^talk 20:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well, I'm not convinced that the block needs extending at this point, but if he keeps this up after it expires, then by all means. Sandstein 20:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fer cryin' outloud, this flag nonsense again?--Tznkai (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reblocked Setanta747 for 1 week, per the above (thanks Sandstein!). EyeSerene^talk 20:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I'm still not objecting to someone else lengthening it. Sandstein 20:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to various accusations and summary punishments from above

Firstly, may I state what a waste of time this bullshit is.

Since when were unregistered editors included in the Arbcom? I believe there is precedent for ignoring warring by anon IP editors.

Presumably of course, this unregistered editor has also been blocked from editing as they have effectively shopped themselves for engaging in edit warring. Or is it the case that the squeaky wheel gets the grease as per usual?

Regarding the actual edit war, let's be clear on the facts: KeithGreer created a template which was identical to the one I had enhanced on his user page. I created it as a favour to him, knowing what kind of graphic he would have preferred. I stated in my edit summary that if he didn't like it, he could freely change it back. Note that I suggested he could change it if he didn't like it. Another editor then came along, deciding they didn't like it, and decided to revert the work I had done for Keith. I naturally reverted it.
- Since then, User:O Fenian and this unregistered editor with the IP addresses 78.16.36.214 and 78.16.30.201 have engaged in edit warring over the user page.
- The sole purpose of the unregistered editor has been to edit war over this user page (look at the IP's contribution history), which they extended to, again, solely articles I had edited.[3][4][5] Anyone with a bit of wit might suspect that the whole reason for the existence of this unregistered editor has been to create hassle for one registered user - namely myself. The unregistered editor obviously has experience of Wikipedia, considering knowledge of policy and procedure so this does not exempt the unregistered user from the same punishment doled out to me regarding edit warring. In fact, this is more evidence that the unregistered editor had a specific goal in mind. This might be considered entrapment - not a game I am given to playing.
- Admins will notice how quickly another involved editor ([6], [7], [8], [9]) was to 'discover' this complaint made against me.
- While there appears to be discussion above with regard to the banned editor Wikipéire - something I had been suspicious of myself, by the way - it appears to have been dismissed by SirFozzie. It is not beyond the realms of possibility of course, that the unregistered user has changed address or changed ISP. Neither is it beyond the realms of possibility that the unregistered editor is a sockpuppet of some other past or present editor with a similar wish to remove all references in Wikipedia to the flag of Northern Ireland.
- In fact, almost every edit I have made in the past few weeks on Wikipedia has been reverted by the same three or four editors. I have tried engaging them in dialogue and I'm often simply ignored or team-tagged ([10], [11], [12]).

With regard to the unregistered user's initial complaint, may I remind them that there is precedent set for removing comments from one's own user page. As for the accusation of refusal to engage in discussion, that is entirely incorrect: the unregistered user is perfectly aware of edit comments, yet his only contribution to 'discussion' on the issue with regard to KeithGreer's user page is to ignore good faith and accuse me of vandalism and "misleading edit summary". On the other hand, I have given my reasoning with the following edit summaries:
- Initial edit summary: "changing the left hand side flag - change it back if you prefer"
- "[..]we'll leave that up to Keithgreer to decide" (after User:Ιρλανδία suggested that a flag was "incorrect flag to use")
- "rv unexplained revert" (after a revert by User:Barryob which offered no explanation)
- User:Ιρλανδία claims I offered no explanation to begin with, although I'm sure KeithGreer would understand perfectly - thus my explanation to his second revert of "rv: If you do some research, you will find that this version would most likely be this editor's preferred version"
- Again, User:Barryob reverted, presumably simply because he dislikes a particular flag, and no other reason
  - Note that not one of the users involved in the content dispute on KeithGreer's user page have ever used the template he created (which was changed 'by the back door', as it were).
  - Note also that User:Ιρλανδία has been identified as one of the many sock puppets of User:Wikipéire.
  - Note that after User:Ιρλανδία has been identified and blocked as a sock puppet, the next revert other than the one by User:Barryob is by a user with a similar IP address (User:78.16.233.121) as the unregistered editor who made the complaint against me, just over two weeks later. He also complained initially to User:Jza - the admin who appears to have blocked User:Wikipéire's User:Ιρλανδία account.
  - Note that User:78.16.233.121 edit to the only other article edited by that IP is similar in agenda to the many edits made by User:Wikipéire - that of changing any instance of "Republic of Ireland" to "Ireland" in Wikipedia articles. Check out the contribution histories of any of User:Wikipéire's puppets. At least one of the puppets has communicated on my talk page in a similar manner as the unregistered editor here.
  - A week after we last see User:78.16.233.121, User:O Fenian appears, to take up the disruptive mantle.
  - The buck then passes to this unregistered editor, User:78.16.36.214, whose dynamic IP seems to have changed recently to 78.16.30.201, and who remains unblocked and to edit.

EyeSerene: I would like to know if there was a time limit specified regarding Black Kite's former action against me that specifically suggested to you that you can feel free to extend this block. Because of this charade, I have wasted considerable time in compiling yet another appeal which will presumably be ignored by admins who couldn't be arsed to use common sense, as per usual.. I also have several web tabs open and I can't find the original Black Kite action against me.

Sandstein seems to suggest that he was not convinced that the block needed extending, yet you extended the block anyway. Why was this?

I don't take kindly to your accusation of "obsessive behaviour", particularly in light of the fact that there is so much in Wikipedia I have simply given up on due to the obsessive nature of others and the sheer weight of numbers and solidarity shown. Given the evidence I have presented and the time periods involved, I'm pretty sure I would come out on top with regard to having a more 'normal' and relaxed attitude. I would remind you of a need to not provoke others by calling them names, as is policy in Wikipedia. As an admin, particularly one who has clearly not been able to see the full picture and apply common sense, you should surely adopt a more moderate tone and attitude.

Besides all that, the original arbcom thing against me was a shambles, and I've as yet to come across an admin who is willing to spend the time to investigate that case and get the action revoked.

Sandstein: Your decision not to inform me prior to your action ignores good faith and fair play. This is just not on. How many times have we ignored disruptive unregistered users who continually repeat their actions and cause edit wars? I'm not the only one to have suspected that this unregistered editor, whose sole purpose seems to have been to edit a specific user page of KeithGreer, is a sock puppet of a banned and highly disruptive editor. I certainly have reason to ignore the disruptions, but I don't think that gives you good cause to make a judgement to not pre-inform me about this action, based on your assumption that I "do not want to be contacted". That is simply shocking behaviour and surely not one that any self-respecting, unbiased admin should hold.

What is your rationale behind blocking the unregistered user's dynamic IP for a mere 24 hours, as compared with my own 48 hours?

O Fenian: May I remind you of Wikipedia's policy of NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. I have no "Loyalist agenda" and I find your accusation both "incorrect" and offensive. Do not judge others by the mote in your own eye.

Tznkai: Yes - I can't believe it either. So obsessed are they by it, that they will continually monitor and create edit wars even on user pages in order to have this particular flag removed from Wikipedia.

All this action has done, by the way, is to make me more angry and more determined than ever, and less and less confident in the Wikipedia itself. God alone knows what this systemic bias and incompetence has done for other articles throughout. If Wikipedia wants me to play games, then perhaps that is what I should do. Is this the effect you would like to have on prolific editors of long-standing?

As per usual, of course, because others have whinged and played, articles in need of improvement are now destined to remain inaccurate or biased ([13], [14], [15], [16]). This system is biased in favour of the person who makes a complaint.

May I add that, although User:Helenalex was involved in recent content disagreement in an article relating to this block against me, I found him or her to show a willingness to be communicative, to attempt compromise and to listen. Feel free to compare the dialogue between Helenalex and myself with the lack of dialogue from the unregistered IP etc.

Finally, I'd like to request an admin act on my behalf in any action that is necessary to defend myself against this abuse in the next week, whilst I am currently unable to do anything other than edit this page. I don't know how one goes about flagging down an admin, but I'm sure another admin would know and can place a suitable 'advert' for me in a suitable place. Cheers. --Setanta 12:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Setanta, as suggested above, why not simply create your own box with the flag that you want in it an save all this hassle - you dont want to end up like me and banned from editing any "Troubles" articles for up to two years! Save yerself the hassle and worry mate and create a new box. regards --Vintagekits (talk) 13:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - the original block by myself was on 15 November. (It's actually still on this talkpage). After the discussion at WP:AE, I unblocked you with a warning not to use misleading edit summaries, nor to edit-war over the Ulster Banner. Black Kite 15:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response from EyeSerene

I hope Black Kite has partially answered your question as to why I felt it was necessary to lengthen the block. Essentially I felt that, by edit-warring in such a single-minded way (if I can use that instead of 'obsessive'; I meant no offence by the word and apologise that any was caused), you had breached the conditions that Black Kite placed on your early unblock and were also in breach of the arbcom ruling re Troubles-related subjects. That, taken with your previous 48- and 72-hour edit-warring blocks, seemed to merit something more significant than another 48 hours. There was also some cross-communication between Sandstein and me (you can piece it together if you look at their talkpage), and a little resulting confusion towards the end of the ANI thread, for which I again apologise. I understand that Sandstein's reluctance arose from an unfamiliarity with the NI flags issue, causing them not to realise that the subject was Troubles-related and falls under the relevant arbcom ruling.
The IP was also blocked, as you'll see from the ANI thread, although for only 24 hours (a standard 3RR block). Although I think wikipeire sock activity is quite possible I can't confirm that, becuse I don't have checkuser access.
With the greatest respect, as an experienced user you should have known better than to let yourself get drawn into such a pointless and unproductive edit-war, and one that you must have known was going to rebound on you. At the first sign of trouble you could have taken this to various places - WP:RFPP, ANI, an admin's talk-page, etc. By choosing to hit the revert button, you brought this on yourself. I'm very tempted to delete the userbox entirely, per WP:UBX (Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive.), and things are further complicated by KeithGreer's apparent departure from Wikipedia. However, I'd suggest that Vintagekits suggestion above makes sense. Create one yourself, in your userspace, and if it gets altered stick to one revert and request page protection. EyeSerene^talk 19:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EyeSerene: with regard to "edit warring in such a single-minded way" - no more so surely than the instigators of the 'war' when they (remember - not a one of them actually use the userbox) took exception to the favour I did for a fellow Wikipedian. Again, while you may have toned down your language, your intent and direction of blame remains the same. Remember - I created the edit, in good faith. The three or four editors, none of whom ever used the userbox, who reverted my edit appear to have instigated the edit war.

As far as Black Kite's delayed sanction is concerned, I have not been guilty of "misleading edit summaries" (I'm not sure that I was guilty of that particular accusation, in the first instance, as a matter of fact). So that leaves the idea that I have created an edit war in relation to the Troubles. I was not aware that KeithGreer's userpage was within the remit of the suite of articles related to the Troubles on Wikipedia. You seem to have chosen to believe that this is the case, however. Who am I to question a mighty admin who will often defend their decisions at all costs.

As for the unregistered user, surely you can use common sense, together with the information I provided above, to easily determine that the user's IP is dynamic and that it has changed very recently. In fact, it seems to have changed with rather prudent timing, giving the unregistered user the opportunity to get in one last revert after I had been blocked at his request. Can you not see the gaming that has taken place here?

With respect to you as well, as an experienced user and administrator, is it not possible to apply common sense to this case overall and see the repeat pattern which ALWAYS, without fail, ends with those who would place themselves in the position of my opponent getting their way? Dig deeper and look for the pattern of intransigence, solidarity and gaming. I am less interesting in whining, whinging, wikilawyering, reporting and crawling to teacher than I am in attempting to improve this site and its articles - including balancing articles.

As far as KeithGreer's userspace goes, I'm sure that when he comes back he can determine if he wants to keep the enhancement I made (and feel free to determine for yourself, by the way, which option of graphic you think he might prefer, with a little investigation).

The userbox is not inflammatory or divisive, so you would not have grounds for deleting it. That a userbox gives a particular political ideology is not actually the issue. The issue is that a small, but active, minority of editors are determined to exclude, as much as possible, any reference to or images of the flag of Northern Ireland from Wikipedia. You pointed out yourself how "pointless" and "unproductive" this edit war was... and I had actually proceeded (to revert to the version I had created) on the basis that a friendly gesture to a fellow editor would be completely ignored and NOT made such a big fuss out of. The obsessive nature of those determined to eradicate a certain flag image from Wikipedia is surely highlighted by this particular case. What other possible motive might any of the editors involved have for reverting other than that they do not like it? As far as I'm aware, Wikipedia suggests that this isn't good enough reason to delete material. It is surely illogical then, to suddenly support the opposite of what Wikipedia has suggested.

I thank you for taking the time to read through what I have said here. I appeal to you, however, to read through again and examine carefully what I have said and the various links I have given to support my case, and reconsider after you take some time to digest the information. Cheers. --Setanta 15:24, 9 January 2009 (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).

Setanta747 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

"You're welcome. Crudeness is not a useful tool when you're asking admins to act on your behalf" is not a reason for decline. My asking for an admin to act on my behalf is a separate request from this unblock request. I welcome an admin who doesn't particularly mind a bit of "crudeness" to take up the challenge and actually do some work, instead of time-wasting and sarcastic knock-backs from childish admins. Thank you.

Decline reason:

After reading through the circumstances that surrounded this block as well as the admin noticeboard records, the article in question as well as the Arbcom ruling that governed the blocks, I'm going to decline your unblock request at this time. It seems almost ridiculous to even entertain the possibility that your actions took place with any less than full knowledge of their consequences. You seem very quick to point out the faults of other editors and very slow (if at all) to admit to your own mistakes and improper behavior. The edit warring as well as the blatant lack of accountability are enough for me to be comfortable with this block remaining in place. — Trusilver 17:17, 9 January 2009 (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 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).

Setanta747 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

With respect, I disagree with the rationale behind the decline, as I have explained below. Please consider these points below. It is not necessary to react or decide immediately - I would rather the evidence be considered carefully (as Trusilver has done) before a decision is made either way. I would appreciate some dialogue on this. There is good reason, I believe, to lift this block at least temporarily, and treat this as an incident. If some kind of investigation or examination could take place, I'd be only too happy to accept any advice and/or punishment, as such, as can be agreed by some non-involved admins, should it be decided that advice and/or punishment be necessary. I would also like to use this opportunity, as it is the only page I can currently access, to ask again for admin assistance. Thanks for indulging me.

Decline reason:

I should just say "Tl;DR", since it's your fault that this is unconscionably long, but I did give it a read-through anyways. I see nothing in your protestations that admits fault. I endorse EyeSerene's commentary on the process and the correctness of this block. And I agree with you: this was a waste of my time. — Jclemens (talk) 18:38, 11 January 2009 (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.

My thanks to the above admin, Trusilver, for taking the time to go through the evidence I have compiled. While I agree I may have problems in the past with regard to communication, I had made a concerted effort in the last year or so to ensure that I followed procedure with regard to communication on talk pages and through edit summaries. This appears to have made no difference. So I essentially disagree with the admin, with respect, in regard to this particular incident. The complaint was made, by an unregistered user who may or may not be a sockpuppet, over the issue of an edit to an editor's userspace page.

If the facts are considered carefully, along with the policy regarding edit warring, one can see that reasonable explanation was given, by me, for the initial edit. No reasonable explanation was given for any of the subsequent reverts by the other three or four editors involved and no attempt was made, by them, to communicate their reason for reverting my edit. In other words, they did not follow proper procedure while, so far as I was aware, I was. So, as far as I was aware, any consequences as noted above, I had probably assumed would be carried out against the intransigence of editors who offered no explanation and did not follow Wikipedia policy: I had assumed that common sense might be applied.

Note that Wikipedia policy specifically states reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring;.

I had initially made the change to the user's page as a favour in good faith. Note that Wikipedia policy specifically states good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Yet this is the very rationale under which my edit was reverted. Note again, where policy states A content revert intentionally reverses changes made in good faith by another editor, rather than improving upon the edit or working with the editor to resolve the dispute. Again, I cannot see any other rationale behind the reverts by other editors to this particular page than I don't like it. Where is the accountability with regard to that?

Further, no warning was given in this instance. While I am obviously aware of the policy regarding edit warring, as the policy itself states, "edit-warring" is a concept about which reasonable people may disagree. It then states, administrators must warn users in good standing before blocking them for edit-warring.

The policy states that experienced editors should be "encouraged to seek dispute resolution should discussion be insufficient to resolve the issue." No such attempt was made by any administrator.

The unregistered user is afforded protection by the fact that a) they made sure to sneak in last-minute reverts prior to any punishment being given, though after they had complained; b) they have the advantage of not being subject to Arbcom to to their anonymity provided by their dynamic IP address; c) they may continue to cause edit wars throughout Wikipedia in relation to these articles without fear of the consequences (unlike a registered editor whose history, good or bad, is available for all to see).

I believe that the unregistered editor is fully aware of all of this and more, and that they were gaming the system with pure, irrational intransigence, as evidenced by the complete lack of rationale shown by the comments in their edit summaries on the affected page.

Once again, and possibly the most damning evidence I have to present here, is the very raison d'être of the unregistered user was specifically to block the editing efforts of one specific editor - myself. A quick look at the edit history of the IP, barring one edit from months ago which was probably made by a completely different person, will confirm this without a doubt.

I would consider this to be the most serious offence in regard to this case - a person whose sole existence on Wikipedia is to intentionally frustrate one specific editor's efforts to improve the Wikipedia community and the articles presented. This is based specifically, quite obviously, on the unregistered editor's personal political ideology. While each of us, as individuals, have our own political ideologies and particularly in areas of contention this may attract a lot of perhaps needless and useless debate or argument over time, this is not the sole intention of most registered editors. It certainly is the case with the unregistered user who made the complaint - complaint and edit warring campaign motivated solely by their obvious dislike of a particular editor based on political viewpoint.

So yes - while I may be quick to point out the faults of another editor, the improper behaviour of the particular editor who lodged the complaint and disrupted Wikipedia so well, goes to the very heart of why this editor is being punished. In essence, they appear to have won the game they were playing, and no administrator seems prepared to accept the very obvious facts. Perhaps I am not very good at presenting them. Hopefully at least one admin will be able to see through the smoke-screen and consider the facts I have presented here, and will be willing to work with me instead of simply taking the easy route of working against this most foul and crude editor with an edit warring history. --Setanta 07:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further response from EyeSerene

Setanta, I agree with most of your assertions (and always have). You were clearly being baited, the IP editor(s) have gamed the system to some extent, and I have no reason to disbelieve your assertion that you were the target. However, the reason you were blocked too is that you allowed yourself to get dragged in to their game by edit-warring yourself. It's your unwillingness to acknowledge this that seems to be the sticking point, and this is why no-one has yet accepted your unblock request. I'm happy to accept in good faith your assertion that you made the original change to KeithGreer's userbox with his knowledge and permission, but as I pointed out in my earlier post, there were a number of alternative courses of action you could have taken once your edit was reverted (also see WP:BRD), none of which would have resulted in sanctions on your account. I understand why you feel unjustly singled out, but until you accept that the IP was only successful in their disruption because of the nature of your response, I don't think we're going to get anywhere. Established editors are held to higher standards of behaviour than anons, because they're expected to know how Wikipedia works and to lead by example. Admittedly talk-page discussion over the initial reversion may not have helped in this case given the probable nature of the IP's agenda, but it should have at least been attempted and would have explicitly demonstrated your good-faith and reluctance to edit-war. To clarify the immediate issue: unblock requests should address the specific behaviour (ie your part in the edit-war) that led to the block; what an unblocking admin wants to see is that you understand why your response to the IP's undoubted bad behaviour was also a problem, and that you won't react the same way in the event of similar provocation in the future. I really hope this helps to point you in the right direction, because I believe you are a benefit to Wikipedia and don't wish to see any good editor excluded from the site. EyeSerene^talk 10:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EyeSerene, thank you for acknowledging and humanising this procedure - I appreciate both that and your willingness to engage me in dialogue and explain your position (as an admin etc) further. You have given me food for thought and I will go away and think about what you have said. For now, I will leave you with the thought you have brought up yourself: that WP:BRD would note have worked and, in fact, was attempted by me in the edit summary. It had also been attempted by me in the past with regard to, for example the template Template:IrishL (see that template's talk page). You can see, in that example, that no progress has been made and that intransigence has won out. I am not given easily to playing games and, in fact, resent them, due to being of a straightforward and honest nature.

It seems to me that editing has become a pointless exercise because I, quite obviously, have those editors (registered and unregistered alike) who are lined up and watching, ready to play that game and complain.. resulting in yet another block on the victim and another pointless discussion about it which never satisfies. While this is confined to these articles relating, in any small way, to the Troubles, it seems that this is extending to issues which I wouldn't naturally assume to be regarded as controversial (and certainly aren't regarded as such in the place in which the Troubles actually took place).

With the above paragraph in mind, I'm sure you can appreciate how much effort it can be for a volunteer such as myself to make a single, even innocuous, edit.. and how unattractive that prospect can be. I don't want to get into discussions for pages and pages about whether or not the sky is blue just because an editor doesn't like the colour blue. I especially dislike this oppressive assassination campaign in which unregistered and anonymous persons of dubious connection can come in and (ab)use the system against me. What it suggests to me is that I would be better off being that person - the anonymous, dynamic assassin, playing a Game and slowly having my will done, to the detriment of Wikipedia in terms of quality of articles and time wasted by otherwise reasonable people.

I didn't register an account here with a view to understanding all aspects of policy and strictly adhering to it at each and every turn. I joined in order to add to Wikipedia in terms of style and content. Others more experienced or more 'powerful' can worry about cleaning up anything I have not executed quite correctly, while I do my best to apply what I have learned, of course. Not long after I joined, I underwent somewhat of a baptism by fire when I became involved in a dispute with a now-departed admin. I learned from that experience and certainly became friendly enough with the admin. The dispute itself was quickly and amicably resolved with a combination of capacity to learn on my part, willingness to be patient and teach on the part of the admin, and compromise and imagination on the part of us both. Since then I have had other run-ins which have been sensible and quickly resolved by either compromise or by either myself or the other party accepting the validity of the other's argument.

I appreciate, obviously, that there will be times when dispute cannot be avoided in one of the areas of my personal interest, given the nature of diametrically-opposed political positions, propaganda and certain intransigent attitudes. Given the very silly rationale behind reverting the edit I had made to KG's userspace, I had not considered it to be a problem. As Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, I had thought that common sense might prevail over a strict adherence to written policies or guidelines.

So, with a situation whereby a good faith editor is punished (even for being provoked) and the perpetrator gets away scot-free, thus necessitating much time discussing the occurrence and making presentations (not to mention your own time taken to respond), thereby removing any possibility of adding to the site (a 'privilege' which is already extremely restricted due to a shaky arbcom, wiki-stalking, the reverting of almost every edit you make, and a veritable war of attrition), I am again feeling extremely jaded. I'm even left wondering if typing these few paragraphs is worth anything. In fact, in the last few months, this (along with the debate on the name of the Republic of Ireland) is probably the biggest input I've made.. reflecting both how difficult it has become and how demotivated I have become.

I have said before that this issue is bigger than simply an 'edit war'. Yet that is what it is constantly reduced to. And every single time, the progress the victim sought is reverted, whether that progress is 'right' or 'wrong'. Now one way of breaking out of this cycle is to remove oneself from it. I strongly believe that this will end up being the case for this particular editor, as it has been for others and that, due only to systemic bias, those who are intransigent and determined who are in the greater number will win this particular 'war'.

Make no mistake - while it is not a war I had intended to get involved in, it is a war. You know what kind of war it is. The moderates, and I include myself amongst them, haven't the stomach to keep going over the same old battles over and over and as a result, Wikipedia will end up showing a very one-sided version of events full of generalisations, suppositions and errors. --Setanta 11:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You make some very pertinent observations on the way Wikipedia can be hijacked by those with a specific viewpoint; countering this requires the sustained efforts of editors who are willing to compromise, work within policy and refuse to respond to provocation. Unfortunately in this instance your momentary lapse of judgement made you the 'bad guy' too, and WP:3RR is seen as a bright line. Clear violations will almost always lead to blocks regardless of what else has gone on.

I do believe Wikipedia is gradually coming to terms with dealing with persistent POV-pushing; it's taken time, and there have tragically been many good editors lost along the way, but there's far less of a tolerance for such behaviour than there once was. I'm also involved as an admin in watching over some of the Balkans-related articles (as you can imagine another highly politically-charged area), and a zero-tolerance approach to disruption, backed by WP:ARBMAC, seems to be working reasonably well. However, until as a community we come up with a better way for dealing with users with an agenda, every so often editors are obliged to jump through the hoops of dispute resolution even though they strongly suspect, as did you, that it's a pointless exercise. I appreciate that you have discussed your edits (per Template talk:IrishL), but again there you've been reverting (as have others) while discussion - however apparently fuitless - was ongoing. Dispute resolution lists some measures to help resolve such disputes; reversion is never one of them ;) Incidentally, for now I've removed the image from the infobox completely until talk-page consensus can be reached. I have also reverted KeithGreer's userbox back to the original version and protected the page; I suspect this won't entirely please you, but it puts us back to the default position and in KeithGreer's absence is the only fair remedy I can think of - should they return and wish to comment, I'm happy to make further changes in the light of that. EyeSerene^talk 13:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EyeSerene this is not just about KeithGreer's userbox. There was also the breech of AE sanctions on the Sinn Féin article limiting editors to 1RR, in addition to Setanta personal sanctions of 1RR. We also had a breech of both AE Sanctions on The Twelfth, on the issue of the flag, they know full well its a no no. As pointed out by Black Kite "all Troubles editors should know by now that edit-warring over the Ulster Banner is a guaranteed way to get yourself a short holiday from editing." Tznkai nailed it when they commented above "Fer cryin' outloud, this flag nonsense again?" Now on the catch cry of Tag Teams provide DIFFS that show that editors are tag teaming, not just that disagree with you. As one edtor has been warned about this accusation, Setanta you need to be told also. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I "need" to be told fuck all by the likes of yourself, Domer: why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? I consider the tone in your reply above to be caustic, aggressive, patronising and unecessary.

For "all Troubles editors should know by now that edit-warring over the Ulster Banner is a guaranteed way to get yourself a short holiday from editing", read "anyone who attempts to insert the flag of Northern Ireland into any article that mentions Northern Ireland, other than articles on football, is bound to be dismissed as a loyalist".

After all, what 'recognition' could a republican ever give to the flag of a country s/he refuses to recognise to begin with. Except, of course, when said flag (or country) is shown in a bad light (in this case, attached rather dismissively in inaccurately to Loyalism - ie. Loyalist terrorist pricks).

As EyeSerene points out, discussion on the issue has been fruitless and those with their agenda continue to get their way (I can tell the state of various articles without even having to look them up, including the IrishL template... uncanny, eh?). I have no stomach for this 'dispute resolution' any longer - I am not a "Troubles editor" - I am just an editor.

Admins and fellow Wikipedians would do well to note my conflict resolution record with other editors on issues not relating to (what is loosely described here as) 'the Troubles'.

This latest block on me was farcical. There is no consistency in Wikipedia. There is far too much Wikilawyering. Non of that is for me. I do appreciate EyeSerene's logical approach to the matter however. --Setanta --90.210.214.15 (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request assistance

{{Helpme}} --Setanta 07:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. You will need to do another unblock request to get the attention of an admin. Best regards. --Chasingsol ^(talk) 08:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland naming question

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Ireland flag in Northern Ireland article

Hello,

Please could you take a look at my edit here. I feel this is a reasonable compromise edit, but is being reverted without proper discussion here.

Regards 89.217.188.221 (talk) 01:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Military history of the peoples of Britain

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Military history of the peoples of Britain, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Orphan page

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. MITH 16:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RCC or CC

You took part in Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 3#REQUESTED MOVE to Catholic Church there is a new requested move see Talk:Catholic Church#Requested Move --PBS (talk) 08:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where was ya?

Holy smokers & jumpin' junipers, where've ya been all these weeks? I remember meeting ya before, but can't quite remember where. GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Shea Campbell

I have nominated Shea Campbell, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shea Campbell. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Steve-Ho (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Service awards proposal

Hello, Setanta747! I noticed you display a service award, and would like to invite you to join the discussion over a proposed revamping of the awards.

If you have any opinions on the proposal, please participate in the discussion. Thanks! — the Man in Question (in question) 04:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Terrorism - Welcome Back!

Welcome back from Wiki Project Terrorism! I'm Katarighe, a Wikipedian member since 2009. I'm currently the successor of Sherurcij in September because, he has not edited Wikipedia using this account for a considerable amount of time since May 2010. We are trying to renovate the new WP page this fall 2011 and we look forward this month whats next. If you are interested, start the renovation with us and new awards on contributing terrorism are coming soon. The WP terrorism newsletter begins January 2012. See you on October for the updates on WP terrorism. I will send this message next month about the updates. Good Luck.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Terrorism at 22:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Hi

When I first dabbled in Wikipedia some weird transient user puzzled me by claiming I was 'Mal' talk. Meant nothing to me then, but now maybe it had something to do with the troubles you had. Anyway, it's still a weird place here at times. Regards.--Flexdream (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marillion discography

Just wanted to let you and hope you don't mind that I used some parts of your Marillion discography for the article Assassing. --Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 12:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Setanta747/Northern Ireland

User:Setanta747/Northern Ireland, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Setanta747/Northern Ireland and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Setanta747/Northern Ireland during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge

Hi, at Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge we're striving to bring about 10,000 article improvements and creations for the UK and Ireland and inspire others to create more content. In order to achieve this we need diversity of content, in all parts of the UK and Ireland on all topics. Eventually a regional contest will be held for all parts of the British Isles, like they were for Wales and the Wedt Country. We currently have just over 1900 articles and need contributors! If you think you'd be interested in collaborating on this and helping reach the target quicker, please sign up and begin listing your entries there as soon as possible! Thanks.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]