User talk:Domer48/Archive 3

Apologies

My apologies for getting heated, but I don't like it beint met with mindless wiki policy when we could speak to each other on talk pages or simply by putting our point across. No need for these semi-template warnings and reversions. NewIreland2009 (talk) 12:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

I've also reported you here. Regards. Mooretwin (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which has been rejected again. --Domer48'fenian' 11:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up your link - looks like you've had an adventure! Re the Kenworthy quote, the WoI article seems to be weak on the role played by British public opinion turning against B&T activities. Perhaps that aspect of the article could be developed? Also, the departure of Bonar Law from the British cabinet. Bonar Law & Lord French - two ferocious hardliners at the heart of power, both of them staunch Irish Loyalists. Pat Muldowney (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An adventure! For a time the only articles I edited was WP:AE and WP:ANI. Re the Kenworthy quote, did you get what I was saying about no context? It would be like only quoting one side in the treaty debate, and quoting an answer to a question without tell anyone what the question was. Have you read the Michael Farrell book, "Arming the Protestants?" There is some information on British Public Opinion, and how the government reacted to it. It also give a lot of information on the British governments policies and activities. Might be worth a read. --Domer48'fenian' 21:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re Kenworthy: it seemed completely clear to me. Which proves nothing, of course; it has to be clear to reader. Thanks for ref, Pat Muldowney (talk) 08:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it in one.--Domer48'fenian' 12:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Troubles

Please note: All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related.

You and Moortwin have reverted each other than once today. As you were quick to notify me the article is under arbcom and a 1RR rule. You are now violating that ruling. --Blowdart | talk 23:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blowdart as per your contrabution to the link below, you used the same diff twice to suggest I breeched 1RR, please pay more attention. As you were quick to notify me of a breech I did not make, your very slow to correct yourself having had it brought to your attention. --Domer48'fenian' 11:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AE--Tznkai (talk) 06:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block

{{gblock|edit warring in violation of reversion restriction on The Troubles|24 hours}} See also WP:AE--Tznkai (talk) 00:12, 6 February 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).

Domer48 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As I’ve stated on WP:AE I have no intension of breeching WP:1RR, and never had any intension. Blocks are designed to be preventative, not punitive and I’ve actively promoted WP:1RR and not breeched them in any way in violation of reversion restriction on The Troubles. This block is uncalled for and unnecessary as it simply prohibits me from editing, is added to my block log and designed to prevent actions I was not engaged in.

Decline reason:

The other user blocked has also had the unblock declined; the block was necessary in order to prevent disruption. — Stifle (talk) 12:28, 6 February 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).

Domer48 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

According to WP:GAB, Editors may be blocked from editing by Wikipedia administrators to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. Blocks are lifted if they are not (or no longer) necessary to prevent such damage or disruption. The stated reason for the block was edit warring in violation of reversion restriction on The Troubles. As I have illustrated on WP:AE, I have not breeched any sanctions, therefore the block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption. In addition, the block is not necessary because I have stated clearly and unambiguously that I will not, have not and have no intension of editing in any way to damage or disrupt Wikipedia. Blocks are not intended for use in retaliation, as punishment, or where there is no current conduct issue which is of concern. The stated reason for declining my unblock request was; The other user blocked has also had the unblock declined; the block was necessary in order to prevent disruption, both of which are not supported by any reading of policy and can only be considered so sort of punishment.

Decline reason:

All editors who have commented on your conduct at Wikipedia:AE#Mooretwin agree that it was sanctionable. Because you do not at least agree to cease with that conduct, your block is hereby endorsed. —  Sandstein  16:48, 6 February 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.

Illustrating from WP:AE that I did not breech 1RR; I removed some text which was not mentioned in the article here Mooretwin then reverted me here this is their first revert. I then made my first revert here and was again reverted by Mooretwin here, this being their second revert. Dunc, then reverted Mooretwin here, this being Dunc’s first revert. Mooretwin then reverted for the third time here.

My clear and unambiguous statement from WP:AE; I have no intension of knowingly breeching AE sanctions, and civility is not an issue with me. I just hope that editors lose the confrontational tone and attitude, and try to be a bit more civil with each other. If I can offer any advice to Admin’s, it would be to tackle the issues of civility more, and take a more active interest in how subjects are discussed on talk pages.

Blowdart on WP:AE accepting that I did not breech 1RR, and that the mistakenly used the same diff twice, “I did? I was thought I was being darned careful too, but you're right. My sincere apologies…”

Dunc's extended block

At least Dunc has something to be blocked for now! The Links provided by Tznkai here and here show us nothing to warrant a block! But why show the violation in that format Tznkai? Would these links here and here not be a better way of showing the diff's. The problem obviously being they show no breech of AE sanctions at all.

Now you did the same with me by showing my edits like this and this but you could not manage to even get that right. Now your first diff was for this edit. Your comments were "BigDunc has earned himself a short block. Unsure about Domer, since even partial RVs are better than reverts." An honest question, do you know what a revert is? Do you know the difference between a revert and a re-revert? The 1RR apply to reverting the same edit twice. I dose not mean, nor ever has ment 1 revert per page regardless of the edit.

But your not alone in this lack of understanding, PhilKnight is in the same boat.

On the subject of Domer48 exceeding 1RR, I think s/he did:
PhilKnight (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised that PhilKnight closed the discussion, not long after. Tznkai, the next time you ask Phil to look over a discussion, ask them to look over the policies also, it might help.

Now both Dunc and my unblock requests were both declined. A quick look at the reason given is enough to illustrate the problems Editors have with Admin's. They ride rough shod over our own policies, on the grounds that they are protecting and enforcing policies.

Now am I condoning Dunc's comments, NO. But I can understand why he made them, and he dose have a point! --Domer48'fenian' 21:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have also noted Decon's comments, who like both Tznkai and Phil seems to have a problem understanding what a revert is, but knows alot about edit wars. Why not write an article on all the excuses you can use not to unblock an editor, regardless of policy.

Dunc a chara, an té nach bhuil láidir ní foláir dhó bheith glic! One for Decon's how to win a revert war? --Domer48'fenian' 23:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remove talk page comments

Don't remove mine thanks ~ R.T.G 23:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. When writing on a talk page, certain approaches are counter-productive, while others facilitate good editing. The prime values of the talk page are communication, courtesy and consideration.--Domer48'fenian' 00:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Rebel Music

I have to admit that page is a royal mess. How would you feel if the lists were culled to "notable" groups/songs (ie. those with wikipedia pages? ). Those without pages of course have no citations to assert their status as rebel groups or songs. As for Whiskey in the Jar, I should have thought some more - but could you add a suitable citation there for Captain Farrell? Whilst of course it's a matter of fact that the government (and military) at the time were British, however having gone through that ethno malarkey I'd think better citations might be in order and I assume you have a copy of the book you refer to, so you can cite with page numbers? --Blowdart | talk 14:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reference it now, we must have cross posted as I was commenting on your talk page. --Domer48'fenian' 14:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aye sorry about the other thing, I really did think it had gone past 1RR. I think it does illustrate how 1RR isn't a solution, but anyway *shrug*. Do you think a clean-up on the music page is in order? It's just too many redlinks and no real proof! --Blowdart | talk 14:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's an article I've said I'd do but just keep putting it on the long finger. I have a copy of Celtic & Ireland in Song and Story compiled by Derek Warfield and Raymond Daly, (page 370-71 is on Whiskey in the Jar) but I'd really need to get the Alan Lomax's The Folk Songs of North America for secondary sourcing. But your right it's a bit of a mess. --Domer48'fenian' 14:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear god; and I thought 4 shelves of technical books was bad :) --Blowdart | talk 15:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Dallas

Regarding this mans membership of the UVF,I have read the quoted book and consulted the CAIN website I think its fair to say this ascertain this is correct though I understand the controversy of this discription.

UDR - links

Please restore the National Archives reference - it supports the catalogue reference given in the text (not the detail in full I grant), this allows people to actually check against the original document, rather than relying on the versions posted by third parties.

Any cahnce you could mark links which seem to have died with {{deadlink}} and leave them for a few days, rather than delting them straight off, or spend a bit of time yourself trying to find the new url. The MOD link took under a minute to find the new url, but it's much harder to fix when the ref has been completely deleted. David Underdown (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm making a move for the GA status, the referencing format is done this way. I'll add the {{deadlink}} tag. How dose the National Archives reference support the text or allow people to actually check against the original document?--Domer48'fenian' 20:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is absoutely standard to use named refs etc, rather than repeating identical refs over and over again. The TNA ref means people can actually go to Kew and order up the original document and see the original paper copy for themselves. David Underdown (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further on the TNA ref, the catalogue page has a button entitled "request this" which gives you the option to request digital copies (for a fee admittedly), or to pre-request the document so it's immediately available on one's arrival in the reading room at Kew [1]. On another subject, I think it would have been better for you to get someone uninvolved to decide if Mooretwin's post on talk:USC constituted a personal attack and a breach of the talkpage guidelines. By doing it yourself you run the risk of people perceiving (no matter what your actual intentions, or even the rights and wrongs) that you are trying to close down debate on your edits, which can only raise tensions. It really would be helpful if you gave some notice of proposed edits on such contentious pages. David Underdown (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that David, it will help. On Mooretwin I think your right, better of just ignoring it. --Domer48'fenian' 15:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Talk:Ulster_Defence_Regiment#Protected_again. Black Kite 10:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Logging in anonymously

Most articles I've edited have been rather timid in nature, of a local interest and not of the grander scale of some of the Irish related articles here. I stay away from the major articles simply because I don't like getting dragged into fisticuffs... Like we have here. Can we not just let the matter drop? I've reverted some of my edits on the Dunmanway talk but the original point is valid and raised before so shouldn't be dismissed.

Perhaps if everyone stopped accusing each other of trolling and 'ganging' up on certain users we would have half as many disagreements. NewIreland2009 (talk) 12:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication

As the long chronological section in The Troubles is duplicated in Chronology of the Northern Ireland Troubles do you agree that the material there be deleted as you did in the similar case of the Great Irish Famine article? Colin4C (talk) 09:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Different article, and have nothing to do wit each other. Get consensus to any proposel. --Domer48'fenian' 09:39, 27 February 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) 17:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newboy

Cheers for the info Domer! Dribblingscribe (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 2009

Domer48, I have removed ([2]) your duplicate WP:AE request ([3]). Please do not disrupt the noticeboard by adding redundant requests.  Sandstein  23:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per AE, it was a different request on a different article. I agree the request is now redundant as a result of your actions. --Domer48'fenian' 23:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, OK, that was not apparent from the request as it appeared on-screen. For the next time you want to request enforcement, please review my advice for how to compose proper AE requests at [4].  Sandstein  23:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, and thanks for the advice. --Domer48'fenian' 00:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom case:The Troubles

You've breached 1RR at Northern Ireland. Ought you be reported to AE? Mooretwin (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What for 1 revert? Have IQ's dropped? --Domer48'fenian' 17:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, 2. Should I report you? Mooretwin (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well lets see the diff's then? --Domer48'fenian' 20:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1, 2- shall I report you? Mooretwin (talk) 10:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, nonsence! --Domer48'fenian' 08:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The word is "nonsense". Mooretwin (talk) 10:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'd think you'd know what a breech of 1RR was at this stage! Go ahead and report, it will just add to your list of time wasting activities here on Wiki. Spelling mistakes! More "nonsense".--Domer48'fenian' 17:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. Mooretwin (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement

You have been reported to Arbitration Enforcement for knowingly violating the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#No moves pending discussion ruling.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have? Were? What page did I move? --Domer48'fenian' 16:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've also breached 1RR on Troubles-related articles, and this has been noted to Arbcom. Mooretwin (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1RR is out the window! So I did not breached 1RR on Troubles-related articles. --Domer48'fenian' 16:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When was it thrown out of the window? Mooretwin (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awhile back, check SirFozzie's talk page about it. --Domer48'fenian' 17:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, this doesn't look much like "out the window" to me, looks more like Arbcom blessing it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, looks more like Arbcom blessing it, but they haven't yet. I wish they would. --Domer48'fenian' 17:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block

With your edit [5], you performed what amounted to a cut-and-paste move of Republic of Ireland to Ireland, in violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#No moves pending discussion which forbids such moves. Since you appears intent on repeating this violation of an arbitral decision, I have blocked you for a week. I will lift the block, and I consent to another administrator lifting it, as soon as you give credible assurances that you will not repeat such moves, whether by means of the "move" function or by cut and paste. You may appeal this block as described at WP:GAB.  Sandstein  20:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unfair block Sandstein I am not sure that Domer even thought that they were breaching any Sanctions, what about Conduct and decorum which has not been enforced with an editor on the talk twice being asked to cut out the personal attacks, are you not running to block them? A stern warning if needed was all that should have been used here not a week block. BigDuncTalk 20:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have not moved any page, I removed text that was misleading on the Republic of Ireland article, after a good deal of discussion on the article talk page. The text I placed on the Republic of Ireland is accurate, subject pacific and covers the subject based on verifiable sources and according to our policy of neutral point of view two corner stones of wiki. The text I removed, I placed on the Ireland article. I did on the talk page discussion suggest leaving the text on the article, and was meet with a wall of silence. It was far from a cut and past job and involved a good deal of editing. I have not edited in violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#No moves pending discussion of this ongoing discussion and I have not violated any of our policies. There is nothing in the above discussion which suggests that our policies can be violated, and no decision is going to suggest it either. Now I agree not to add any more content onto the Ireland and the Republic of Ireland is page protected for two weeks. --Domer48'fenian' 20:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To make this clear, do you agree not to attempt to change the subject of the article Ireland from the island to the country until the conditions specified in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#No moves pending discussion are met?  Sandstein  20:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YES! Clear enough? --Domer48'fenian' 20:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You are unblocked. Please do not disobey arbitral decisions again, or you may be made subject to more substantial sanctions without further warning.  Sandstein  20:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well hit the unblock button, because I still can't edit. --Domer48'fenian' 21:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was an active IP autoblock that I just undid -- can you edit now? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still blocked. --Domer48'fenian' 21:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, missed a step. Now?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for refusing to acknowledge that ArbCom has set down the conditions for determining the names of the Ireland articles, as per this diff. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a cheap move from you! You were asked to provide links for these directives, you can't so you block. What's next, Sandstein to come along and endorse it? --Domer48'fenian' 20:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's [6] a fucking lie, and you know it! I gave an undertaking above, and I have not broken it. You are lying through your fucking teeth, in all your posts. --Domer48'fenian' 20:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • SarekOfVulcan, this is a bit of a joke and way OTT. You are an involved admin and are in dispute with Domer and shouldnt be handing out a spurious block like this. Its pretty embarrassing to say the least.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vin, read this discussion, and they say there not involved. As the fucker were is the directive from ArbCom preventing talk page discussions. --Domer48'fenian' 20:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said the Arbitration Committee has not put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed articles. This process here before the ArbCom even agreed to here the case. So were is the structure for determining the names of the disputed articles set up by ArbCom? That's disruptive? Check out the section titled Time table, and check out Back-up on this? I said there is no directive by ArbCom preventing discussion on article talk pages. If there is such a directive, provide a diff. Is that disruptive, were is the link? This is just typical of POV warriors riding rough shod over editors who dare challange them. I know Sandstein is going to come along now and back this fucker up. They are just as bad if not worse. There last block was just as bad as this one, again lying. --Domer48'fenian' 20:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with this block has been raised here. lifebaka++ 20:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What did I tell you, does not even have a rational. Never thought for one minute they would be pulled to account for their actions. The fucking arrogance, to drop a block and have not provided the editor with it before they were blocked. They would not even respond on ANI that they had to go make up a rational, because editors and Admin's would see what a fucking joke they were. --Domer48'fenian' 20:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Language, please. I can guarantee that you won't get unblocked the way you're going, so please stop before you say something you'll regret. lifebaka++ 20:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree don't give them a way out Domer this is a piss poor block for asking a qusetion typical. BigDuncTalk

I'll take on board the advice, I've had two bad blocks in two days! Sandstein putting my block log up as some sort of mitigation, is there not a rule about using an editors block log. How do you think I should feel? They are a joke! --Domer48'fenian' 20:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We all know the great wiki lie about blocks being preventitive and not punitive this is prime example to prove that lie. BigDuncTalk 21:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on here a minute, this is not a rational it's an excuse! Were are not interested in a history lesson, were is the rational for this BS block! I was not being disruptive. I want answers to the questions I posed! They are running to catch a bus, they are alright. They are running to get a bigger shovel for the hole they are digging. --Domer48'fenian' 21:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a go at answering your question:
  • were is the structure for determining the names of the disputed articles set up by ArbCom?
ArbCom put two, sequential structures in place. One was to last 14 days only, and proved unsuccessful. Their back up was to "...designate a panel of three uninvolved administrators to develop and supervise an appropriate procedure." This they did, and an appropriate procedure was determined via engagement WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. Sadly it also proved unsuccessful on the first attempt, so new supervisors were appointed and a discussion is currently ongoing at WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. You could, of course, debate whether that is a "structure" which is "set up by ArbCom" - but semantics aside, ArbCom clearly put in place a remedy to determine a structure.
  • That's disruptive?
A matter of opinion, of course. I - personally - don't consider that disruptive. Without speaking for the blocking admin, it appears to me he interpreted it as an effort to continue a campaign to move the article without consensus of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. It was already been made clear to you (as a condition of being unblocked) that you should not continue with that effort. If his interpretation is correct, it could be considered as intent to disrupt.
Thats not really a question, but I checked those links and it appears to answer your previous question. They show that a structure was in place, directed by ArbCom and mediated by their appointed moderators.
There is no directive explicitly preventing discussion on article talk pages. There is an ArbCom-directed process though, and that is not on article talk pages. Therefore continuing to use article talk pages may not be disruptive per se, but it is certainly lacking any constructive purpose. Rockpocket 23:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down

I and others are reviewing this situation. However, you need to calm down and stop aggrivating it.

I realize you're currently blocked so you can't edit your own talk. If you feel the need to send me a message my email is available. I am reviewing the talk page editing lock first, then the larger situation.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Pursuant to discussion on WP:ANI and Sarek's agreement, I am undoing the talk page edit part of the block. For now I am leaving the main block duration as-is.
This is contengent on you behaving adequately well during the discussion to follow. Please don't threaten anyone, that will result in a reblock. It would seriously help the tone of the conversation regarding reviewing the block if you can remain civil and refrain from any more profanity during the discussions. If you can stay calm and cooperate and discuss this constructively I think we can try and resolve more of it tomorrow.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Georgewilliamherbert! --Domer48'fenian' 12:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I still Blocked

I would like to know why I'm still blocked? --Domer48'fenian' 16:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George hasn't edited since last night, but I assume he'll be around later, since he mentioned "tomorrow" above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rockpocket, if you are still an Admin could you please, at once, without argument: (1) Unblock Domer and (2) Block Sarek while we review his Admin rights. Such an egregious pov block from an involved Admin I have never seen - and I have sure seen some bad blocks in my time. Sarah777 (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Err. No. And it should be obvious to you why. You are complaining that SarekOfVulcan is an "involved Admin", and therefore should not have used his tools. I am even more involved - have spent a day discussing it with Domer on the talk page - yet you are asking me to use my tools. You can't have it both ways. Any action I took would be open to the exact same criticism you are making of Sarek. Involvement is involvement, that doesn't hinge on whether its an action you agree with or not. Now I have stated my opinion, both here and at ANI, that I don't consider Domer's actions disruptive and therefore do not support this block. A uninvolved admin is currently undertaking a review, so I suggest you wait for that to be resolved rather than trying to strong arm me (and being grossly hypocritical in the process.) Rockpocket 20:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outline

SarekOfVulcan has acted throughout this whole affair in an arbitrary and arrogant manner and has attempted to insult the intelligence of both Admin’s and Editors alike. SarekOfVulcan removed this discussion and claimed that they were acting on an ArbCom directive and that ArbCom had put a structure in place which did not allow for talk page discussion, and that if I "don't like it, take it to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. They repeated these claims at ANI asking was there consus to overturn it. Funny question to ask, when one reads their comments above. Now Sandstein endorsed this move straight away, which is not surprising, since Sandstein also supported SarekOfVulcan in having me blocked. I’ll deal more with that block later, suffice to say it was a bad one.

I challenged their actions, and responded to this also on ANI. I pointed out that as they were actively involved in the issue, they should not have been the one to remove the discussion. Now SarekOfVulcan tried to suggest that they were not actively involved, pointing to their contributions, however they left out the three reverts [7], [8], [9] they had made to the article, not to mention the block they were involved in. Their response to this was “Domer, are you familiar with the term "WP:BP#Disruption|persistent disruption"?

SarekOfVulcan had said the discussion was in the wrong place, but rather than putting it in what they suggested was the right place they archived it? They then block me for asking them for the for diff's to support their claims.

This is all thrown into stark light, when one looks at there most recent contributions here and here. Obviously the most telling comments come from SarekOfVulcan themselves “I just decided I want to be an involved editor after all, so I'm recusing myself from further admin action on this topic.”. So let’s recap, after reverting the article three times, getting me blocked, removing the discussion, blocking me themselves, blocking my talk page, they just decide they want to be an involved editor after all.

Since the discussion on the Republic of Ireland talk page, I’ve had to contend with POV warriors and some personal abuse. While I expect nothing less from some editors, Admin’s sitting on their hands (second paragraph) and offering mitigation, does bother me. Considering I was blocked once for calling someone a liar, I discovered, that this sanction is selective. Having been called it twice both here 18.07 June 1 and here 19.08 1 June, to see SarekOfVulcan then support this type of conduct , well what else can I expect? All things considered, I think this is just provocative. --Domer48'fenian' 18:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not justice or fair-play. The list of blocked/banned Irish editors grows and grows. Sarah777 (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This place is becoming a joke. Irish editors hounded almost daily until they fuck off for good! Not a single admon that ever fights the cause of Irish editors against the sea of Anglophiles! shame!--Vintagekits (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True. But they are damn quick to justify or ignore dodgy blocks of Irish editors while ignoring the sins of their compatriots. I actually think any Admin should have to declare their nationality after their name. The greatest myth on Wiki is WP:NPOV; editors overwhealmingly follow their national allegiances - lets at least be up-front about it. Thus Wiki is a British POV-fest simply because British editors outnumber Irish editors. Simple as that. The "concensus" notion is merely a head-count. Sarah777 (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, but the biggest lie on wiki is the preventative not puitive BS regarding blocks who are they trying to fool with that crap. BigDuncTalk 21:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And don't use the f-word Vk; you will get blocked under the risible "civility" arbitrariness. The ultimate tool of the nationalist Wiki-Admin! Sarah777 (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And to that I say fuck them! ;) --Vintagekits (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. I had a run-in an admin that turned the air pretty blue, but when I templated him and complained, I was assured that Wikipedia is not censored and you can eff and blind all you like. So I wouldn't worry. --HighKing (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: declaring nationality -- Heh. Haven't checked my userpage yet, huh?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm STILL Blocked! --Domer48'fenian' 22:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were several dozen pages, and several million characters of type to read through (skim, to be honest) in order to get enough context to be able to respond properly.
I'm about done and about to make a proposal on ANI - Please hang in there for the next hour-ish. Nothing about this case is simple. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not even Vulcan?? Sarah777 (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review of block

I've completed my review of the situation and block. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Review.

Copying the conclusion section from there:

  1. Domer48 engaged in disruptive behavior. An uninvolved administrator could have reviewed the chain of edits and concluded that blockable disruption had occurred by the time of the second block.
    1. The block by SarekOfVulcan was problematic in duration, lack of warning, and conflict of interest, but not fundamentally flawed.
    2. At the conclusion of this writeup I am going to unblock Domer48 from that problematic block, reblock for disruption with a duration of 1 minute, essentially reducing the block length to time served, as that very closely approximates what I feel would have been an appropriate block duration at the beginning.
    3. I believe that Domer48 is currently unable to edit in a constructive manner on the topic of naming of Ireland related articles. To balance protecting the community and Domer48's long term interest in the topic, I am hereby imposing a one week topic ban from Ireland article naming on Domer48, retroactive to the time of the second block. If in the next five days Domer48 engages in any project or article talk page dicussion on the topic he can be reblocked for the remaining time (user talk pages are ok, but not recommended - see below).
    4. Personal comment to Domer48 - I strongly urge you to contribute in a more constructive manner to this discussion in the future. You clearly care very much about this topic. When you are this angry over it, your responses are sufficiently aggressive that they are counterproductive, both for the overall discussion and for your own ongoing participation in it. You clearly feel that this is important. You can do nothing better to solve the underlying problem than taking a break, coming back with a renewed respect for WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and WP:AGF, and applying those policies to how you work on the issue moving forwards. If you reengage in the discussion next week in a hostile manner you are likely to find other administrators willing to block you under those policies.

I implemented the unblock and 1-minute reblock. I did that to indicate that I believe that your actions were blockable - but that it would have been better done by another administrator rather than SarekOfVulcan, and that the block duration should have been 24 or 48 hrs rather than another week.

I also believe that SarekOfVulcan bent the administrator policies relative to using administrator powers against someone they are in conflict with. I believe that the lack of warning, block duration, and talk page editing block were indicators of that. However, I do not believe that he fabricated a justification to block you.

I assume good faith that you have the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind. You did, however, get into a head-butting confrontation over the Ireland article naming issue, and got disruptive in doing that. You'd contributed to the discussion statements in the naming resolution discussion, and then a couple of days ago denied that there was such a centralized discussion. I don't know if you were arguing semantics, simply so frustrated you forgot, or what - but the end result of the string of edits you made after Sandstein unblocked you and before SarekOfVulcan's later block was very disruptive.

If Sarek had reported that string of edits to WP:ANI with diffs you would at the very least been given a final warning on disruption, probably blocked by another uninvolved administrator.

SarekOfVulcan has agreed on his own initiative not to use administrator powers against you in the future. I believe that's appropriate.

As I noted in the ANI review, I am imposing a 5 day topic ban ( 1 week, from the original block time ) on article or article talk page discussion of the Ireland renaming issue, because I believe you're too upset to contribute constructively without further disruption. Please take a few days off that topic, come back to it with a civil and constructive attitude, good faith about others' intentions, and a renewed commitment to not attack other editors.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

The police have investigated the police, again. I guess this is better than nothing, but that block was bad, bad, bad so very, very bad it made me mad. When will the Admin Community be as firm with their own members as they are with us lesser editors? Sarah777 (talk) 07:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Domer, on purely pragmatic grounds say nothing, OK? Your silence will not be mistaken for agreement with anything that has happened here. And FGS stay away from "Ireland" for a week or two or you'll get us both blocked:)Sarah777 (talk) 07:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Filed a request for amendment to the Ireland arbitration case.

See here. MickMacNee (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm blocked and I disagree hiding away this discussion. You want to insert an amendment that my blocker said was already there? --Domer48'fenian' 18:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This proves that Sarek was wrong and that there was nothing from the arbs in relation to discusions taking place on the talk page. BigDuncTalk 18:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly oppose that suggestion. Anti-Irish censorship on Wiki in relation to British/ Irish disputes is already an abomination. Without adding more. Sarah777 (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It proves nothing of the sort. I only filed it to end the ongoing saga in a crystal clear manner. MickMacNee (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The admission by MacNee that Sarek was wrong is noted. Even if he was right it would still count as one of the worst and most malicious blocks I've seen. But now we see he was Wrong! Sarah777 (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So they can provide a diff for an ArbCom directive preventing talking about the Republic of Ireland article on the Republic of Ireland talk page. If they can, well block everyone Irish Editor who is on it now talking. That includes you Sarah and Dun, RedKing etc. --Domer48'fenian' 19:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Domer, since you're named in that request, if you have something reasonably short you'd like me to copy up to the page for consideration, I'll take care of it for you. Please mark it clearly, so I don't get the wrong text.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better if you undid your block so he could do it himself. BigDuncTalk 19:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have post, "You should be Blocked and your tools taken off you" and you should not be coming onto this talk page all things considered. --Domer48'fenian' 19:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was your 62nd block Sarek? Were all as bad as this one? Sarah777 (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't blame you in a way - if you can get away with such abuse while your peers sit on their hands, why not? Sarah777 (talk) 19:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Don't raise to the bait Domer IMO that is what is happening here with the offer to post for you. BigDuncTalk 19:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baiting plain and simple! No one willing to unblock, or step in to stop it. All chating off wiki how to stich me up again. --Domer48'fenian' 19:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vulcan, that block is so bad that every second that passes and you don't lift it condemns you. Sarah777 (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: On Hold

I'm not sure what you mean - that discussion does not appear to be at risk of being archived anytime soon, and you should be able to edit it. I just noticed the discussion above, although note that your block was lifted at 00:29 June 4 UTC. You are not currently blocked. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Domer, if you have something to add, you may email the Arbitration Committee - their email address is listed at WP:AC. Otherwise I would recommend you sit out the temporary ban, which I'm sure was placed with good reason. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland Collaboration

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration was established at 16:57, 31 October 2008 by Gnevin. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names was case opened on 03:23, 9 December 2008 by Daniel. It’s remedies were Passed 03:41, 4 January 2009. Remedies 1) states that “The community is asked to open a new discussion for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles.” That this was not a "new discussion" is obvious. The objectives of remedies 1 and the Collaboration project had two very different goals and objectives. The Ireland Collaboration goals can be clearly seen.

If for a moment we somehow accept that the Ireland Collaboration was the "new discussion" regardless of the completely differing objectives, and dates, it was a complete failure per Remedy #1). This is a view shared by Edokter one of the moderators since they state that Remedy #2 started. Remedy #2 suggested that the Arbitration Committee shall designate a panel of three uninvolved administrators to develop and supervise an appropriate procedure. How far that went can be guessed at by the stepping down of the three moderators first, second and third. SebastianHelm offered his reasons for leaving and with an more recent view now being expressed why they failed to get off the ground. However I think the reason it never got of the groung can be summed in the last three comments in in this discussion. I provided an article here which would have cleared up a whole lot in this discussion, and my rational in this discussion explains why. The only objection was not about the article but were the current text would have went. The article explains the origions of the POV, and how the current use of the term is POV, but it was removed so we could all discuss and then discuss the discussion and never get anywhere.

Speedy deletion nomination of Domer48 Republic of Ireland Sandbox

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Vicenarian (T · C) 15:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's no problem, It's just a test. --Domer48'fenian' 15:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought.

Hey Domer, this is Foz (you can email me if you have a doubt). Just a thought.. can you try being a little bit more.. I dunno.. willing to work with folks? You don't have to like Sarek or whatever, but at least try to be polite. reverying their edits without any comment is not a good way to do things. Try to keep it in mind, K? 71.184.225.103 (talk) 03:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we not WP:AGF and assume they are read? --Domer48'fenian' 10:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland collaboration

When I was approached by the ArbCom to act as moderator, after the other three mods left, they gave no indication the process had failed (otherwise why would they have asked for mods), and thus this still working with the first remedy. --MASEM (t) 13:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked ArbCom regarding your question if they consider Remedy #1 to have failed. --MASEM (t) 15:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair play, thanks Masem, --Domer48'fenian' 15:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom notes

Hi Domer48,

ArbCom has received an e-mail from Masem forwarding your question and considers Remedy#1 still valid.

In another note, it urges all parties to further their efforts to make it successful. It also notes that you —among a few editors— are not doing your best to achieve that. ArbCom would like to see more collaboration from your part in particular. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While ArbCom considers Remedy#1 still valid, the reality is that the uninvolved administrator clearly indicated itthat Remedies #1 had failed. This is a view shared by other editors and admin's [10] [11] and not just me. That uninvolved administrators were appointed is also the clearest indication that this is the case. ArbCom would like to see more collaboration from on my part in particular, a view I share on their's. Now I am working towards a solution, one based on our policies and I'm using all my efforts to make it successful. Now a consensus is starting to form among editors and the ArbCom appointed uninvolved administrators per Remedy#2, and I'm sure ArbCom will welcome that as much as I would. --Domer48'fenian' 07:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts on Plantation of Ulster

Please see Talk:Plantation_of_Ulster#My_recent_edits. You seem to have mis-numbered some of your arguments. Also, I'd like to see your response to my proposed introduction. ~Asarlaí 22:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I need assurances...

...at your Collaboration proposal. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Both primary topics. Both Ireland the state, and Ireland the island are primary topics. The Collaboration page has become trollers paradise for bullies and die hards. There is a solution there, all it needs is the will. Throwing the vote to the community is recipe for "sweet nothingness", as if the community has some esoteric wisdom available. Editors who want a wide vote are denying their own ability and intelligence to work out a solution, a sad state of affairs to behold. I don't know if there will be a solution without BigDunc or yourself. Certainly BW, EverT, or the editor with the peculiar long name (as Gaeilge :-) offer little positive. Tfz 11:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your latest proposal is agreeable. GoodDay (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erin

I don't particularly care what you call the Republic of Ireland but I do object to you to giving an article a wrong title. Now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Domer48's proposal for Ireland Article. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have not got a clue what you are on about, but if you fixed something I did wrong thanks. --Domer48'fenian' 18:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Have not got a clue" - I suggest you learn some basics of how the MediaWiki software works. A few clicks would have told you that I was reporting this move. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I worked it out! I left out [:] them. Is that it? Tell you what, take a chill pill and get a grip of yourself. Now you have an Admin icon with a mop on the top of your page, now if you don't like helping editors like me or if you don't like the job give it up. Now a simple message on my talk page telling me what I did wrong would have had a more positive effect. Now I suggest you learn some basics in manners. --Domer48'fenian' 20:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RHaworth, that seems unneccessarily harsh -- I had to read it about five times to figure out that you were moving it into the correct namespace. At first blush,it looks like an honest mistake to me. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought my message above was "a simple message telling you what I did wrong". I thought it might be insulting your intelligence to spell out exactly what I had done. Did you actually look at this diff report? Did you notice this edit? Surely it is obvious that the change was the addition of "Wikipedia:" to the front of the title? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your message abrupt! You know it was! The fact you put my talk page on your watch proves that. You wanted a reaction! Now you used your mop, I said thanks so that's it. Don't worry though, it was not my intelligence that was insulted. Now take me off your watch list. --Domer48'fenian' 07:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of tools

If you think I've misused my tools, you know where to go. I urge you to make your case there rather than complaining about it on the collaboration page. Rockpocket 18:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know you missued your tools you edit warred and when the page was blocked you then unblocked it to continue edit warring, and the reblocked it. As for ANI, yeah right what is going to happen there either admins will circle the wagons or they will sit on their hands, how many bad blocks have been discussed on it and admins have adnitteed bad blocks but did fuck all and ignored it. Domer I would give it a wide berth if I was you. Collaboration page don't fool yourself into believing it is anything of the sort a mediator who IMO justs pops in every now and again without reading what is going on as can be seen with their request that you should have told editors about the process you started, a farce.BigDuncTalk 20:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously don't understand how page protection works. If you did, you would realize your description of what happened is incorrect. But again, don't let reality get in the way of a good conspiracy theory. I've lost count how many times thats been the case with you recently, Dunc. Rockpocket 04:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well explain how it work for an admin, if I go to edit a page that is PP it is impossible as all I can see is a Source tab, is it different when your an admin? And could you explain your comment, I've lost count how many times thats been the case with you recently BigDuncTalk 10:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no technical barrier to stop admins editing protected pages, we can edit them like any other page. Therefore your accusations are completely incorrect, I didn't "unblock it to continue edit warring, and then reblock it." As I already said, in this case I only realized the page had been protected after I made the edit. I already explained this and yet, based on nothing but bad faith and a predetermined assumption that I set out to abuse my tools, you made this accusation. You did the same thing a few weeks ago. Rockpocket 17:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No matter way you try to twist it, you used your tools as an Admin in an abusive way. You used them to get round a block to continue an edit war. You went as far as saying "even if I had known it was protected I would have still made the edit" so drop it. So it's not just an accusation it's a fact and is not "based on nothing but bad faith and a predetermined assumption that I set out to abuse my tools" please stop digging. --Domer48'fenian' 18:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you lost count, can you not count higher than 1? And to the diff you supplied yes you gave the editor credence with your edits after the page was created. As an admin you can edit pages us mere plebs can't edit so therefore you missused your tool and your comment provided in the diff above by Domer proves that you intended to. BigDuncTalk 18:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, if that is what you believe you should make a complaint and - I predict - you will learn that you are mistaken. You clearly are not in possession of all the facts (why would you be, you are not an admin and therefore you can't know protection works when in possession of those tools). Thus I put to you that misplaced confidence is the bearing of a fool confidence in ignorance begets foolishness. Besides, whining about it is utterly nonconstructive; either put up or shut up. Rockpocket 18:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, there, Rockpocket -- WP:CIVILITY, please. "Bearing of a fool" ain't terribly civil. --20:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I am not doubting your sincerity Sarek but I think the talk page of the offending admin would be a correct place to notify them and not here. As to put up or shut up from RP where? amongst your mates at ANI, would you catch yourself, admins are basically free to do what they want with only a very few having the balls to stand up to mistakes by other admins the rest sit on their hands and do fuck all. So knowing you edited a page that was under PP why didn't you then do the honourable thing and revert yourself, was it because you didn't care and you were putting your point across no matter what? BigDuncTalk 20:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is appropriate enough -- I'm sure that Rockpocket is watching this page by now, so he gets the notice, and everyone else knows it's been done so they don't have to go to rp's talk to find out.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SarekOfVulcan I'll only say this once, and should not have to say it again. Don't post on my talk page anymore. I want to have nothing to do with you at all. Now take your comments over to Rocks page. Ok. --Domer48'fenian' 20:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


objections to a poll

That's one of my objections to a poll, the pov is oozing already, and it didn't even start yet. Tfz 18:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Already their out to disrupt the propoal I trying to put together. I might just put in a new section titled "I Don't Like it".--Domer48'fenian' 18:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They hardly know what they are doing down at the Collaboration page. The poll is going to end up very flawed, and few will ever accept the result. They are already trying to do a "poll before the poll", or is it consensus they are after. If they can do consensus now, why not consensus last week, or consensus next week. CJH had a word for it. Tfz 00:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the carry on, and I'm not the only one to remove off topic comments. --Domer48'fenian' 11:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of that 'freaking out' is just pure and simple "posturing". One of the last bastions of a shakey argument. Tfz 12:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nail on the head I tells yeh, the nail on the head. --Domer48'fenian' 13:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Keenan

Keep an eye on this please mo chara, details are here. Thanks. 2 lines of K303 11:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do! --Domer48'fenian' 11:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one. 2 lines of K303 11:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs you keep asking about

Here they are:

[12][13][14][15][16]

On behalf of DrKiernan

Domer, DrKiernan posted this recently: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Domer48. DrKiernan (talk) 13:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Regrettabe, but inevitable, it seems. -- Evertype·✆ 14:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RUC

Hi, If you want to reinsert uncited material like you did here [17] please provide a proper cite. You probably reverted me in good faith, but did you actually check out the link? didn't think so... Blaggards22 (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarekofvulcan

There is currently an Arbitration going on regarding matters that Sarek is involved with and well I'm gonna do my damn best to try and guarantee that it leads to this user losing his access to the admin tools but the thing is that I've been sorta busy lately so I was wondering if you would care to help out a little bit? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#DreamHost Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194x144x90x118 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Infobox terrorist attack"

The use of this really bugs me. Can you think of an alternative suggestion?--Vintagekits (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Were is it being used, gis a link. --86.42.85.44 (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL

...savaged by a baby goldfish... you have to laugh. BigDunc 21:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of them trying to act all menacing? LOL. The talk page stalker appears to have no arguments to go too, thinks wiki is a social networking cite. Probably try turn that talk page into another chat room as well.--Domer48'fenian' 22:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Without looking at link if I am wrong I will leave wiki for good but I know who it is, so I will either be back in a sec to say goodbye or say I knew it, hang on. BigDunc 22:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shit I am psychic or else it was a very good description. BigDunc 22:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just had a coughing fit reading that, with my tea now coming out my nose. So intimidated by a ravenous goldfish, and on Opra’s watch list, be afraid, be very afraid. --Domer48'fenian' 22:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Conversation moved

I moved your case with Rannpháirtí anaithnid to WP:ANI. Jehochman Talk 13:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor

I have started a page at User:O Fenian/Abuse to document his wanton abuse of Wikipedia, all help will be gratefully received. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit

Regarding this edit, the report was closed for being in the wrong forum, and also because admin action isn't needed. He's right, admin action isn't needed because it's up to you lot to sort out the content dispute yourselves. And yes, as I said on my final post on the talk page, if consensus isn't reached then something long term is inevitable. The page could have been unprotected already if a compromised wording had materialised. Anyhow I'm no longer interested in trying to mediate this tedious dispute, thus I've passed my comments on to other admins to keep and eye and to take appropriate action should the situation not change. Of course you are free to contact any admin once consensus between all parties has been reached so that things can move on, though I will no longer be actively watching this battle of wills. Cheers, Nja247 09:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can be the most reasonable of editors you could meet that is until I come up against BS. We remove misleading information, and replace it with correctly sourced and referenced text. Simple! If there is a dispute, we remove clearly misleading information, discuss the changes necessary and replace. Simple! We don’t leave misleading information in an article until we come up with information to replace it. Simple! Please don’t make a drama out of this, and don’t take my comments personal because they are not meant to be. --Domer48'fenian' 09:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elaborate or cease

If you wish to make a complaint at WP:ADMINABUSE, please do so. If not, cease your accusations as unsubstantiated personal attacks are not welcome. Toddst1 (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The power abusing admin kept posting after O Fenian kept removing them, O Fenian makes it clear he regrards his posting as harassment, you give him a BS warning, he ignores it, and you block him! Load of bollox! You may not regard it as harassment, but O Fenian did. Now I'll back up my accusations, and I suggest you lose the tone with me. Your block is BS, that's my opinion and one I'm allowed to express! Now that Admin has made accusations about me, and I'm sure you are going to insist they back them up when I ask them to? --Domer48'fenian' 19:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month (this is your 10th block) in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Toddst1 (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go away out of that, this is pure abuse! --Domer48'fenian' 19:17, 19 August 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).

Domer48 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Asking legitimate questions about what I regard as a poor block, and the admin in question blocks me. And Admin’s should not respond to questions about their admin actions by blocking the person asking the questions. Repurposing/reposting others' talk page comments on different pages" does not merit an immediate one month block without warning under any circumstances. Especially when I’m trying to keep the conversation in one place.

Decline reason:

Your abuseive treatment of admins is well documented per nja's comments below, this latest streak of comments at O Fenian's page seems to represent yet another in a long string of WP:AGF and WP:NPA problems with regards toward administrators. I don't see this latest problem as any different from the many you have had in the past. Jayron32 19:37, 19 August 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.

Note from blocking admin

I have removed this editor's ability to edit this talk page during block for removing unwanted comments above by Nja247 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) which were relevant to the unblock request. Other admins are free to reinstate that privilege if they feel its removal was excessive or restoring it might serve some other constructive purpose. Toddst1 (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive your having a laugh aren't you? BigDunc 21:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

I am seeing the same poor rationale and involvement as with O Fenian, together with a surprisingly poor decline reason by Jayron32. I will explain further at ANI. Domer, as agreed with O Fenian, I should be extremely grateful if you would be extremely circumspect in your editing and commenting while this matter is resolved. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into it, and I'll go and cool off for a bit. Really appreciate this, just to steamed to say it well enough. This is just sticking in my craw. A quick look at my edit history should be enough to show that if I have something to say I say it. I don't hide behind socks! Thanks again, --Domer48'fenian' 22:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I approve of your restraint. Per the SPI; innocent folk fear nothing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were up front, took a decision one I’m not used to seeing and I respect that! With that in my, I’m biting my lip, and going to cool off! I have no worries at all on the sock report, it’s posting it that gets my goat! Look thanks again for the unblock and I’ll leave posting for a while. --Domer48'fenian' 23:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible deletion of image

Hi Domer, a bit concerned that if this image is deleted, then several other Ireland related photos could suffer the same fate. Can you help? RashersTierney (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bitch Fest

It appears according to this admin that we are allowed to call editors liars as long as it is not on the page of the person you are calling a liar. It's a terrible pity you don't break any policy Domer then they would really have something to cry about. BigDunc 16:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you can launch WP:personal attacks on an editor on any talk page as long as it's not the editors own talk page your abusing? Were was that rule when I got blocked? A well, it's nothing more than I've come to expect. After all, I was blocked once for asking a question! LoL. --Domer48'fenian' 18:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Declan Arthurs

Done. Black Kite 20:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sound.--Domer48'fenian' 07:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of articles effected, could you look after it thanks. --Domer48'fenian' 10:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irvine22 Disruptive editor ANI request

I've made an ANI request regarding this editor. If you could leave some feedback, and perhaps offer some examples of distruptive editting, I would be much obliged. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Legacy Derek Warfield.JPG

Thank you for uploading File:Legacy Derek Warfield.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Liberté '98 Derek Warfield.JPG

Thank you for uploading File:Liberté '98 Derek Warfield.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Sons of Erin Derek Warfield.JPG

Thank you for uploading File:Sons of Erin Derek Warfield.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of disputed fair use rationale templates from file pages

Please read a template before you remove it from a file page, "Please remove this template if you have successfully addressed the concern. Note If you think the image should not be deleted, please discuss the matter with the editor who placed this template on the image. You can also place comments on the image talk page." You neither address my concerns nor did you try and discuss the matter with me, you are simply removing a template you do not agree with. You first removed it with the edit summary "Rational is provided", which shows to me you did not even read the template before you removed it because I never claimed a rationale was not provided. Then with your second you say "If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page", which also shows you did not read the template because I do not have questions about the media copyright. Currently these image fail Wikipedia:Non-free content. Please read through my concerns listed in the template and the corresponding non-free content page above and then discuss these matters with me instead of edit warring. Aspects (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your rational has little merit. Now take your own advice, and raise it on the article talk page. --Domer48'fenian' 19:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take another look?

Would you be willing stop back by the noticeboard discussion and consider reviewing the conclusion of the discussion there (with ample amounts of wp:agf and wp:civil)? You have a lot to contribute here, and I really don't want to see that interrupted unnecessarily. I really hope you'll consider the recommendations that have been made there, and act on them. Take care, user:J aka justen (talk) 16:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks J for the constructive comments at ANI. That discussion was rapped up pretty quick after, with no real attempt to address the issue I raised. Dealing with bad faith editors/Admins is a joke on the project. I do agree that when I do accuse an editor of bad faith I should provide diff's, and I normally do, but on ANI its a waste of time. --Domer48'fenian' 18:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coolacrease article

I just took a look at this, & noticed the second sentence (which seems to be fairly recent) in: "Following a dispute between the Pearsons and local Catholics over a mass path running through the Pearsons’ land, two IRA men, John Dillon and J. J. Horan, were arrested.[7] However this dispute probably occurred a year earlier in 1920 and was already settled.[10]" The second sentence is based on Tom Wall's article in Dublin Review of Books: http://www.drb.ie/more_details/09-03-27/getting_them_out.aspx This article has been answered, including the date of the Dillon/Horan arrests which is in the public record. The arrests were in June 1921, the day after they'd intervened to restore order at the mass path. Though the Pearsons had been involved in sectarian provocation for a considerable period (which they were at pains later to play down), this critical incident at the mass path took place only a week or so before the roadblock shootings and the executions. Covered in reply to Wall: http://www.drb.ie/more_details/09-09-19/A_House_Built_on_Sand.aspx Also, there's another article there about the Coolacrease land grab theory: http://www.drb.ie/more_details/09-09-20/Frank_Gallagher_and_land_agitation.aspx Pat Muldowney (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A chara, I've just finished the Coolacrease book and will use that to address the information you have noted above. --Domer48'fenian' 09:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...a mass path running through the Pearsons’ land - I doubt if this appeared in the original article, since it was one of the propaganda points to be debunked. Page 23 of the Coolacrease book reports it as a path on the boundary of [the Pearsons'] farm in other words not interfering with crops, livestock etc. It's still there, visible to anyone who cares to inspect it, just as it was 90 years ago (I don't know how Wikipedia deals with actual physical realities, such as "the GPO is in O'Connell Street"!), a long narrow strip of wooded ground on the boundary between two landholdings. Just as the tree that was cut down for the roadblock was not "Pearsons' tree" (the excuse given for firing on "tree-fellers" or vandals) - it was a roadside tree at the point where Pearsons' adjoined Tom Horan's (page 37), who was a member of the roadblock party. (OK, OK, I'll try to get a life!) Pat Muldowney (talk) 13:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. The book was very well done! However how Wikipedia deals with actual realities. --Domer48'fenian' 13:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Brian Murphy

Hi Domer. I think you misread the 'decision' on this issue. The dynamic IP managed to close the discussion themselves as 'not RS'. Just a heads up before things get sticky. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 12:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection I believe you are actually correct. These late nights not good for body or soul. RashersTierney (talk) 12:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! --Domer48'fenian' 12:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just posted Elonka asking that the source be re-admitted. With my slow typing I hadn't noticed your edit at the Article. I have to go to 'No WikiLand' for at least a few days (Sick family member). I'll try to look in occasionally from the local library to see how things are going. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Domer48, the tone of this comment was not particularly helpful,[18] and could be seen as uncivil. Since there is an ongoing dispute at Talk:Irish Bulletin, it is especially important that all editors strive to encourage a civil and collegial atmosphere for the discussion. So would you please consider deleting or modifying your comment, with this in mind? Thanks, --Elonka 16:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I disagree with your assessment, I will keep your view in mind. --Domer48'fenian' 19:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Troubles Case

Domer48, edit-warring on an arbitration case page is extremely unwise.[19] This kind of behavior could lead to being placed on probation, so please don't do it again. Instead, just focus on the articles? You've been doing good work there, that's the best use of your time and attention. --Elonka 15:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it you that is edit warring Elonka? Threats of placing someone on "probation" are extremely unwise and only likely to enflame the situation further.--Vintagekits (talk) 15:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree VK, admin bad blocks me, and then edit wars about a clarification of the bad block. BigDunc 15:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a whole host of comments on that section, but only one that gets removed. I had to smile when I seen the edit summary "section is for logged actions, not comments." Elonka please don't accuse me of edit-warring again! --Domer48'fenian' 17:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sinn Fein

Please refactor your comments about other editors' perceived delusions, thanks. Just keep comments at the article talkpage focused on the article. --Elonka 22:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop being slective in your posting! When You ignore this [20] coupled with the editors comments here and here not to mention equally uncivil edit summaries [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26][27][28]. I'll not be refactoring my comments and they are not uncivil or a personal attack. They do describe the editors opinions. Now if my comments are considered offencive to the editor involved I replace it with something else, considering your slective opinions I rather you don't post on this talk page again. --Domer48'fenian' 22:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay first, I don't read every single comment on every talkpage. Neither do I read every edit summary, nor watch every article. I just don't have the time. Instead, I skim, and usually try to make my warnings timely. I'm less interested in what was said two days ago, than what is being said today. As for being selective, I warned both you and Valenciano, and have asked both of you to refactor. If you do, I'll see it as a sign of maturity and good faith. If not, well, we'll see how it goes. --Elonka 22:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More threats? I've told you already that my comments were not uncivil or made as a personal attack! Now you were aware of this comment and yet we don't see any talk page posts! I don't see any request from you to have these comments refactored and you were fully aware of them? As I've already addressed the issue on the article talk page, there is no reason for any responce. Now I've ask you not to post on my talk page as a sign of maturity and good faith I'll hope you respect that. Thanks --Domer48'fenian' 22:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the off chance I'm still on a number of watch lists this bit of incivility might go un-noticed. --Domer48'fenian' 23:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Campbell & Thompson

I have started two RMs for Bobby Campbell (Northern Irish footballer) and Trevor Thompson (Northern Irish footballer); your input would be most appreciated. Regards, GiantSnowman 14:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sound, I was going to do it myself. Nice job. --Domer48'fenian' 18:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

Domer48, at Dunmanway killings, you made a sweeping revert, cleanly wiping out 24 extensive changes to the article, and effectively returning the article to your own last version from several days earlier.[29] This kind of revert is disruptive, and is not the way to engage in collegial editing. Better would have been to change text to try and find a compromise version. Please do not make any other reverts of good faith edits on this article. You are still welcome to modify text, but if you try to use revert as an editing tool again, you may have additional restrictions placed on your editing. --Elonka 17:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I indicated quite clearly on the talk page what I was doing, but obviously not clear enough for you. Now I ask you above not to post on this talk page, now I'm telling you! Don't post on this talk page again. If you see anything that may concern you, use the article talk page in question. Once again, don't drop threats on this page, I'm editing well within policy. --Domer48'fenian' 18:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At Dunmanway killings, you are permitted to revert obvious vandalism, and you can revert edits made by anonymous editors. But if you revert another good faith edit by an established editor, you may be placed under formal probation, and limited to one revert per article per week for the entire Troubles topic area. To avoid this, please simply engage in collegial editing. Work towards compromise by changing text towards a compromise version, rather than reverting it. That is the best way to work towards lasting changes and a stable article. --Elonka 18:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And when did theses new guidelines get passed could you link me to where it was decided that if you revert another good faith edit by an established editor, you may be placed under formal probation. BigDunc 18:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle! Stay off this talk page! I've had enough of you slective BS on policy. No this talk page is for frank discussion, your block on Vin and Dunc indicates to me that you don't like to be told your wrong. The fact that dispite that you have been told to stay of this page and ignore it means you have an attitude. I will delete any more comments from you on this talk page, and you can just assume they were read. --Domer48'fenian' 18:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dunc, here is another new policy off the hoof! Please do not encourage the need for a responce, I've had just about enough of this nonsence. --Domer48'fenian' 18:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page ban at Peter Hart

I did tell you that you would be banned from editing Peter Hart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) if you restored the coat-rack criticism and questionable sources. You did so here. You are now banned from editing the Peter Hart article for the next three months. I have of course reverted your edit. Please do not add similar questionably sourced criticism of Hart to any other article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so! No Troubles remedy gives you the authority to ban Domer from that page, I suggest you read them. There is an ArbCom case that would give you the authority to ban someone from a page, but as you haven't followed the correct procedure required by the remedy from that case that can't apply either. That said, and without having had time to investigate the merits of the edits in question, I would advise Domer in the strongest possible terms not to add the disputed material in question or any other possibly controversial material without clear consensus on the talk page. This should forestall the need for any petty and vindictive blocks, and unless Domer says he is going to restore the material any block that is attempted is not a preventative one and therefore against policy. I would caution anyone even thinking about using tools right now to investigate recent ArbCom cases involving page bans issued without authority and use of tools to enforce them. 2 lines of K303 12:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I knew the Ban was BS! It will be ignored and your advice taken on board. --Domer48'fenian' 12:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You won't be surprised to learn that you're blocked for a week. Next time it'll be a month. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Domer, I've unblocked you, because I believe that your edit was not in violation of the ban (which I do believe to be valid, per WP:BLPBAN).--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sarak unless Angus can provide a diff where he "counselled" him on "specific steps" prior to warning him, he can't be banned. Angus can you provide the diff. BigDunc 16:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angus McLellan post a link to the remedy that gives you the authority to issue a page ban. --Domer48'fenian' 16:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either of Wikipedia:Biographies of living people or Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. Especially the second one. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ONiH mentions the case that allows me to be page banned, and says the procedure wasn't followed. Looking at it, I would have to agree. Where is the diff where I was counselled as to specific steps I could take before being warned, I don't see one? WP:BLPBAN was never even mentioned until after I was blocked, this looks like a desperate attempt to justify a poor block after the event to me.--Domer48'fenian' 16:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last I checked, the troubles case allows a single admin to place someone on probation - not a topic ban.--Tznkai (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check out also the sequence of events and the criteria laid out at WP:BLPBAN? --Domer48'fenian' 18:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP special enforcement is not meant for this sort of thing, but Domer, a good rule of thumb is the criticism section is meant as a summary of criticisms, no single block of criticisms should take up more than a quarter screen, and the criticism section should never be more than a quarter of the article's length as a whole.--Tznkai (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for a top level article, general criticisms are preferred to specific criticisms. The more specific ,the more likley the article supposedly about the topic A, becomes focused on something A wrote.--Tznkai (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, see here. Reasonable questions I thought? Likewise in the following section here natural questions to ask. The responces well, make your own mind up. General criticisms are preferred to specific criticisms, but removing all the criticisms and critics? --Domer48'fenian' 19:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll weigh in in a few hours.--Tznkai (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. --Domer48'fenian' 20:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bound to be missed in the noise

I see the myth that admins can page ban editors under the Troubles case was still being used as justification for the ban even after I pointed out that there's no such remedy. Also the WP:BLPBAN is invalid, as the correct procedure wasn't followed as I said right at the start. BLPBAN wasn't even mentioned or logged until after the abusive block for evading the non-existent ban either. Per WP:BLPBAN "Administrators should counsel editors who fail to comply with BLP policy on specific steps that they can take to improve their editing in the area", where's the diff for this? It's been asked for above and elsewhere more than once, but hasn't been provided because it doesn't exist. Any BLPBAN requires evidence of this being done added to the log, surprise surprise there's no evidence posted to the log because it hasn't been done. Unless those alleging the ban is valid can actually provide the evidence required by the remedy, the ban is invalid. There's no need for Domer or anyone else to jump through hoops trying to overturn this, because it doesn't exist in the first place. Provide the evidence, or there's no ban, it's that simple. 2 lines of K303 14:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probation

Because of ongoing edit-warring at Troubles (Britain/Ireland)-related articles, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Remedies, your account is now under official probation for the next 90 days: "Participants placed on probation are limited to one revert per article per week with respect to the set of articles included in the probation. Any participant may be briefly banned for personal attacks or incivility. Reversion of edits by anonymous IPs do not count as a revert." --Elonka 01:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE cop onto yourself! I've done nothing to warrent any Probation, and coming from you is a joke. Now I'll be accepting nothing of the sort and will likewise ignore the same. Good luck. --Domer48'fenian' 08:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You do that, and I'll block you myself. Elonka is an un-involved administrator with regards to this, so the way you deal with this is make a request at AN/AE, NOT to declare that you're going to do it anyway. Understood? SirFozzie (talk) 09:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah look who shows up. Still smarting over you very very bad blocks on me being overturned! If she wants me on Probation she can go AN/AE. With the number of bad blocks at the minute, this is going to look bad! Now bye bye. --Domer48'fenian' 09:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anymore of my friends show up here with the same nonsense will be seen as baiting. I have not violated any of the restrictions on Troubles articles and in light of the bad blocks and bans this latest nonsense can only been viewed as petty. --Domer48'fenian' 09:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious, what does "cop onto yourself" mean? It's not a phrase I'm familiar with. --Elonka 15:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It means "stop acting like a fucking arsehole and get a grip of yourself you ego maniac" - but it much more polite! Elonka, Domer has down nothing to warrant such a move and to take such drastic action should be discussed fully first.--Vintagekits (talk) 15:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, thanks. Do you know what the root is? Like is it "cop" as in police (who were called cops in the United States because of the copper buttons on their uniforms)? Or is it a shortened form of some other word? I'm just very interested in word origins. --Elonka 16:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually its from Constable on Patrol (Cop), someone on patrol Copper. That said I agree wtih Vintagekit, this is not a valid action. Domer has been dealing patiently with a series of POV edits. Attempts are being made to edit the page without getting agreement on the talk page and reversion is sometimes the only way there. I strongly suggest you withdraw the sanction. --Snowded TALK 16:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Snowded, and thanks, this made me look into my own assumption on the origin of the "cop" term. As it turns out (at least according to snopes.com), we're both wrong![30] It says that the term came from an old English word to "take or seize", as in to arrest. Learn something new every day ... --Elonka 16:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool so we were both wrong, and maybe you were in respect of Domer??? --Snowded TALK 17:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In all honestly I dont think anyone barring yourself give two shiney shites about the etymology of the word "cop". This discussion is about your ego trip and your move to involke such a probation period without any discussion. To that end I say "cop yerself on!"--Vintagekits (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
VK's just been blocked for 48 hours for his attacks on Elonka. Domer, I'm bringing up this on ANI. I STRONGLY suggest you do not violate the terms of the probationary terms (even if you don't agree with them) while this gets discussed.) SirFozzie (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(oh, and [31] I brought it up here. SirFozzie (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Good for you. --Domer48'fenian' 17:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see Vk had been banned - not sure what for. It appears he came to Domer's defence and was blocked for being cheeky. I note Fozzie is involved again. Sarah777 (talk) 09:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note there is an election on again also. --Domer48'fenian' 19:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For battling POV and suffering for the project I award you this.....

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Glad to see some one has the ability and tenacity to defend NPOV against the imposition of POV-by-numbers Sarah777 (talk) 09:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

That's sound Sarah! --Domer48'fenian' 09:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Troubles Arbitration Case: Amendment for discretionary sanctions

As a party in The Troubles arbitration case I am notifying you that an amendment request has been posted here.

For the Arbitration Committee

Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 16:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note a chara, I'll add a comment later today. --Domer48'fenian' 11:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Irish Republican

Hi Domer, I'd like to ask your opinion on Infobox Irish Republican. This template is very similar to Infobox military person and is only used on a few Irish republicians like Patrick Pearse. Currently the main difference is the position label, which does not exist in Infobox military person. I'm a great believer in wikipedia standards so I don't think there should be a separate infobox for Irish republicans, rather Military person could be modified to have an optional extra parameter to allow for positions like in Pearse's box. What do you think? Snappy (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh go for it. You seem to understand the situation on the position label, and what it might entail. Using Volunteer/Óglach for example. Just check with a couple of editors and see how the kite sails. --Domer48'fenian' 23:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor meddling

Major apologies if this was mistaken. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 03:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sound thanks! --Domer48'fenian' 13:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probation

You may have broken the terms of your probation at History of Sinn Féin. You may wish to consider self-reverting. Mooretwin (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Your account was participating in an edit war at History of Sinn Féin and reverted the same article twice in two days.[32][33] This was a violation of the terms of your probation from the ArbCom Troubles case (1 revert per article per week).[34] Your account access has therefore been blocked for one week. To avoid future blocks, please try to engage in collaborative editing, rather than in revert wars. Thanks, --Elonka 00:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Sinn Féin

Is there a summary of the sources (with text) anywhere to hand? I'm happy to put some effort into hermeneutics here but I need to know where to start. If its just a matter of trawling through the talk pages I can do that, but if there is an easier way! --Snowded TALK 11:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some, I put together some quotes from them also later. --Domer48'fenian' 11:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have to laugh

Apparently you hate the English, and odd how nothing was done about that blatant trolling wasn't it? I really must say, that your anti-English sentiment was quite obvious on the two occasions I've met you...nah in fact your hospitality was top-notch! 2 lines of K303 13:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Talk about the pot and the kettle. --Domer48'fenian' 15:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]