::::::I support your actions 100% BrownHairedGirl, I had no idea Vk was doing this. Per Rockpocket, I am horrified that he has rushed back into a contentious area. When I naively supported my own stylistic preference for the naming, I did not know this had been a whole area of conflict. Vintagekits, you have been told a good few times now you cannot use this encyclopedia for POV-pushing. Threatening editors with making edits unless they apologise is ridiculous behaviour. That is what you are blocked for and if I were you, knowing the whole story and everything, I would just accept the block and be thankful it isn't a longer one. --[[User:John|John]] 03:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
::::::I support your actions 100% BrownHairedGirl, I had no idea Vk was doing this. Per Rockpocket, I am horrified that he has rushed back into a contentious area. When I naively supported my own stylistic preference for the naming, I did not know this had been a whole area of conflict. Vintagekits, you have been told a good few times now you cannot use this encyclopedia for POV-pushing. Threatening editors with making edits unless they apologise is ridiculous behaviour. That is what you are blocked for and if I were you, knowing the whole story and everything, I would just accept the block and be thankful it isn't a longer one. --[[User:John|John]] 03:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
: I have to say, I'm largely satisfied with that explanation from BHG and am somewhat disappointed that VK went straight back into the baronetcy controversy like that. From what I remember, there was a slew of RfCs last year over this whole thing. VK's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=move&user=Vintagekits&page= move logs] show a lot of activity, all with the comment "per MOS". Personally, I'd not have applied a block of that duration; rather I'd have started at a day or even a week, from the agreed unblock resolutions above. Though I'm not familiar with/interested in the subject, I can follow BHG's rationale for the existing naming scheme and, unfortunately, I find it hard to do the [[WP:AGF]] thing here, given VK's past history. There are over a million articles here and VK's stepping back into the whole baronetcies thing was not in the spirit of his unblock agreement. In short - it's a long block, but I have to endorse it here - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#558; font-family: comic sans ms; font-variant: small-caps">'''A<font color= "#7070a0">l<font color= "#9090c0">is</font>o</font>n'''</span>]] [[User talk:Alison|☺]] 04:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Revision as of 04:17, 18 August 2007
If you are here to point out my spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, poor punctuation, don't bother - I know its poor and no amount of spell checks can sort that out. I'm not perfect; you're (possibly) not perfect; there's only ever been one man in this world who's ever been totally perfect and they even crucified him
This is a troll-free zone.
This editor has full permission to remove, without replying, any comments he feels are likely to inflame dispute. If you have a problem with this editor, you are invited to bring that concern to the attention of User:SirFozzie or another member of the administrator community, but please bear in mind that we have a zero-tolerance approach to harassment. Constructive dialogue is always welcome, but if your message is removed it is safe to assume that User:Vintagekits has read it and chooses not to debate with you at this time.
I think it could be useful information. But the medical explanation wasn't sourced — the law article didn't say anything about that. — Rebelguys2talk22:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't see that, first I ever heard of it, I wonder did he switch sides in prison, as the OIRA were defunct in all but name by then.--padraig3uk02:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say he switched prior to the bank raid but I dont know, I would say OIRA via C na hE was his idological entry into republicanism but didnt do feck all for them in reality and then he move to PIRA and entered the war for real but thats all guesswork.--Vintagekits02:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vintagekits and thank you for your message. Can you find me the diff where he said that? The one you sent me was of him removing the warning. You have done the right thing in raising the matter with me. Not to be picky, but why do you call me Gunniog? That never was my user name and I've been User:John for quite a while now. Best wishes; I will help you if I can. --John01:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I gave him a last warning; I'm sorry to see that wasn't enough for you but I bristle at the accusation of double standards. Blocks are preventive, not punitive and I always give people a last chance to stop poor behaviour before blocking. I hope you can rein in any tendency to be uncivil in complaining about a matter based around civility, as I'm sure you can see how silly that would be. Let me know, please, if Gibnews continues to make problematic edits. --John02:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it wasnt for the other two final warnings that you have given give (one for NPA and one for edit warring) then I might have consiered this final warning more seriously. Second;y, the reference to double standards is with reference to your asertion that you would like to block him because you would "too close" - pity that wasnt the case for me and especially ONiH for whom you became the straw that broke the camels back. slainte!--Vintagekits02:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you had quite a few final warnings from me yourself over a period. I only blocked you in the end after a discussion at WP:AN/I. I declined ONiH's unblock request because he was continuing to behave badly. I repeat, I always give people a chance to improve because I believe established editors deserve that, however problematic their behaviour. As I'm sure you know, Gibnews was blocked by Tyrenius, so the result you wanted was achieved. I'd like to see you as part of your improvement plan put all these grudges from the past behind you. You could achieve a lot more if you did. --John03:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been to confusion (its wikis version of confession!) and Fr. O'Leary has absolved me of my sins so as far as I am concerned its a clean(ish) slate.--Vintagekits03:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tariqabjotu, I'm not sure that your protection of that template is all that useful. When I first separated the infobox out of the main article (Northern Ireland) as a single-transclusion template, the intent was to keep the main article unprotected for other non-infobox related edits, while the dispute on the infobox played out. However, since the main article is currently unprotected, editors are able to create their own versions of the infobox and put it in the main article, completely bypassing the protected template. This has already happened. My attempt at dispute resolution was a failure. I think the proper course of action is to reverse my work and put the infobox code back inline into the main article and protect that instead. Thanks, Andrwsc21:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can I comment on this, firstly Andrwsc, you did created a seperate template to allow the Northern Ireland article to be unprotected, something I agreed with, and also something I did myself in the past if you care to check through the edit history over the past 6 months, on that occassion the template was nominated for deletion by another editor involved in the dispute on the flag issue.
The template you created this time you didn't protect when you created it, dispite being told it would need protection to prevent an edit war, you then allowed one editor to reinsert the flag, and carry out 7 reverts in a 48hr period, before you protected the template and give that editor a warning about edit warring dispite the fact they had broken 3RR and should have been blocked from editing, yet you failed to revert the template back to it original state.
There are a small group of editors trying to use WP as a soapbox to promote a particular political POV on Northern Ireland the flag issue is only part of that they are also pushing the notion that all Northern Ireland people are Northern Irish as a ethic group or nationality, this is completely false as people in Northern Ireland can either regard themselves as British, Irish or with duel British/Irish nationality, Northern Irish is a Unionist creation.
I believe that WP should present the facts of the political situation in Northern Ireland, in this the Official Flag is the Union Flag, not the Ulster Banner. I also have no objection to the use of the Ulster banner in its proper context, when dealing with the period of 1921-72, I even used the Ulster Banner in this Template:Politics of Northern Ireland 1921-72 template I created to deal with the government and elections of that period, nor do I object to its use when dealing with sports people that identify with that flag or play in the commonwealth games under that flag. But I do object with their attempts to protray the Ulster Banner as representing Northern Ireland and its government today or since 1972.--padraig3uk02:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would second that, Padraig has done more than most to resolve this issue, I would assert that it is the actions of Astrotrain (talk·contribs) that we need to be looking at as I believe the he creates the problems regarding this issue on many pages. --Vintagekits02:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A second template in my opinion is very necessary and has been discussed for some time on the Northern Ireland talkpage - I again see this as a great effort on his behalf to resolve this issue. --Vintagekits02:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Vk. I was reading the above article that you have been contributing to and noted some serious issues with attributions. There are plenty of statements in this article that are written as facts, but when you read the sources they are most certainly not independent reliable sources. Just two examples:
The funeral had embarrassed the anti-Republican Fine Gael/Labour coalition goverment in Ireland at the time and its then-Taoiseach, Liam Cosgrave is sourced to An Phoblacht. How on earth can the mouthpiece of one political party be an independent, reliable source of criticism of its opposition? This has to be attributed.
Six to eight guards would restrain the prisoner and drag him or her by the hair to the top of the bed, where they would stretch the prisoner’s neck over the metal rail, force a block between his or her teeth and then pass a feeding tube, which extended down the throat, through a hole in the block, a description of the British method of forcefeeding, is sourced to NORAID. Again, this must be attributed, as the source is not independent.
Obviously, I could go ahead and do this myself, or bring it up on the talkpage. But I'm not really familiar with editing in this subject area, and first wanted to determine whether this sort of lack of attribution is the norm, and whether there would be protest about among the regulars. So I thought I would discuss it with your first.
Just to be clear, i'm not disputing the validity of this content, not am I saying that it is not accurate. I'm simply proposing that the content be attributed in the text, to make clear to the reader that this info is from sympathetic, rather than independent, sources. Rockpocket08:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the email Rocket, we have a long(ish) standing agreement with what some might call "editors of another persuasion" that these sources are used especially, An Phoblacht, as it is the largest political weekly in Ireland and was one of the primary sources of news for the republican and nationalist communities is the O6 for many years. Anyway the basis of the agreement is that these sources are 1, used as fact unless there is a source which contradicts the informaton, then 2, if there is contrasiting then its is attributed and finally 3, if same information can be found from what other editors deem to be a more neutral source then the reference from say An Phoblacht, Troops Out Movement etc then the references from those sources is removed and replaced with the new source. regards--Vintagekits12:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And just what "persuasion" are you labelling me with VK? ;-) This is one of the articles we could apply the rationale to, the referencing could definitely be improved. Its a pain in the arse doing it though, which is why I haven't yet. Stu’Bout ye!08:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Vk. I wonder if you could shed any light on some issues about Gaughan. Do you know if his conviction was on terrorist-related charges or just criminal charges (and by that I mean explicitly, obviously the motivations of the prosecution may have been political, even if the charges were explicitly criminal). Secondly, it appears from his hunger strike demands that he was never awarded special status, can this be confirmed? Rockpocket18:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To answer 1. I dont know is the answer as for 2. he may have had it at the very beginning of his internment but definately didnt at the end.--Vintagekits19:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Gaughan
Thanks for your message. Two points: Firstly I have indeed read WP:RS, and Noraid is a textbook example of a questionable source. To quote: 'A questionable source is one with no independent editorial oversight or fact-checking process, or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. This includes websites and publications that express political, religious, anti-religious, or racist views that are widely acknowledged as extremist.' Noraid is therefore fine as a source for Republican perceptions of Michael Gaughan, but as a source for a NPOV description of British force-feeding methods, or the political impact of the hunger-strikers it is entirely useless, being about as partisan and unbalanced as it is possible for a source to be.
Second point: I am concerned about the use of the term 'Volunteer' for IRA members on Wikipedia. To me this seems to be favouring the IRA POV (that they are a legitimate army and therefore entitled to be addressed by their ranks) over the British POV (that they are criminals/terrorists). The neutral description would seem to me to be 'members'. I'm guessing that this has come up before: is there any discussion or guideline that you could point me to? Thanks.--86.31.225.15322:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1, Have you got any proof that the Noraid article has a. "no independent editorial oversight" b. "no fact-checking process" or c. "a poor reputation for fact-checking." - actually if you read the articles on their website that totally debunks that issue. 2. If you read the article Volunteer (Irish republican) you will understand that its a rank. If consider members of the British Army to be terrorist, murderer or criminals (which many people do) would that negate that fact that they held a rank in that organisation no matter how lowly they would consider that organisation or rank?--Vintagekits22:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1)Noraid claims on the front page of its website to be 'the voice of Irish Republicanism in America'. Nothing wrong with that - but it clearly means it is partisan on the subject of Irish Republicanism. Its entire purpose is to support the Irish Republican POV, not to be a neutral conduit of balanced information about Ireland. It does not claim to be independent in the way that the New York Times or the Sydney Daily Telegraph would claim to be when writing about Ireland. This does not mean that everything in it is POV or incorrect, just that we cannot rely on anything in it to be NPOV. 2) The difference between the British Army and the IRA for Wikipedia purposes is that the British Army is, de facto and de jure, the army of an internationally-recognised state with control over its territory, recognition from its neighbours and the UN, and subject to international law. None of this applies to the IRA, which is only recognised as an army by its supporters. This is true even if you consider members of the British army to be criminals and murderers - they are, objectively, an army in the legal sense: it is this that entitles them to be known by their ranks.--86.31.225.15322:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. Neutrality is a quality that is in scarce supply with regards the issue of NI, and to claim that a Unionist paper like that Daily Telegraph is a paragon of neutrality speaks volumes to me. Also neutrality does not preclude a source from being reliable per WP:RS. 2. The point I was making is that like it or not that the IRA has systems, ranks as well as anArmy Council, Chief of Staff, Quartermaster General,Divisions, Brigades[1][2], North and South Command etc in its organisation - it exists we all have to deal with it.--Vintagekits22:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Names.
Thanks. Was just about to leave you a message saying well done with the work you've done to the Vol. Michael Gaughan article. Keep up the good work. Derry Boi20:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure this category is appropriate. It should probably be discussed before being inserted into all IRA articles. I'll maybe start a conversation at the WP:IWNB. Stu’Bout ye!10:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see anything there that justifies your position. Tell you what, I'm getting tired of your incivility as well. --John01:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You keep shouting about incivility - I havent been uncivil - just because you dont like the point I am putting across doesnt mean I am being uncivil.--Vintagekits01:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Vintagekits. Can you please explain how the ruling justifies always capitalising the word "volunteer"? According to our MoS this is wrong. I'm looking at the sentence "Lower case "v" should be used for the time being." Thanks in advance. --John18:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was quoting from the cabal ruling. I already quoted you the MoS section. I have lots of patience but it isn't infinite. --John18:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey VK.. just step it down a bit man. I just noticed this on my last go round on WP before tying to catch 120 winks or so (got a killer bug and currently feeling like a steamroller ran over me..) Let me read the section and see what's going on and we can see where we need to go on it. SirFozzie18:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No probs Fozz. The cabal stated that the capitalisation of Volunteer should be further discussed on the talk page, it was then agreed that it was to be capitalised. P.S. hope you get better soon mate--Vintagekits18:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
VK, this is what I'm seeing. Remember two things, A) That I'm looking over this quickly, and B) I'm not as sharp as I normally am, anyway. I'm gonna have to agree that John looks correct so far. I'll provide my reasoning in a new section below. Remember, I don't have the experience that you guys have with this whole thing (read a good article on sports as it pertains to the situation, I should send you the link someday when I can find it again.) SirFozzie18:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know anything about signing comments as im new to wikipedia and I wont be signing this comment.
I see you have got yourself a bit of a negative reputation here on wikipedia thus my reason for deciding to ignore and delete any future comments from you.
P.S wikipedia should be respected. Its been very benefical for me and I and im sure many other users would appreciate a bit of respect from you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fermanagheditor (talk • contribs)
So despite banging on about WP:AGF you are blatantly failing to adhere to this and also convieniantly ignoring the issue of copyright violation - interesting.--Vintagekits01:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have uploaded the pictures under 'my own work' and have stted on ALL pictures that i took he myself so is there any point in e answering any queston when the answer is on the image ta?
--Fermanagheditor03:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This new user uploaded a bunch of images and tagged them as his own work. Unless you actually have evidence that he did not take this pictures, you MUST assume good faith. Why? If he's going to lie about it the first time, he'll lie about it the second time, too. Therefore, asking for a "confirmation" is a waste of time (if he's not being truthful) and rude (if he is being truthful). Now I know you don't want to spend your days wasting your time or being rude - so your best bet is to think of something else to do - like finding outside evidence that the images are copyvios - or complimenting the new user on his helpful contributions. Rklawton02:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two points - 1. I did say he did I asked him to confim if he did take the shots, 2. an admin has deleted the pics cos he obviously had doubts about them. I did assume good faith but as you can see if you look through the editors recents edits that he is acting a little irrationally!--Vintagekits02:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of the MedCab case
Consensus on IRA member and volunteer
Where the initial definition occurs in the lead section, it should firstly be stated that a person is a member of the IRA. The term volunteer should then normally be mentioned. Lower case "v" should be used for the time being. In the main text of an article the word, volunteer, is free to be used, but this has to be judged in each particular instance to achieve maximum sense and good style. It should not be used rigidly and other terms such as "IRA member" can also be used or any other appropriate reference. Different terms can be interspersed, and may vary from article to article.
(Signed agree) Vintagekits 17:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't see anything after that that would indicate disagreement with the MedCab results. And I tried to look for it, man. Hope you take this in the spirit offered, and to see where the other side is coming from. Off to bed, then.... SirFozzie18:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
here mate, the reason that I agreed to the cabal resolution was that this issue was to be discussed further. The two main protagonists on either side were myself and Logistic and both of us agreed that it was to be a capital V.--Vintagekits18:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your individual agreement with another user, while meritorious in a way, does not for a moment override the MedCab decision or Wikipedia's Manual of Style. I can't think why you would believe that it could. If you look one section down on the talk page you refer to you can see a reasonable summary of the position from Tyrenius. Please make sure you adhere to it in future. Thanks. --John19:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense, ask Tyrenius, he was the one that stated that we should agree that between us what the issue of the capitalisation should be. YOU ADHERE TO IT!--Vintagekits19:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me where Tyrenius gave you and another user permission to decide consensus between yourselves on a usage that contradicted both MedCab and MoS? No offence, but I find that very hard to beleive. --John19:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why dont you post a messege on his talk page if you require clarification. I feel like I may become uncivil relatively soon, so I am going to disengage.--Vintagekits19:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(deindent) That's fine. I don't think I am getting anywhere in discussing your behaviour with you directly so I intend to take it up with SirFozzie as you are supposed to be on parole. Best wishes, --John19:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one has had a problem with me -except you, and shocking you were the one that blocked me - you are bullying me, you have done for some time and I am pretty sick of it. What you want me to do is bow down you whatever you say at every turn and if I dont you say I have been uncivil - which I havent. I would actually appricate if you never posted on this talk page again and stayed away from me as you seem to be the main root of the trouble that ever comes my way. I mean all this in the strictest wiki sense. regards--Vintagekits19:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Advice
Hello Vk. I'm going to offer a bit of unsolicited advice here, which you are entirely free to ignore, of course, but I hope you will at leat think about it. I wonder if you ever consider why you seem to find yourself almost perpetually in conflict with other editors? Of course, you certainly edit in controversial areas, and that is obviously part of it, but there is more to it that that. I edit on controversial areas all the time, but generally get on pretty well with most other editors.
Consider an editor makes a few comments about something that are perfectly civil and appropriate [4], immediately you strike an aggressive an accusatory tone [5], report the editor as a sock to an admin [6] with no good evidence whatsoever. For some strange reason SirFozzie appeared to have taken your assumption as Gospel and indef blocked this user on the most flimsy of circumstantial evidence. This is the most egregious failure of WP:AGF, starting a chain reaction leading to a terribly unjustified block. This would be bad enough, but when it eventually gets sorted out and the blocked editor - perfectly civilly - notes your role in this mess [7], you don't apologise, nor to you even acknowledge your actions. What you do is delete the comment with a rather incivil "be gone". [8]
My point is that to be a successful Wikipedian, we have to address other editors with a basic level of respect and civility, whether they agree with you on any specific issue or not. This editor afforded you that respect and in response you have treated him very poorly indeed. This is a perfect example of why you meet conflict at every turn here. I don't know the reason for it, whether it is just your attitude towards the purpose of the project, or whether you don't see a problem with it, but this sort of constant borderline incivility is problematic. Each comment or act in itself may seem insignificant, but it appears to be continual and the sheer weight of conflict is a huge energy sink for those editors drawn into it. In the past you have argued you are simply responding to what you see as incitement from other editors (cf. John in the section above), but I can't find a single incivil word or act from Hegertor (talk·contribs) to justify this response (apart from the fact you are convinced he is a sock of someone you had a run in with in the past).
So, my request to you is twofold. Firstly please seriously consider WP:AGF and use it. Sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry is always outed in the end (as you are painfully aware), so there is no need to act on rash accusations without proof. Secondly, can't you just be a bit nicer to people? Would it make you less of a man to respond to to Hegertor's reminder with, "thank you for your comments, they are duly noted", then delete it (as is your right)? Because your perpetually anatagonistic tone is counterproductive to both you and the project and it will only be tolerated for so long. Thanks for your consideration. Rockpocket18:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rather one sided view but I that your point. If you had to dealing with the literally 100's of socks of RMS then you would understand - obviously Sir Fozzie thought the same and he did unblock him but still had concerns over the account. I still believe Hegator is a sock if not of RMS then of someone else - all you need to do is read his first three edits and if that doesnt convince you then I dont know. Additionally how come I've never had any conflict with anyone over any of my boxing articles? strange that! Anyway point taken. --Vintagekits18:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I have my own pet banned troll that has, literally, hundreds of socks (see here and here), so I know exactly what it is like. Some have taken a while to confirm though, because its really important not to block unless you are convinced. Blocks are not punitive, therefore there is no good reason to block if there is no immediate threat to Wikipedia, or you are convinced it is a banned/blocked user.
Remember it is not against policy to have a number of accounts, nor is it against policy for an experienced editor to disappear and reappear under a new account. In fact I'm reasonably sure an erstwhile colleague of yours who left recently has done exactly that, but that is his right to remain anonymous. So whether Hegertor has edited previously is not really an issue, even if he is a previously blocked editor, so long as he edits constructively and civilly now, is it really a problem? If Hegertor is some persistent troll, then his true colours will be revealed in time and he will be dealt with. In the meantime, this is where WP:AGF comes in.
Why is the template saying the Union Flag is the official flag and then not including it? I've replied to your comments about the FAI League of Ireland on my talk page. Regards. -MichiganCharms21:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because its not the flag of Northern Ireland, if you are interested in contributing to the discussion with regards this topic please for to the talk page of the Northern Ireland article.--Vintagekits21:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Boxing
Clearchoice here - Thanks for the welcome. I'm an ex-boxer myself...interesting pages you've put up. I'm no expert on Wikipedia so thanks for your offer of assistance!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Clearchoice (talk • contribs)
Vk. This is unacceptable. You need to WP:COOL off now and take a break. If you repeat this sort of language I will block you per the terms of your probation. Please chill and come back when you can discuss matters without resorting to personal attacks. You will not be warned again. Rockpocket21:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are you going to do about his provokation. I was the one behind the compromise from the start and trying to bring editors together on this issue and then he thinks he can talk to me like that!--Vintagekits21:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Terry Magee
Hi, Look, I'm afraid you're wrong on this one. Betws is not part of Ammanford (there's a river between the two). I could give some very precise references for Terry's address but I'm not sure he'd want this personal data posted so prominently. As you said, you don't know the area. I live here. I appreciate the situation is confusing but believe me, many people use 'Ammanford' as shorthand for this whole area which is why so many references give it as his home town. Ewen11:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dont doubt the information is correct, I would wouldnt be surprised in you know Terry very well and I am sure what you are saying in correct and he lives in Betws - however, the two references say he lives in Ammanford. Wiki works on verifability not truth - please read WP:V. If you can get a source per WP:RS that counteracts the two existing sources then I would be happy to look at them. regards--Vintagekits11:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in the reference I gave [9] it does state that he lives in Betws (26th OCTOBER 2000 - THREE OF SEVEN "TERRY MAGEE ...is due back to his home in Betws...") and given that the postal town for the whole area is 'Ammanford' then it's not a contradiction to find references saying he lives in Ammanford when to be specific he lives in Betws.
Listen, like I said I dont really care where the guy lives - Boxrec says - Ammmanford and so other references say "Known famously to those in Ammanford for is out standing commitment to the community" - but if he lives in Betws crack on and stick it in. It doesnt bother me at at.--Vintagekits12:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
VK, I've asked you to keep a cool head and walk away when you get in these situations. No getting the last word, just walk away, Unfortunately, you have crossed over the line. I don't CARE what other people are saying to you at some points. You need to be the bigger man in these situations. I told you that if you let the system work, it works. You didn't here. I'll see you tommorrow. SirFozzie22:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I wont be uncivil and say what I think of John, looks like he's got his wish and his bait has caught its prey. I will be gracious and take it on the chin, oiche mhaith a chara. Tiocfaidh ar la!!!!--Vintagekits22:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tobermore Again
Contact admin for me doing what? Moving what Tobermore means and is derived from in one of Northern Ireland's minority languages to the section (Location and Name Origin) following on straight after the introduction? I was just stopping unneeded repetition and cutting down on the clutter in the introduction, hence the creation of the Location and Name Origin section.
You can't say i was trying to erase your Irish identity from the page especially as i put it in the following section and since i myself put the Irish meanings of Tobermore and Calmore into the article in the first place. If your edit was politically motivated as some of your edits on articles have been in the past, i would like to ask you to please stop with political POV edits. Mabuska19:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not pushing a political POV and do not appricate the accusation - I have been very fair with you in the past and have assisted you when you were a new user and dont appricate this breach of WP:AGF. It is standard practice to have the Irish name of places throughout Ireland followed by the Irish version of that name. You unecessarily removed this without any reason given or any discussion opened. Also when did I say that ypu were trying to erase your Irish identity?? Also I never edited the article I dont understand how or why you can say your edit was politically motivated as some of your edits on articles have been in the past, i would like to ask you to please stop with political POV edits - can I request you read both WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL before you continue editing.--Vintagekits20:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll only refute by saying that i said at the start of what you (partially) quoted If your edit. I said IF. I wasn't saying that it WAS politically motivated but IF. Funnily enough you ommitted the IF from your quote which included every other word in the sentence. So you can't say i was saying that you where definately 100% politically motivatedly editing articles. I said IF which implies, that you maybe or maybe not editing with political motivation. There is no malice in that insinuation, only a raise of an eyebrow as you have previously edited other articles with a POV that can be interpreted as politically motivated. I don't feel that raising an eyebrow to such a matter is a breach of WP:NPA or WP:CIVILMabuska21:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I quite clearly explained my comment in my above response and on the point of those NPA and CIVIL articles, where you not recently banned for incivility. If an admin thinks i am in breech of those articles then i will accept it and won't protest. And pointing out POSSIBLY politically motivated POV edits isn't a crime or in breech of Wikipedia standards - rather it is something that i assume Wikipedia would look into seriously to ensure neutrality. Mabuska21:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yer bang out of order actually, I left you a perfectly polite messege regarding the Tobermore article and you come on here with all sorts of unwarranted accusations. What politically motivated edits have I ever made to the Tobermore article or when have I been uncivil to you and what makes you think you can be uncivil to me?--Vintagekits21:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A Request
As a conscientious editor concerned to improve Wikipedia, you might like to signify your assent to participate in Community Enforced Mediation regarding articles about Ireland, Northern Ireland and its people and groups by signing up Here.If you have any questions on what it would entail, please do not hesitate to ask SirFozzie on his talk page or via email.
Basically, VK, what this would be for is to get all the disagreements out, and start hammering out a set of rules (1 RR, as we discussed, except on ALL sides.), and higher level of civility. Basically, it's to stop the pointless back and forth sniping (on both sides).. get people focused on improving the encyclopedia instead of spending all their time doing and undoing each others work. It's worth a shot, at least. SirFozzie14:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes/No? Sorry VK to kinda push this, but we're getting about a week on this, and I haven't heard from you on this. I'm also getting pinged on a couple comments you're making.. And while in general, even folks on the other side have said in general you're getting better.. there's still areas apparently where I need to work with you. Shoot me an email if you have a free moment, I am exceptionally busy today at work, but I will work with you anytime. SirFozzie17:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Bernard_Dunne5.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C09:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Help
Thanks for the offer of help figured out what I was trying to do if stuck again is it ok to ask you for assistance? BigDunc14:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Naughty words
Please would you be consistent in your position and agree the position with BB: Jean McConville was not murdered but, in reference to Gibraltar, "Whats desparate times - the unarmed ASU were surrendering and then murdered.--Vintagekits 08:26, 25 July 2007"...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 17:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this necessary, this could have been brought up on the article talk page, It looks like your trying to harass editors you disagree with, I think it would be better if you refrained from this.--padraig18:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appearances can be deceptive
VK knows why I don't bother to e-mail him, and this inconsistency of wording applies on more than 100 separate article pages - to raise it on each individually really would be harrassment!
This really is not academic since we need to harmonise and make consistent across the project the use of "Naughty words". Thanks for alerting me to your point of view....Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 18:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indef block
I have extended you block for an indefinate period due to threats of physical violence, gross personal and sectarian attacks and indicating you will engage in further meatpuppetry. I will ask for a review of this myself, therefore you do not need to. I will leave this page for you to plead your case, should you have a change of opinion, but be aware that if you continue to use this page as a platform for soapboxing or personal attacks, I will protect it. Rockpocket01:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Due to continued abuse from Vintagekits, I've protected this page. This will have the effect of limiting Vintagekits's ability to make a case here. Rklawton03:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotected
At Vintagekits request, I have unprotected the talk page (the only page he can edit while blocked). Please do not come here to gloat or attempt to wind up VK any further. SirFozzie18:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Foz, I've been away chillin out. I'm gonna stay off for a month and then request that I am aloud back but not to edit on republican articles for a further six months. How does that sound?--Vintagekits18:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that request.
But only if the list of "republican articles" is published in your (SirFozzie's) talk space first, publicised in appropriate article discussion areas (ie most of the embargoed articles) and then a period of 7 days allowed for the community to add to the "six month embargoed" list.
I would also suggest, as a preventative measure, an escalating series of edit blocks beginning at 1 hour and only rising in 1 hour increments to try and correct breaches of policy (obviously including edit warring and personal attacks). VK's editing skills have improved with leaps and bounds and it would be a notable educational achievement to welcome him back as a conscientious editor.
The penultimate, and obviously controversial, proposal I would make is a ban on "Admin shopping" by VK. You, SirFozzie have a certain amount of respect in the community which is not shared by infallible admins like Tyrenious and Alison
The final, and obvious, proposal I would make is a 3 month ban on my editing any article I have not edited previously and before his return that he has edited after his return so as not to run the risk of antagonising him...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 19:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
VK, I think that sounds reasonable, and I'd support that. Foz is away ill at the moment, but I'll see that he gets the message - "Infallible" Alison☺19:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alison, please would you clarify whether it is an unconditional return that you support or one with the conditions I have described?...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 19:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be helpful if you would clarify exactly which of my proposed conditions are unacceptable. Sorry to press you, Alison, but I think it might be helpful to Vintagekits if he knew exactly what behaviour was expected...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 20:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's neither mine nor your decision to make. All I can do is state that I'm okay with a conditional unblock. Appropriate behavior for all of us is already well established by WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, etc, etc. As I'm not directly involved in VK's issues, I'll defer to SirFozzie on what the best approach is. - Alison☺20:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support resetting the block to something like 2 weeks (in all). VK did ban me from this page so I hope he wont object to me commenting here but he is unquestionably a useful editor and if people have issues with his behaviour we have disputre resolution processes and an arbcom; I am not comfortable with this user being indefinitely blocked without coming up in front of the arbcom first, and that is definitely following our policies and guidelines, SqueakBox22:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is not unusual for a user to be indef blocked without coming in front of Arbcom. Vk is not banned, his block should only stand as long as his contributions are likely to be disruptive to the smooth and proper functioning of the project, as they clearly were when I issued the block. I indicated I would let others decide on whether Vk's block should remain. I stand by that and will not object to his unblocking should any admin choose to do so for whatever reason. For what its worth, my personal opinion is that Vk's problems on Wikipedia stem from his editing of articles and talk pages related to Irish Republicanism. Should he steer clear of these either by choice or by an enforced ban, I don't see any good reason to enforce a block. Should he continue to edit these article, though, then I think he will continue to be a disruptive influence and see little point unblocking at this time. I should also note, though, that any repeat of the behaviour the led to the current block would, from me at least, lead to it being immediately re-instated. Rockpocket02:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would that be a slective block then, i.e. not editing Republican articles? Is that an existing policy option, as I have already indicated I'm opposed to any ad hoc policys? --Domer4808:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be a block. It would be a ban on certain articles. There is plenty of precedent for this, usually through ArbCom, which is a last resort, and if things can be settled before that stage, then it is best to do so. The ideal is an agreement between the editor whose conduct is at question and other relevant editors/admins to resolve any problem. Tyrenius10:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have no problem with Vk coming back, under the terms he has proposed himself above. Note, though, that Vk's "problem areas" are not necessarily limited to the "Irish Republican" sphere of influence but could be extended to include "anti-British". See here for a past example. BastunBaStun not BaTsun08:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I note yer concerns, hence the reason that I have offered to not edit republican articles (and to be more specific so there there can be no debate about it that includes all articles with WP:IR which I think covers all republican and republican linked articles) and then after I have earned the trust of Fozzie again I will request the "full membership" is reinstated.--Vintagekits10:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with lift. I thought that some editors were talking about a fresh start. I don't believe that making threats against Vk at this stage is making a fresh start. However I hope something is done about the continuous trolling on the relevant pages, this is the real problem, and these are the editors that sneak in and out and rarely ever get blocked. GH10:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I expect GH is referring to my indication that I will re-block Vk again if the same circumstances arise. I think it is Vk's interests to be straight with him about that and I don't think it is particularly controversial considering the circumstances that led to the block. If that is considered a threat, then so be it (though the fact blocks are not punitive, rather discounts that in my eyes). Rockpocket19:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no place on Wikipedia for users who continually intimidate others, and even threaten violence!, to continually push their PoV. Vintagekits is one such user. --Counter-revolutionary10:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Vintagekits offer to refrain from editing these articles is a fair offer and he should be allowed to show good faith by having his block lifted.--padraig10:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An indefinite block remains in place until such time as an admin is prepared to lift it. Alison and Rockpocket have already stated they consider it can be lifted on a conditional basis. Tyrenius11:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about this (I'd ideally want admins to comment, but any constructive criticism would be fair).
The unblock would be lifted under the following conditions
1) VK observe a MININUM 6 month topic-ban on all republican and republican-linked articles. Once six months are up, we can look at VK's editing , and response to provocations and the like, and look at lifting this topic-ban.
2) VK agree (as he did before) to a 1 RR on all topics.
3) Depending on how my illness goes, I may or may not be able to fully mentor VK.. hopefully in a few weeks when I can get back to editing fully, I can resume my duties. Right now, my WP editing is limited to 1/2 times a day. If I can't I will try to get another, neutral admin to help mentor VK.
I'll endorse that. Furthermore, I'll agree to mentor if VK and others are okay with that. I don't edit such articles myself as a rule - Alison☺18:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object to that, though in the interests of clarifying exactly what that self-imposed topic ban would entail, would Vk exclude himself from contributing to associated talkpages and XfDs also? Rockpocket19:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slight problem with that; Vk's PoV-pushing has not always been restricted to Republican articles in the past. Maybe if we made it boxing-only? --John19:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a tad too restrictive to me. VK could get indef' for fixing a typo in, say cheese, because it's not boxing-related. Opt-out, not opt-in - Alison☺20:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just say "dont get involved in political articles", ie any politically charged articles, that way places in Ireland say are great but eg Flags is not a good idea. A more liberal approach would be to jsut say dont get involved in disputes over political articles as adding to the Republicanism articles in a non-controversial way could help expand the encyclopedia without anybody minding. Its the conflicts that need avoiding, SqueakBox20:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The conflicts appear to arise whenever he takes part in anything to do with Ireland or Britain. One previous attempt at mentoring having failed I'd say the onus is now on Vk to be flexible, rather than the community. --John20:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldnt agree to that. The restriction of staying off articles in within WP:IR is explicit definition and sets a defined list or category of articles and leaves no debate as to what I should or shouldnt be editing. Also I would say that blocking from associated talkpages would be counterproductive. The reason I myself have offered this solution is to show that I can be trusted - I know I am on my last chance and I will need to show a level of maturity and by editing the talk pages this will benefit me in a few ways 1. it will show that I am able to approach subjects in a logical and retional manner, 2. it will show that I am able to not rise when baited (which I am sure a number of editors will attempt to do) and most importantly 3. it will get my used to solely solving issues on talk pages instead of getting involved edit wars - to that end I would also agree Fozzies suggestion of 1RR. Finally, I would disagree that Fozzies mentoring didnt work. I think must editors would agree that my contributions to wiki had improved significantly - fair eough I let him down with one drunken late night spate of editing but I wouldnt say that that was the failing of Fozzies mentorship.--Vintagekits10:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't suggesting you do that, simply asking if that was what you were proposing. Personally, I think if you did stay off controversial talk pages and AfDs you would have a better chance at keeping your cool and thus be less likely to find youself losing you temper again and getting reblocked. Nevertheless, if you can engage with other editors and remain civil then all credit to you, and that would be a strong indicator that the partial ban can be lifted sometime in the future without worry. As far as I'm concerned its your choice as to how restrictive you wish the conditions be. You appear to be very aware that it really would be a last chance, so if you feel that you can handle talkpage editing on controversial issues (and the inevitable conflict that will arise) then great, go for it. Rockpocket20:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think its fair to block an editor from commenting on an articles talk page, even if he has agreed to not personaly edit the article itself, that would stop him from pointing out errors on those article that other can correct, or engaging in discussions on content within that article.--padraig13:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SirFozzie your conditions set above contain a massive loophole. VintageKits has come into conflict on articles that aren't just WP:IR or political. Its also articles to do with Britain and Britishness that conflict with Irish republican ideals. So i'd suggest a ban on him editing WP:IR and ANY article (politically and non-politically) that deals with Ireland and Britishness and Britains role in foreign territories. Irish republicanism and anti-Britishness go hand in hand. Mabuska13:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, on 26th July user Rockpocket wrote the following "Vitagekits. I have blocked you for 31 hours for persistant low level incivility", so why the extreme conditions? GH20:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because immediately after the 31 hour block for low level incivility, further things were said. See the top of the page. See the page history. But I believe you're aware of this anyway, as you commented on the block on AN/I at the time. BastunBaStun not BaTsun22:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please may I comment on all this compassion as someone who has been, on numerous occasions, at the receiving end of Vintagekits vitriol. The first thing I would say is that the template says he is indefinitely blocked. Does this now mean that indefinite is only temporary? I have no great interest in Irish affairs but when I strayed into that arena once, many months ago, because I objected to the sanitisation of a terrorist organisation responsible for countless innocent deaths, all hell broke loose upon me led mainly by Vintagekits who then proceeded to goad me constantly. Silly me, I reacted accordingly and one of the pro-Irish lobby then placed a short ban on me for being uncivil!! So all very cosy, I thought at the time. Vintagekits and his pal One Night in Hackney, not being content with that, also proceeded to articles I had commenced or made major contributions to and changed them or at least tagged them causing an unnecessary degree of worry and harrassment to someone who carries out his research and writes Wiki articles in valuable time and good faith. At the same time, Vintagekits was engaged in arguments with User:Kittybrewster and set upon, with several fellow travellers, using all manner of Wiki Rules they could locate, a campaign of tagging articles he had commenced or made major contributions to as Articles for Deletion. I do not propose to enter upon the merits of this or that article. The question is: was Vintagekits the slightest bit interested in any of these articles? Answer: no he wasn't. What I am saying here is that Vintagekits has amply demonstrated that he will oppose and harrass anyone on Wikipedia he does not like or who demonstrates opposition to edits he has made. Discussion is utterly pointless because his responses are similar to listening to a broken record or otherwise intellectually insulting and designed to wind you up to fever pitch. I for one would oppose his return. You have to ask yourselves whether leopards do change their spots. David Lauder13:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that the block is indefinite until or unless Vk can demonstrate the capacity for good behaviour. I too have had bad experiences with this editor and he has already had several last chances. Although he has made some useful contributions, at this stage his balance is way over to the negative side. I would repeat; it is for Vk to be flexible and convince us he would not abuse the privilege of being allowed to edit here. Failing that, the block can stand. --John15:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said above, I cannot "convince us he would not abuse the privilege" if I am unable prohibited from doing so. I feel a little like an eager footballer on the bench urging his manager to put him on so that he can prove what he is capable of.--Vintagekits15:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't really had any run-ins with VK as far as I recall, and I don't frequently edit the kinds of article that seem to provoke his ire. I have come across his edits in the past however, but hopefully I can speak as some kind of neutral. There is room for all sorts of opinions on-Wiki, of all political persuasions. But *everybody* MUST undertake to edit impartially and without any agenda. I'm afraid it's blatantly obvious that VK (et al.) see Wikipedia as a POV battleground on which to further their own POV. This has also in the past boiled over into extreme incivility, racism, and downright nastiness, which is just completely unacceptable. Everybody deserves a second chance (and on Wikipedia, sometimes a third, a fourth, a fifth...etc.) and obviously VK sometimes acts in good faith and can make good contributions. But I strongly agree with John above- the onus here is on him to alter his behaviour, not on the other few hundred thousand or so of us to change our rules. It's also obvious that there is a lot of good faith being shown here and few want an indefinite ban to remain in effect. To reiterate, I would favour taking this to the arbcom and letting them sort it out. I suspect the outcome would be similar (some kind of parole with limitations on editing) but it would have the benefit of unassailable legitimacy, and the arbcom may also decide to look into some of the wider issues involved which could led to a wider solution. Badgerpatrol16:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying badger, however, to pick me out like this is a little unjust and unfair - many of the editors who many come on here and wanted the indef block to continue have been blocked for personal attacks on me (one who has been blocked again just today), so its doesnt surprise me that they have that opinion. As for arbcom, I am not sire hat would solve anything and would just take up more time and energy of all editors also I dont think that the outcome of an arbcom would suggest any restriction more stringent than the proposed in have suggested myself. As for proving that I can be trusted - actions speak louder than words and I will prove it be showing my editing skills and resolving issue in an amicable way without recourse to edit warring.--Vintagekits16:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's more or less what I meant by "wider issues"- from my (admittedly superficial) knowledge of your history on Wikipedia, it seems there are at least two sets of editors, each with a political agenda, who seem to delight in off-topic provocation of each other, POV pushing, and brinkmanship. Personally, I would like the arbcom to look into the behaviour of *all* the editors involved, not just you. Banning you indefinitely (whether you deserve it or not) is like sticking a plaster on a gaping wound- it's not an end to the problem. To be honest, in the absence of any groundswell towards taking this to the arbcom, I'm personally in favour of another chance for you, although I'm not an admin and 9 blocks in 6 months is a pretty poor rapsheet. Equally, I can't help but think that as soon as you go near any political article (Irish, British, terrorism, whatever) then problems are going to inevitably arise, and even if you're paroled from editing these I suspect you'll find a way to push your agenda somewhere else...sorry if that's harsh, but it is based on my reading of your edit history. Anyway, as you say, you can't demonstrate that you are prepared to change if you don't get given the chance. Badgerpatrol16:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't disagree with you to be honest, and yes, there needs to be some sort of mediation to govern all editors and an strict nonosense approach taken by admin to edit warring and POV pushing. I would be willing to sign up to that. I would also point out that the disruption and edit warring hasnt gone away just because I have been blocked, infact in the week or so that I have been blocked its arguably been much worse.--Vintagekits16:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's conciliatory, Vinnie.
Now can I clarify that you are unequivocally "willing to sign up to", as your very first edit if and when your block is lifted, "some sort of mediation to govern all editors and an strict nonosense approach taken by admin to edit warring and POV pushing."?
You are giving your promise to make a leap of faith in SirFozzie now and sign up to SirFozzie's initiative - or do you still have havers and quibbles and a bit of Wikilawyering to do yet?...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 13:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edit summaries
If you look at the top of the page, you will see that I was the first editor to support your request to be allowed back to WP.[10]
I personally know how aggravating and annoying it is to have users you loathe and detest post what may be regarded as provocations in your user space. You may think that, as perWP:CIVIL, you have an unconditional right to take the attitude that inappropriate text will typically be read but then deleted without comment (except for the edit summary, perhaps) but I am a litle disturbed by some of your recent edit summaries here on this page [11][12]
Do you have a specific list of existing editors you are unwilling to interact with?
If so, I think it would be better if those editors are also banned from interacting with you should you return....Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 13:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are many editors who have commented here that I wouldnt care to have a drink with, many have had their say here and voiced their opinion without me removing their comments. However, I drawn the line at having Astrotrain interject on this talkpage. I am happy to work with him with regards articles but I not going to allow to go attempt gloat or lord over me on my talk page.--Vintagekits17:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's positive, Vinnie. A very short list of one, then.
Would you be so kind as to comment on whether you are prepared to sign up (as requested by SirFozzie) in the first section of this edit: [13]
As I have already outlined I would be in favour of some sort of mediation - as long as its treats all equally, which is fair enough I think.--Vintagekits18:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't wish to badger you, Vinnie, but that is really not very specific. Could you perhaps take some time and address yourself to the specific and precise question in the section above and give us all a Yes or No. If you need clarification, I believe you still have SirFozzie's e-mail address...
After examining all comments above (up to, and including 17:47hrs UTC, 6 August 2007), I would still support User:Vintagekits request to have his indefinite ban lifted at 18:47hrs UTC, 3 September2007
But only if
(1) the list of articles that Vinnie is banned from editing until 18:47hrs UTC, 3 March2008 (the embargo list) is precisely defined and published in this and User:SirFozzie's and User:Rockpocket's talk space first and then
(2) that draft list is publicised in appropriate article discussion areas (ie most of the embargoed articles) and
(3) a period of 7 days is then allowed for the community to add to the "six month embargoed" list
(4) as a preventative measure, an escalating series of edit blocks beginning at 1 hour and only rising in small 1 hour increments to try and correct breaches of policy (obviously including edit warring and personal attacks) is implemented so other users can see that admins are vigilant and active and are then not tempted to edit war or revert themselves
(5) the talk pages of embargoed articles are specifically not embargoed (since Vinnie says he wishes to prove his reformed behaviour) - but only if
(6) three specific admin parole officers in different time zones are assigned to monitor all incivility and disruptive behaviour on articles that Vinnie edits (by any editor)
(7) a ban on "Admin shopping" by VK is implemented
(8) Vinnie publish his list of editors that he refuses to interact with here before his return
(9) consideration is given to banning editors on Vinnie's aforesaid list from editing specific articles that Vinnie edits after his return so as not to run the risk of antagonising Vinnie...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 13:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appriciate your time and effort G but I dont think that you are in a position to lay down what criteria or hoops must be jumped through. I have outlined the terms that I should be back on and I think they are more than fair.--Vintagekits17:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to 3, who decides if articles added by the "community" to the embargoed list are to be part of the finalised embargoed list? Also why is there such a long wait (ie a month) until VK's indef ban is lifted? Surely as a sign of good faith we could lift his ban as soon as he agrees to any proposal?Derry Boi14:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth taking some time to make sure this will work. The community has no need to prove its good faith, only Vk needs to do that. --John14:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that only VK can make this work, but he can't prove anything onless he is able to edit on some articles. So dragging this out, or making him wait ontil x time has passed is not very helpful.--padraig14:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
{Clarification for Derry Boi and Padraig}: I have not proposed "dragging this out".
Vinnies original proposal was "I'm gonna stay off for a month and then request that I am aloud back but not to edit on republican articles for a further six months.". It shows the good will and faith of the community that we are already discussing a "request" now, that is technically not due to be made for more than another three weeks. Now the post I just quoted from Vinnie was made by User:Vintagekits at 18:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC) - hence my proposal at (1) above that "the list of articles that Vinnie is banned from editing until 18:47hrs UTC, 3 March2008 (the embargo list) is precisely defined".[reply]
In regards to concrete proposal (2) above, "a period of 7 days is then allowed for the community to add to the "six month embargoed" list", there is nothing to stop either SirFozzie or Rockpocket starting this list in a specific area of their talk space right now so the list can be firmed up in the next 3 weeks and then the initial finalised list can be published here. My suggestion is that the draft list is not worked on here so that Vinnie does not have an opportunity to debate the entries since I really don't think it is for him to decide where he has been incivil and disruptive and biassed at this stage - once he is unblocked he will have ample opportunity to fight his corner again....Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 15:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about the following to take the best of both worlds:
A) Banned from editing articles relating to Irish Republicanism, broadly based. (IE, VK will have to show that it isn't tangentially related to the subject, not that others will have to prove that it is). This will last six months at a minimum. We can review it then.
B) If any admin determines that VK is disrupting any talk page in the slightest, he can add a talk-page ban on that article unilaterally. (VK, this means you're going to have to be on your best behavior no matter what, and there's a chance that an admin might decide to add a ban you consider to be unfair. You're going to have to go along with it, however).
C) Vintagekits will endeavor to remain civil at all times. If he has problems with any other editor, be they an administrator or an editor, he will bring it up privately with myself, or if I'm not around, User:Alison. This will prevent what has been termed as admin shopping.
D)VK places himself under 1RR, and will be blocked if he violates this.
E)It is strongly recommended that VK and the editors who oppose him minimize their contact if at all possible.
I think that sounds fair, can I add something to point E, that any editor that opposed VK or was involved in a dispute with him, in the case that they try to deliberately harass him on the articles or talks page he can edit, that the admin take action against that editor.--padraig14:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not too bad, but I'm just wondering will D) be set in stone? Ok the 1RR is fair enough, but at the end of the day I'm sure VK will over the course of six months make a genuine mistake and revert something twice. I just hope that if this does happen, he isn't instantly blocked without question. I'm sure VK will try his best to uphold the 1RR proposal, but at the same time I'm sure a genuine mistake will be made over a long period of time like six months. Derry Boi15:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not going to be an indefblock for violating it, but maybe a short term block (3-24 hours is what I would recommend) SirFozzie15:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Getting close. I suggest amending (a) to a ban on all political articles, to avoid a repetition of the user's unhelpful contributions to Talk:Falklands War in late May, for example. Although this kind of article has nothing directly in common with Irish Republicanism, more edits like this would be unacceptable. My other question is about the enforcement; it is a lot to ask of Alison to do it. I would need to see her assent to the job, which will be a long-term one, before I accepted the unblocking. I would like it explicitly stated too that this offer constitutes the absolute last chance for Vk; I would hate to see us all here again in a month or two. --John15:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
before I can properly comment on SirFozzie or Padraig's comments on my concrete amended proposals.
For now I will confine myself to saying that there is a danger in making things too complicated for folks to understand and an equal danger in having too many "nooseholes".
Before I see Vinnie's response I agree (C) is compatible with (6) since I assume SirFozzie and Alison are in different time zones, however I do have misgivings with them being 2 of the assigned 3 parole officers since they have both said they are under extreme time pressure and SirFozzie has also been very recently ill and his parole supervision ended in flames last time. If it does not seem too rude I see him contiuing more of a mentoring rather than a parole officer role. I fear that the three "parole officers" will need to be eternally vigilant in weeks 2 and 3 after Vinnie's eventual return. [E] is completely compatible with (9). [D] is implicit in (4). [B] is what I already intended in (1) - except that it is more precise in that only admins can add to the definitive "six month embargo list" - any editors wishing an article added to the list can simply contact an admin of their choice.
That leaves [A].
I wish to make it quite clear, SirFozzie, as other editors have already done above (even though many complaints and concerns have been deleted by various parties at various times and for various reasons and currently can not be viewed on this user's talk page) that the community's concerns are not limited to "Irish Republicanism, broadly based". I would take a great deal of persuading that a loose definition like [A] should ever replace (1), (2) and (3) above. God bless!...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 15:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to Fozzies point A - E, however, I would clarify that A is limited to WP:IR articles, should you look at the list of articles that are in the WP:IR then this will show they are most of the articles I edit anyway. Also to ban me from articles which are "Irish" or "British" or "political" is both unworkable and counterproductive. If I can show I can handle editing editing non WP:IR articles then that will go some way to showing I can edit all articles.
I think there is a strong argument to bring this case to arbcom as it strikes me that there are 2 sides to this dispute and it isnt right to just single out VK, SqueakBox18:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
break
I like SirFozzie's proposal, though would agree that its should be made clear that the ban includes other controversial political issues also, like Gibralter and the Falklands for example. I don't see the need to create a list, because in doing so we will inevitably forget something. Besides, Vk is not a child and he is not stupid. He, I'm sure, understands that this is not something he can wikilawyer around, that it is the spirit of the ban that is important not the specifics. Moreover, the ban is to help him. It is in his interests to avoid anything that could lead to conflict until he is confident, and we are confident, that he can deal with conflict in a manner that is acceptable to the community. If he edits a controversial article that is obliquely tangential to Irish republicanism, but does so in a responsible, civil and uncontroversial manner then its no big deal. He has contributed in a positive way. If he edits the same article in an incivil, irresponsible or controversial manner, then he will have shot himself in the foot. It will be Vk's decision on whether to edit articles around the margins of the ban, and if he is smart he will err on the side of caution.
Similarly, it is the spirit of 1RR that is important. If Vk was to accidently violate 1RR, one would fully expect an admin to remind him of it first, rather than just block him. The onus would then be on Vk to act appropriately in response (acknowledgement and relf reverting).
I think there is a danger of over complicating this. Wikipedia cannot exist with editors having a complex sub-set of things editors can and cannot do. All Vk really has to do is avoid making controversial edits until he can convince the project he can play nicely with others. It isn't rocket science, and thousands of other editors do it every day without too much effort. Either he can manage that (Great - welcome back, Vk) or he can't (Goodbye, Vk - Wikipedia isn't for you). In addition to Fozzie and Alison am happy to assist Vk in this if he would like, though he may prefer not to use me, and that is fine. But he doesn't need to be watched 24/7. He can't do anything that can't be retrosepctively assessed and reverted relatively trivially, and if he does melt down, what does it matter if it takes a day or so for an admin to intervene? I can't see him getting another chance after this one, so 24hrs is going to make little difference to an indef block.
I say as long as Vk understands and accepts Fozzie's conditions, and realises that it is the spirit, not the specifics, that are important - then he may as well be unblocked tomorrow. Rockpocket17:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW nobody should ever be punished for reverting obvious vandalism, even arbcom restrictions dont go that far, flexibility has to be the name of the game, if VK finds someone making ridiculous, obviously vandalsitic edits (so and so is a prat etc) this needs to be reverted by the first person on the scene, SqueakBox18:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, anyone that wanted action taken against Vk for vandalism reverts because they broke the terms of his parole would be equally guilty of wikilawyering. The onus is on Vk to prove that he can edit in an acceptable fashion, fencing him in with too many restrictions is not the way to judge that. There is two ways of looking at it: we give Vk enough leeway to prove to us that has has the judgement to edit constructively, or else we give Vk enough rope to hang himself. Either outcome solves the problem. Rockpocket18:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Irrefutable logic.
I just don't want any condemnation of the hangman or rope afterwards if it, sadly, goes that way...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 18:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(deindent) Rockpocket, if it's all right with you then it's all right with me. I'm going away for a few days, so I hope this works out. --John18:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With regards the articles which I wont edit - obviously I wont edit WR:IR articles as state, and if I edit any other articles but then Fozzie or Alison says dont edit that article then I wont edit that either. Now can the block be lifted please Fozz.--Vintagekits20:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I haven't taken part in this discussion, but I think there is a clear consensus now. It's time to get on with it and lift the block. Scolaire08:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've come into this discussion late for a number of reasons, and can add nothing that has not already been said (and probably better) by someone else. Let me say simply that I am glad to see your block lifted, VK, and I wish you the best. Occasionally, justice prevails. ---TheoldanarchistComhrá17:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not back yet - but thank you for your messeges of support. Fozzy has to remove the block yet, however, he is ill at the moment and doesnt edit much at the moment.--Vintagekits17:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't. However, if you can acknowledge that you understand and agree to:
Sir Fozzie's ban conditions above,
That - with regards to articles tangential the subject-specific ban (like contentious British issues such as the Falkland and Gibralter) - you will consult with an admin before editing,
That you are free to edit the talkpages and AfDs of any article, but that you will be held to the utmost level of civility on these pages, and an admin may ban you from these if they consider you to be disruptive,
Hi there, long time no speak!. I have made a slight alteration to the Jamie Moore boxer page and added a couple of references. Hope they sit well with you. Regards GRB1972
Anon has made his/her point, and the way forward suggested to him/her should they wish to do so. This should be the end of the matter on your talk page. As for a global ArbCom case, that would be a mammoth task. Moreover, the amount of mud raking it would generate would, I think, prove counter-productive. If someone wants to do it, then they should go ahead. But I personally, think a concerted effort of a few admins to enforce our policies across the board would be a lot more effective. Rockpocket20:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I only think arbcom would be appropriate were no admin to unblock VK say within a month of the block imposition because I certainly dont think he should be just blocked indefinitely. As one of his political opponents I have no reason to want to see this case go to arbcom but recognise it takes 2 to make an argument and that VK should not be singled out for an indefinite ban. Hope this is clear, SqueakBox20:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anon has made his/her point, and the way forward suggested to him/her should they wish to do so. This should be the end of the matter on your talk page. As for a global ArbCom case, that would be a mammoth task. Moreover, the amount of mud raking it would generate would, I think, prove counter-productive. If someone wants to do it, then they should go ahead. But I personally, think a concerted effort of a few admins to enforce our policies across the board would be a lot more effective. Rockpocket20:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I only think arbcom would be appropriate were no admin to unblock VK say within a month of the block imposition because I certainly dont think he should be just blocked indefinitely. As one of his political opponents I have no reason to want to see this case go to arbcom but recognise it takes 2 to make an argument and that VK should not be singled out for an indefinite ban. Hope this is clear, SqueakBox20:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anon has made his/her point, and the way forward suggested to him/her should they wish to do so. This should be the end of the matter on your talk page. As for a global ArbCom case, that would be a mammoth task. Moreover, the amount of mud raking it would generate would, I think, prove counter-productive. If someone wants to do it, then they should go ahead. But I personally, think a concerted effort of a few admins to enforce our policies across the board would be a lot more effective. Rockpocket20:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I only think arbcom would be appropriate were no admin to unblock VK say within a month of the block imposition because I certainly dont think he should be just blocked indefinitely. As one of his political opponents I have no reason to want to see this case go to arbcom but recognise it takes 2 to make an argument and that VK should not be singled out for an indefinite ban. Hope this is clear, SqueakBox20:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Is there a procedure for IP accounts to take a case to arbcom?
I am not arguing for a permanent ban or block on Vkits. I am arguing that our processes should not be abused and gamed.84.13.156.208
On 01:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC) you, Rockpocket wrote on this very page: "I have extended you block for an indefinate period due to threats of physical violence, gross personal and sectarian attacks and indicating you will engage in further meatpuppetry. I will ask for a review of this myself, therefore you do not need to. I will leave this page for you to plead your case, should you have a change of opinion, but be aware that if you continue to use this page as a platform for soapboxing or personal attacks, I will protect it." Now I am being attacked as a "sockpuppet" and my own comments (and that of other editors are removed by Vkits, the source of the need for this page to be protected. Surely it is a obstructive of communication with him and others if he just keeps blanking whole sections?
Is there a Wikipedia policy that means that the contributions of IP editors are disregarded and discarded? Surely it is what I write that is important?84.13.156.208
Only ones that edit off Opal communication servers and change IRA to PIRA - ring any bells. If you cant honestly identify yourself, then I am not going to have a conversation with you.--Vintagekits21:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are "off Opal communication servers", please?84.13.156.208
Ok, this isn't going anywhere. Anon, the solution to your point about ArbCom has been offered. Vk clearly doesn't wish to discuss the matter with you, lets leave him to get on with his editing, shall we? Rockpocket21:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No COI here and IMO VK should only go to arbcom if he doesnt get unblocked, which should happe in the next few days. If thast does happen there is nothing here for the arbcom, SqueakBox20:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SqueakBox, three or four times you have mentioned that you believe Vk's position should be determined by Arbcom before blocking. Now some anon is suggesting that Arbcom should determine whether Vk should be unblocked. If someone wishes to take this to Arbcom, I suggest they do so, rather than suggest others should. One doesn't have to be an admin to propose a case to the committee. Rockpocket20:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that arbcom should determine if he were to remain blocked if he was still blocked after a month or so. If he is unblocked, which he is, there is no need for arbcom. So my position was/is very different from that of the anon and there is no need to involve arbcom right now, SqueakBox21:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Sir. With respect, there should be a conflict of interest in this case. Advocating local and temporary solutions to widespread and persistent problems is not appropriate. Arbcom should be looking at the whole issue of Single Purpose Accounts and gang harassment.84.13.156.208
Not sure SQB is advokating arbcom - I would be happy to go to arbcom but dont see the point, it would not only be counterproductive but a waste of editors/admin time. p.s. I am not happy about anon socks using my talkpage in this manner--Vintagekits20:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith and do not make allegations without evidence. It is precisely that sort of behaviour that made many users doubt your assurances of reform. After the "attempted suicide" last nght do you wonder why users are now scared of harassment?
If you don't see the point of arbitration, Vkits then I really wonder why you bother to participate here - you certainly have not shown any signs of either remorse or reform in respect of your past behaviour84.13.156.208
I certainly think Vintagekits should be left alone to make useful contributions - but it's not a good sign that his first contribution to a co-operative project is to censor other editors and allege sockpuppetry84.13.156.208
You have been ask not to post on this editors user space, now respect that wish, and remember this editor has the right to remove any content he wishes from this page, you on the other hand have no right to revert that when he does so.--padraig21:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, hopefully I wont need any help but I am sure there will be some editors who will try and push me (like a certain editor tonight) but I should be cool!--Vintagekits23:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see you back, VK. Sorry I haven't been around much.. but hopefully now that you're back to stay.. if you just need somebody to bounce things off of, you have my email.I'm not editing WP full time due to my medical issues at the moment.. but my email is always open. SirFozzie15:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks mate, come back when yer fellin better. I'll say a prayer for y and get me mother to do a decade of the rosary - now thats chicken soup if there ever was.--Vintagekits18:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock conditions
Copied here from earlier on the page for clarity.
A) Banned from editing articles relating to Irish Republicanism, broadly based. (IE, VK will have to show that it isn't tangentially related to the subject, not that others will have to prove that it is). This will last six months at a minimum. We can review it then.
B) If any admin determines that VK is disrupting any talk page in the slightest, he can add a talk-page ban on that article unilaterally. (VK, this means you're going to have to be on your best behavior no matter what, and there's a chance that an admin might decide to add a ban you consider to be unfair. You're going to have to go along with it, however).
C) Vintagekits will endeavor to remain civil at all times. If he has problems with any other editor, be they an administrator or an editor, he will bring it up privately with myself, or if I'm not around, User:Alison. This will prevent what has been termed as admin shopping.
D)VK places himself under 1RR, and will be blocked if he violates this.
E)It is strongly recommended that VK and the editors who oppose him minimize their contact if at all possible.
That - with regards to articles tangential the subject-specific ban (like contentious British issues such as the Falkland and Gibralter) - you will consult with an admin before editing,
That you are free to edit the talkpages and AfDs of any article, but that you will be held to the utmost level of civility on these pages, and an admin may ban you from these if they consider you to be disruptive,
As a preventative measure in light with the unblocking and for your protection, I am asking you not to edit those articles or their talk pages or discuss them any further, until one of the admins involved with the mentoring has a chance to attend to this. Tyrenius01:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ty, I hope I have proved that I am able to discuss rationally and not rise to provokation on those pages and to try and find a settlement through discussion and rational policy based arguement. But like you ask, I will cease editing the said articles and talkpages until one of the admin has had a look at it. regards--Vintagekits08:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vintagekits; thank you for the message and welcome back. I am just back from holidays but will try to have a look at the situation later today or tomorrow. Best wishes to you, --John18:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your further message. I did have a look but I couldn't see a policy violation there. I suggest continuing to discuss in talk, frustrating as I know that is. --John19:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that tragedy along with the Guildford Four has done no good whatsoever to our British reputation (any more than the minority of football hooligans who made it uncomfortable for any Brits like me to be seen in many cities of Western Europe in my youth). I suspect the Brum6 miscarriage also explains some of your own hostility towards certain aspects of British culture, all of which is very sad, and in this case especially for both the 6 and for the victims' families, who didnt and dont have any justice. Regards, SqueakBox20:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
M. Comerford
Thanks / please improve and rate it. I was amazed that she hadn't been wiki'ed, given many pages on a lot of rather irrelevant and tawdry people. BTW she asked me to join the Fianna (a sort of Komsomol or Hitler-Jugend) when I was a young lad in the 1960s and gave me her book. Clever and charming but rather missed the big picture.Red Hurley18:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the 'unsourced' comment. I was hoping that some serious expert (like yourself) would help with that. NB it is no more 'unsourced' than the pages on Markiewicz and MacSwiney.Red Hurley10:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, the unsourced tag wasnt an attack it actually helps the article. I will sort the article out further when I have a moment - give me a shout if you need any further help a chara.--Vintagekits18:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Aidan mcan.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 201:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Declan arthurs.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 201:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Bresl.jpg, by Conypiece (talk·contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Bresl.jpg is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Bresl.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 201:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Eugene kelly.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 201:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Gerard o'callaghan.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 201:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Patrick kelly Loughall.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 201:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Seamus donn.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 202:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Sean savage.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 202:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Billy reid.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 202:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Martin McCaughey.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 202:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Séamus McElwaine poster.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 202:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Sean McIlvenna.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 202:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Kevin Coen.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 202:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Antoine Mac Giolla Bhrighde.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 202:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Images
It might be more appropriate to use {{Non-free fair use in | Article}}, bearing in mind the historical images section in Wikipedia:Fair_use_rationale_guideline#Non-template. It is relevant if a person is dead, so that a current photo taken of them, and there is no known free image available. You should provide a rationale under a heading ==Fair use rationale==. Also separately put a link to the source and copyright info. The site states all material on it is copyright. Tyrenius03:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Seamus Grew.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 214:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:William fleming poster.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 217:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bless you, my child
Bless you, my child, for the service you have rendered unto the Irish Republican Cause and Holy Mother Church by removing Cometstyles' revert of 27 April 2007. For further information, please see the "Gerry Adams" discussion page. Writtenright23:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Writtenright[reply]
Actually, I was looking at the wrong revert, it appear you replaced the Vatican edit (which was to delete the Adams allegation). Still, at least you have the Big man on your side ;) Rockpocket06:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi thanks for inviting me to join! I will be looking forward to taking an active part in the site once i finish college in september. I probably will have more questions for you but its great to finally see a proper Irish Republican area to Wikipedia at last.
take care mo chara
-- RÓNÁN "Caint / Talk" 17:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Baronet renamings
Vintagekits, please stop this splurge if moving articles on baronets from the format Sir X Y, Nth baronet to plain "NY". Many of those who you have moved are ambiguous names, being shared by other notable baronets, not all of whom yet have articles. Moving the articles to the undisambiguated name has in several cases led to links pointing to the wrong articles.
I know hat you dislike baronets, but please don't let that lead you to disrupt wikipedia by removing titles which are needed for disambiguation. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not" disrupt wikipedia by removing titles which are needed for disambiguation" - I moved article titles that were over disambiguated and against wiki guidelines - you as an admin should know that and shouldnt have moved them back or created a load of bogus disamb pages with nothing but redlinks to avoid wiki guidelines.--Vintagekits21:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If they havent got articles yet then in wiki terms they are not notable. If they are 1st Baronets then I will listen to reason but secondary and further Baronets are not inherantly notable. I am sure there are thousands of articles yet to be created - should all pages be disambiguated in anticipation of those articles being created?--Vintagekits17:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are just going to troll me talkpage please dont not post here again. I was never blocked for POV pushing - if you want to go down that childish route please remind me what you were blocked for!? Please step down from your soapbox CR, dont not accuse me of POV pushing when I am following wiki guidelines.--Vintagekits17:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just that much-needed disambiguation is being removed, but there have been no efforts made to fix any resulting double-redirects, even though the move page clearly places that as the responsibility of the editor performing the move. These moves were done at a rate of up to five per minute, which makes it impossible for there to have been meaningful checks carried out. Please count this as a formal warning: a repetition of this may lead to you being blocked. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are completely wrong to issue a warning - if some redirects name to be sorted then fine - but I checked all article moves before I moved them - I have been squeaky clean since my return to wiki and deeply resent your slur - I am following wiki guidelines with relation to the moves and you are out of order with the line you are taking here.--Vintagekits17:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think to be fair that Vk is right on the naming issue. It may be that he needs help clearing up the loose ends created by his moves. --John17:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No he is not right at all. By notable I'm a very sure that User:BrownHairedGirl meant that many of the baronets were MPs etc, whose pages have not yet been created but have automatic notablity as MPs. By moving all on mass, which is very disruptive, during a discussion and not fixing the links, he should really be blocked again. There is no excuse for this disruption, or this blantant POV attitude.--UpDown18:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That to be honest is pure nonsense - if you want to create articles for people who dont have articles then please crack on and I would be more than happy to reassess the situation. Also to go through the rest of your points - 1. "I'm a very sure that User:BrownHairedGirl meant that many of the baronets were MPs etc" - you know what BHG is thinking now before she even says it do you?? 2. "By moving all on mass, which is very disruptive, during a discussion and not fixing the links" - you have a point about not fixing the links - however, I have amended a number of those now. Also there was a discussion on a number of pages and it was unopposed - also I dont see that there is a real problem not having a discussion when wiki guidelines are being followed. 3. "he should really be blocked again" - blocked because I follow wiki guidelines - maybe you shoujld ask for those to be blocked because they didnt name the articles correctly in the first place! 4. "There is no excuse for this disruption, or this blantant POV attitude" - please explain what POV attitude. The is possibly the least logical post that has ever been posted on my talk page.--Vintagekits18:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right so we should move pages, them move them back when the pages are created! Well that is certainly logical and saves time!! And I may not be a mind-reader, but I use common sense. And fixing the links "now" is not good enough, you fix them as you go along, a very basic and simple policy to follow. The discussion was not finished, so you should not have moved the articles. And you know you have a POV, everyone is this discussion knows your POV, so please don't pretend you don't have one. We all know you do.--UpDown18:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am very reasonable on this issue - however, accusations from some editors would editors want to ensure ALL articles are named correctly! The discussion is to change the guidline, so far there is no concensus to change it, however, after I a little annoyed at BHG's accusation and unless she apologies for her accusations I will ensure that all Baronets are titled correctly - if she apologies then I will put a hold on any changes until the issues if fully sorted out. regards--Vintagekits17:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vintagekits, I was not aware of any change being discussed, but as you well know, the existing guidance at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles)#Other_non-royal_names is to use the "the format Sir X Y, Nth baronet" when disambiguation is necessary. In plenty of the cases where you have renamed articles, when disambiguation clearly is necessary, even if the other articles do not yet exist.
It is also clearly not true that you checked before making your article moves. Very few checks are possible when moving articles at the rate of five per minute, and the result was many cases where incorrect links were created as a result of the move, where double redirects were not corrected, and were articles were moved to undisambiguated namespaces which would be more appropriately used for a disambiguation page. Your comment on my talk page that disambiguation pages should only be created at "foo (disambiguation)" is clearly wrong: read WP:DAB#Page_naming_conventions.
Please read point four of the guideline that you have quoted and then come back and apologies for YOUR disruption and YOUR breach of WP:POINT not mine - if you followed policy instead of making false accusation then there would have been no need for any of this.--Vintagekits18:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for "It is also clearly not true that you checked before making your article moves" - nice breach of WP:AGF there - I did check all the page and after I made the checks I changed the articles titles to the correct format. As for no previous unopposed discussions see - Talk:George_Acheson, Talk:Nicholas Acheson and others.--Vintagekits18:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought I ought to add that UpDown was entirely correct in assessing my comments above about there being other notable articles. Vintagekits has a point in saying that if there are other notable people of those names, the articles should be created ... except that some editors are indeed working hard to create such articles, and their work is impeded by disruptions such as Vintagekits's insistence on ambiguous article names.
And, as to WP:AGF, I stand by my points above. Articles were being moved at a rate if up to five minute. In the course of that process, no other links were corrected, even though the article moves created double redirects and misdirected links. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If articles are created there should be a disamb page - you disgracefully and pointed created a load of redlink diamb pages to create this situation and blatantly just bloody made up some nonsense about me "threatening" to breach WP:POINT dispite the fact I didnt and despite the fact you breached WP:POINT by creating a load of red link disamb page. Your actions today have disgusted me to be honest.--Vintagekits21:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
This block has been issued for your clear threat above to disrupt wikipedia by renaming articles based on your misinterpretation of the current guidelines. A block such as this would usually follow several warnings and be for a short period, but in view of your long history of disruptive editing and of targetted campaigns against particular classes of article, I have blocked you for three weeks. In view of your history, other admins may choose to extend the block. I note in particular that before your indefinite block was lifted, you asked that "a strict nonosense approach taken by admin to edit warring and POV pushing".
Threatening to mass-rename articles if someone doesn't apologise to you is absolutely unacceptable under the no-nonsense approach you asked for, particularly when you are already part to a discussion about a proposed change in the guidelines which would forbid such moves in all circumstances,
Since some editors may consider it inappropriate for me to make the block having been the admin who set about undoing some of the damage caused above, I will post to WP:ANI to ask other admins to review this case. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a digrace, I made those changes in line with wiki policy. The issue was discussed on a number of article pages and was unopposed. I made no threats whatsoever - You shoiuld not have made a block like this as you were the one who was disputing it and especially as another admin (who usually disagrees with me) User:John agreed that my edits were correct.--Vintagekits19:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The blocking admin is involved in a dispute with me, and my actions were supported above by administrator User:John above. After I started moving Baronets to the correct place per Wiki guidelines, BHG started creating redlinked disambiguation pages have been created to circumvent Wikipedia guidelines on the naming of articles about baronets. Look at this edit where BHG creates a disambigution page with redlinks and only one bluelinked article. This was created just to keep Sir Ralph Gore, 4th Baronet at the current name instead of at Ralph Gore. Look at WP:NCNT, Baronets should only be at their full titles for disambiguation, so unless articles exist no disambiguation is needed. Creating disambiguation pages when articles don't exist is in itself disruptive, surely you only need to disambiguate if articles exist? Then I beleive that she wanted to just block me for an reason and choose WP:POINT which is totally unsubstantiated.--Vintagekits19:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The blocking admin is involved in a dispute with me, and my actions were supported above by administrator User:John above. After I started moving Baronets to the correct place per Wiki guidelines, BHG started creating redlinked disambiguation pages have been created to circumvent Wikipedia guidelines on the naming of articles about baronets. Look at this edit where BHG creates a disambigution page with redlinks and only one bluelinked article. This was created just to keep Sir Ralph Gore, 4th Baronet at the current name instead of at Ralph Gore. Look at WP:NCNT, Baronets should only be at their full titles for disambiguation, so unless articles exist no disambiguation is needed. Creating disambiguation pages when articles don't exist is in itself disruptive, surely you only need to disambiguate if articles exist? Then I beleive that she wanted to just block me for an reason and choose WP:POINT which is totally unsubstantiated. I have calmly discussed the issue and this admin is just using my past against me despite the fact that I have been squeaky clean since my return. This is not how an admin should be using their powers.
Notes:
In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=The blocking admin is involved in a dispute with me, and my actions were supported above by administrator [[User:John]] above. After I started moving Baronets to the correct place per Wiki guidelines, BHG started creating redlinked disambiguation pages have been created to circumvent Wikipedia guidelines on the naming of articles about baronets. Look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ralph_Gore_%20disambiguation%20&diff=151861540&oldid=151860926#8052865513991008916 this edit] where BHG creates a disambigution page with redlinks and only one bluelinked article. This was created just to keep [[Sir Ralph Gore, 4th Baronet]] at the current name instead of at [[Ralph Gore]]. Look at [[WP:NCNT]], Baronets should only be at their full titles for disambiguation, so unless '''articles''' exist no disambiguation is needed. Creating disambiguation pages when articles don't exist is in itself disruptive, surely you only need to disambiguate if articles exist? Then I beleive that she wanted to just block me for an reason and choose [[WP:POINT]] which is totally unsubstantiated. I have calmly discussed the issue and this admin is just using my past against me despite the fact that I have been squeaky clean since my return. This is not how an admin should be using their powers. |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=The blocking admin is involved in a dispute with me, and my actions were supported above by administrator [[User:John]] above. After I started moving Baronets to the correct place per Wiki guidelines, BHG started creating redlinked disambiguation pages have been created to circumvent Wikipedia guidelines on the naming of articles about baronets. Look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ralph_Gore_%20disambiguation%20&diff=151861540&oldid=151860926#8052865513991008916 this edit] where BHG creates a disambigution page with redlinks and only one bluelinked article. This was created just to keep [[Sir Ralph Gore, 4th Baronet]] at the current name instead of at [[Ralph Gore]]. Look at [[WP:NCNT]], Baronets should only be at their full titles for disambiguation, so unless '''articles''' exist no disambiguation is needed. Creating disambiguation pages when articles don't exist is in itself disruptive, surely you only need to disambiguate if articles exist? Then I beleive that she wanted to just block me for an reason and choose [[WP:POINT]] which is totally unsubstantiated. I have calmly discussed the issue and this admin is just using my past against me despite the fact that I have been squeaky clean since my return. This is not how an admin should be using their powers. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=The blocking admin is involved in a dispute with me, and my actions were supported above by administrator [[User:John]] above. After I started moving Baronets to the correct place per Wiki guidelines, BHG started creating redlinked disambiguation pages have been created to circumvent Wikipedia guidelines on the naming of articles about baronets. Look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ralph_Gore_%20disambiguation%20&diff=151861540&oldid=151860926#8052865513991008916 this edit] where BHG creates a disambigution page with redlinks and only one bluelinked article. This was created just to keep [[Sir Ralph Gore, 4th Baronet]] at the current name instead of at [[Ralph Gore]]. Look at [[WP:NCNT]], Baronets should only be at their full titles for disambiguation, so unless '''articles''' exist no disambiguation is needed. Creating disambiguation pages when articles don't exist is in itself disruptive, surely you only need to disambiguate if articles exist? Then I beleive that she wanted to just block me for an reason and choose [[WP:POINT]] which is totally unsubstantiated. I have calmly discussed the issue and this admin is just using my past against me despite the fact that I have been squeaky clean since my return. This is not how an admin should be using their powers. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Vintagekits, I did not say I supported your actions, particularly not your threat to rename other articles in a way which others are unhappy with. I said I thought you were right on the content issue. As you know, this is a cooperative venture and we must all work together harmoniously so that it works properly. That said, I think the block is on the harsh side and I would support shortening it if you acknowledge your error and guarantee to avoid repeating it. --John20:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you said I was right not in changing the names - I dont understand why you are changing your story now! Puzzling. I did not threaten to do anything - I offered to stop changing the names in line with wiki policy if BHG apologised but would continue if she didnt withdraw the unfounded accusatiuon - nothing wrong with that.--Vintagekits20:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SHORTENING IT!!!! WHat the hell am I supposed to have done?????? Editing to wiki guidlines after discussions is disruting?? I would say that creating a load of redlink disamb pages to avoid wiki guidelines is disruption and a brach of POINT not what I did - this is bloody crazy.--Vintagekits20:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I said I agreed with you on the naming issue. However, you were wrong to threaten to continue renaming articles unless you received an apology. BHG asked you nicely not to do that while a discussion was in progress. That seemed like a reasonable request, and not one necessitating an apology. --John20:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless I have left a message with the blocking admin to see if she will agree to unblock if you realise your mistake. Good luck. --John20:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt threaten to do anything thats such a smokescreen for an admin who was indispute with me just to block me - if you can call it a threat to follow wiki policy - I also threaten to assume good faith and threaten to make not personal attack. BHG never asked me to do anything BHG just made accusation and gave out warnings and created redlink disamb pages to avoid wiki policy - yet I am blocked - this is a bloody disgrace. It just seems a convieniant made up excuse to block me because she didnt like my edits - also did I change any new articles after I "threatened" to follow policy. Am I in a mad house here? By the way I am very calm here--Vintagekits20:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This block is totaly out of order, VK was following WP policy by moving these articles to the correct article titles, I have moved about 10 of these articles myself over the past few weeks, if the editors that create these articles can't do so in accordance to policy then other editors have the right to move these articles.--padraig20:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would also point out that this admin blocked me before for edit warring on an article about a Baronet and didnt block another member of the Baronet project despite the fact that that editor had reverted that page more than me that day - interesting!!--Vintagekits21:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For me evidence this whole British/Irish editors disputes should be up in front of arbcom and not left in the hands of individual and often biased editors. But the arbcom authority is being undermined every day by comm sanctions board and individual admins, SqueakBox21:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldnt disagree with that at all. However, there should not be a dispute here. I was following WP:NCNT#Other_non-royal_names Point 4 to the letter of the law. BHG created a load of red link disamb pages to avoid this guideline despite there being no other articles about people with the same name. To turn this around on me is a disgrace - truely some action should be taken against this admin for his actions here.--Vintagekits21:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is so out of order, so bang out of order. Guilty of creating a problem that dose not exist? And guilty of addressing a problem that dose? Having played by the rules, to be blocked by an admin with a declared bias!Wikipedia:WikiProject_Baronetcies#Interested_Wikipedians Logic turned on its head. Could someone explain to me how this works? To abide by the guidelines is considered POV pushing, by editors who breach the guidelines in order to push their POV. Have I got that right? --Domer4822:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm afraid that you haven't got that right. Please bear with me while I finish writing a (neccessarily rather lengthy) explanation. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs)
This block is totally out of order. How can a user be blocked for following wiki rules and rectifying a problem that exists on WP? Total madness. Also no offence to BHG, but she definetly has a conflict of interest here. An admin who is a member of the wikiproject and an admin, certainly isn't a fair referee in this case. The block is 100% unfair. Derry Boi00:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit concerned here re. this block but I'd like to see what BHG has to say, so suggest people hold off until she has written up her explanation - Alison☺00:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Extended reasons for the block
The underlying problem here is that VK has been on one pole of a lengthy and bitter dispute over baronets. Some editors have argued that all Baronets should be regarded as inherently notable by virtue of their baronetcies, which is a proposition I have argued against at length on the wikiproject, and which is not supported by the proposed guideline WP:NOBLE (which was itself rejected because it was too inclusive).
At the other pole, VK has a very strong bias against what he perceives as the British establishment. There's nothing wrong at all with that, and the presence of opposing POVs is one of the checking mechanisms which keeps Wikipedia balanced, but in this case it has gotten right out if hand. I don't know who started it, but so far as I can see the disputes arose when some editors working on the British aristocracy got into arguments with VK over two things: where to find NPOV in articles relating to Northern Ireland. The British crew objected strongly (and angrily) to the use of neutral words like "kill", insisting on "murder" etc, a position which seems to me to be a very poor one (I much prefer the Reuters policy of using neutral terminology). They ended up block-voting and various other no-nos on articles about Irish Republicanism, and VK and a few of his friends proceeded to launch a lengthy deletion campaign against baronets and nobility, but particularly the boaronets (apparently because Kittybrewster, one of the most energetic members of the Baronets project was one of those who had offended VK). Some of their targets were indeed non-notable, but many were not, and a huge amount of time was taken up in what became a pitched battle. There were numerous AfDs, and some outrageous behaviour on both sides.
I was frequently called on by both sides to intervene, and my talk page archives are full of lengthy arguments; I began to loathe them and wished they would all calm down (see e.g. Anti-aristocracy) and some (such as this thread) appeared and grew on my talk page withut even any involvement from me). Two features are notable: both sides have been deeply inflexible, and Vintagekit takes it all very personally. My archives are full of deep hostility from him, and gross incivility; but the most notable and destructive thing is that if VK feels offended, his response has on countless occasions been to set out to disrupt the area of wikipedia worked on by those he feels are his opponents.
My thanks for this has largely been to earn the displeasure of both sides. Kittybrewster was deeply offended that I eventually came down hard on his persistent breaches of WP:COI (I imposed several blocks), and Vintagekits assumed that any time I didn't weigh in his side that it was due to deep partisanship on my part. One particularly bizarre example is a thread called What is it with these people, where VK launches a tirade at me because I don't want to commit a whole further dose of my time to the never-ending conflict. :(
I would happily avoid the while thing, except that unfortunately it overlaps with my core area of work: British Members of Parliament and parliamentary constituencies. If you look at my contribs list, you will find that I have created many hundreds of articles on them, and had a big hand in building and populating the categories, lists etc.
(Bear with me, I'm getting to the point).
The problem is that many MPs became peers (either through ennoblement or succession), and in previous centuries many many baronets were MPs, so many of the articles I edit are on baronets, and it can be very hard wor to get them right. Some baronetted families held parliamentary seats pretty much as personal fiefdoms for many generations, and many of them recycled one or two or three firstnames. So there could be several "Sir John Smith, xth baronet"s in parliament, through generations; in many cases there is more than one baronetcy of the same name, so one can find two or more "Sir John Smith 2nd Baronet, of X" being notable MPs and in many cases several other untitled family members with the same names sharing the same cluster of parliamentary seats; some of them are also very notable in other contexts. Disambiguating these people can be a nightmare: there are times I have spent a dozen or more hours sorting out the links to members of just one family, who may have a five or ten very similarly-named people who on investigation have an automatic presumption of notability per WP:MOSBIO.
Slowly, with some families, we are getting to the point where we can identify with reasonable certainty which family members are definitely non-notable, as Choess has just done very neatly with the Glynne Baronets. But until that is done, and the non-notable family members identified, it is very important to use the precise titles until it is clear which title-holers are notable and which are not.
Please note that is not because I think that baronets are automatically notable: under all current and proposed guidelines, they are not. But, under current guidelines, many of them are notable, because of their military, parliamentary, naval, commercial or other careers. (Yes, onlya minority overall, but that's still often several in each family).
Once the list of X baronets (e.g. Beckett Baronets) has been checked, I have no problem with the articles being renamed without titles if here is no clash; but until then, it is immensely disruptive to lose the precision of linking which cones from using the titles.
That's all I seek here: don't remove the titles until sufficient checks have been done to ensure that there really is no ambiguity. That's entirely compliant with the guidelines to use the titles when necessary for disambiguation.
Vintagekits, however, has shown no interest at all in making those checks, renaming articles at a rate of up to five per minute, despite creating some mistaken links in the process, and hindering he process of disambiguating articles under construction. It appears that VK's checks consist of looking at the bare list of names of baronets, seeing if there are any other blue links of the same name, but not looking behind the redlinks, or at other incoming links.
Other editors are doing those checks, and I myself rename baronet articles without the titles when I have checked that I am not creating ambiguity. That's all this is about: not creating ambiguity which will lead the reader to the wrong page, as some of VK's edits did
In other cases, that would be no problem: the overwhelming majority of editors are keen to try ensure that the encyclopaedia is accurate, and will happily discuss the issues and in many cases join in the work of doing the mountains of cross-checking. Unfortunately, because of the long and bitter dispute, Vintagekits is not prepared to do that: his main interest is in deleting as many baronets as possible, and talk page archives are full of his sneering comments about them. He's entitled to his views (and I am not a devotee of the hereditary principle either), but what he is doing here is not about improving the encyclopaedia: it is the latest round in what has become a war by VK against anything to do with baronets.
The reason I implemented the block was very simple: that having already inappropriately renamed a dozen or so articles, VK threatened to set off and wreak havoc across the rest of them purely as a matter because of a personal dispute arising from his personal conflicts with some other editors who work on baronetcies. I acted to protect the encyclopaedia from further damage.
Just as well, I did too: in the time between first messaging Vintagekits and blocking him, he made a long list of edits such as this one in which he not only bypassed a redirect from Sir Gervase Beckett, 1st Baronet to Gervase Beckett, but also removed his title. Why? That's not policy or guidelines, it's VK's anti-baronetcy POV. The block at least put a stop to that of disruption. (And before anyone accuses me of taking a POV stance on this, do not assume that wanting something accurately recorded is the same as championing it. I just want links to point in the right place).
Could I have imposed a block for a shorter time? Yes, of course. But in imposing blocks, admins are advised to bear in mind the previous record of the offender. And in this case we have some with a clear and lengthy history of trying to disrupt content associated with editors he dislikes or subjects he dislikes, and indeed some clear guidance from VK himself.
Please folks, re-read the lengthy discussions above when VK was indefinitely blocked. (start at the section beginning User_talk:Vintagekits#Indef_block, and read the discussion of conditions for he lifting of the block). One particularly relevant contribution is where, Vintagekits asked that "a strict nonosense approach taken by admin to edit warring and POV pushing". When he threatened a disruptive mass-renaming of articles, I took him at his word.
One final point: accusations of a COI. If VK performs this threatened mass-renaming, the result will be many hundreds of ambiguous links, which will taken many many hours for editors to sort out. To get an idea of the sort of ambiguity problems which arise with baronets, look at John Cotton (disambiguation); consider the consequences for link integrity if very great care is not taken to make detailed prior checks before renaming.
If trying to avoid the morass of broken links that arises from unchecked removal of precision in naming is a COI, them it's a COI which I hope is shared by every other editor on wikipedia. I have no desire to be involved in any of this, and no inherent dispute with VK: I just find myself, as so many others have, being accused of deep hostility for having dared not to support him on something (consider again his response here when I asked him to go to ANI with a problem beacuse I hadn't the energy to try to resolve yet another of his conflicts), or in this case to disagree with him. We see exactly the same thing here: Vintagekits threatens to disrupt Wikipedia by performing a mass-renaming as a way of forcing an apology, and when bocked denies making a threat.
The core of this simple. Do you want to give free rein to an editor with a long track record of disruption who has repeatedly expressed his deep hostility to a subject where he wants to perform lots of edits?
The document on which VK is relying is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). It does not ban the use of titles where disambiguation is needed, and in any case it is not a policy, it is a guideline, whose header says "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". Is it common sense to seek an interpretation of a guideline which makes it harder for readers and editors to ensure that links point where they should, and that article names err on the side of ambiguity rather than precision? That's what VK claims. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I disagree with you on a number of points, firstly if members of the baronetcies project titled these articles correctly in the first place instead on insisting that titles be used in all cases then this problem wouldn't arise.
You say VK moved these without checking them first, because in your opinion they where moved to quickly, how do you know he didn't check through them all before starting to move any of them. In any case the first instance of the use of the name has no need to use the title, only from the second or more occurence. You haven't explained your setting up of disambig pages containing redlinks, it is not common practice to do this, as your well aware.
VK was editing in accordance to the policies and guidelines of WK, and has not breached any policy in his edits in these articles, so his edits are not disruptive as you claim. Nor do members of the baronetcies project have the right to ignore the naming conventions of WP that all other editors have to obey.
The ban on VK should be lifted as it should not have been imposed in the first place and as you where involved in the same dispute you should have been the one to impose it anyway even if he breached any policy which he clearly hasn't.--padraig02:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As an uninvolved admin... the claims by both sides that they're not disrupting the project ring pretty false. You all are wikilawyering.
These actions, probably on both sides, were disruptive and damaging to the project. Maybe blocking everyone involved would be more fair, but this is what happened so far. If the two "sides" can't work out a reasonable cooperative way to deal with this, as opposed to resuming edit warring over it, I am going to predict more blocks in the future.
If you're using policy to attempt to justify being a dick and disrupting stuff, expect to get swatted on the nose and told to knock it off.
I don't want to ascribe blame for starting it, but everyone involved needs to handle it in a more cooperative and adult manner going forwards, or this will not be the last administrator intervention. This behavior is absolutely not acceptable.
I don't personally know or care what the answer ends up being. If it's "we're still edit warring" in another few weeks, a pox on all your houses, and away you go. Georgewilliamherbert02:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of brouhaha is exactly what was hoped to be avoided by banning Vk from "contentious" subjects as a condition of his recent unblocking. The specific terms of the ban were articles relating to Irish Republicanism, broadly based. (IE, VK will have to show that it isn't tangentially related to the subject, not that others will have to prove that it is). The purpose of this was to allow Vk to contribute while avoiding situations where he had trouble dealing with conflict. That Vk almost immediately started editing baronetcy articles worried me, because the past conflicts associated with the Irish republicanism pages spilled across to these too. It depresses me that Vk rushed to get involved into this situation, barely weeks after his very last chance. It really doesn't fill me with confidence that Vk can deal with conflict in an acceptable way. I don't know the ins and outs of the baronetcy issue, I'm going to decline to offer an opinion on that. I will note, however, that is never a good idea to threaten to edit an article in any manner unless another editor makes an apology. Rockpocket03:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The question of what you call "titling the articles properly" is the nub of it. First thing is that I am not arguing that naming conventions should be ignored, far from it: simply that they should be interpeted, as the guidelines themselves require, with common sense. Interpreting the guidelines in a way guaranteed to cause disruption, when there is a clear history on VK's part of a desire the disrupt and delete articles on baronets, is 'not common sense.
I asked you on my talk page to consider some particular situations, to explain why it is disruptive, and I'm sorry to see that you haven't addressed the details, so let me set it out here.
Now look at Cotton Baronets, and you will see lots of other John Cottons listed, all of them redlinked. By your logic, an article on him should be at John Cotton (unless there is, as in this case, another article on a John Cotton).
If you look at the list of Cotton Baronets, you'll just see a list of names. You won't be aware that there were in fact no less than five John Cottons who were MPs (I have created that list on the dab page at John Cotton, and one of these days must incorporate that info into the list of Baronets). If I hadn't done the research you probably won't be aware too that here were actually two people called Sir John Cotton, 3rd Baronet who were MPs (and similarly with Sir John Cotton, 4th Baronet)
The Cotton Baronets are an extreme example, but there are many dozens (probably hundreds) of baronet-MPs who also had a namesake baronet in parliament. Leigh Rayment's useful list of baronets appears to offer some assistance by listing beside baronets which ones are MPs, but unfortunately it is misleading, because it misses 25% or more. The peerage/baronetage guides such as Debretts can be moe helpful, but it usually takes multiple sources to unravel who was who, and building list of MPs in constituency articles such as Ipswich requires a lot of cross-referencing of birth dates to ensure that links are accurate.
Because so often identically-named members of the same family represented the same constituency, there are only two ways to do this: disambiguate pre-emptively by date of birth, or by title. According to the guideline, the correct method is by title, which is what editors have been doing.
The reason I can say with a high degree of certainty that Vintagekits didn't make such checks is that I know from bitter experience that they are very time-consuming. To check all the articles that VK renamed would take days; and to check all of those he was threatening to rename would take many months. Given VK's oft-stated dislike of baronetcies, it's stretching credibility beyond breaking point to suggest that he has been doing that work.
It's common sense to try to avoid creating ambiguous links. It's not common sense to try to use a flexible guideline as a tool to justify turning carefully-researched precise links into ambiguous ons.
Aren't we here to try to improve the encyclopedia? How on earth is it improved by deliberately renaming article in a way which reverses the efforts of other editors to ensure that links point where they are supposoed to?
WP:IAR says "If a rule prevents you from working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia, ignore it"; VK is doing the reverse, trying to use a narrow interpretation of a rule to damage the encyclopedia because he despises the subject matter. Vintagekits is quite entitled to despise baronets, and to despise the system of title, but not to disrupt wikipedia because of it.
Georgewilliamherbert thanks for your comment: I agree that the whole situation is far from ideal. But seriously, what should I have done?
Ignore the dusruption? Take it to somewhere like WP:ANI and while I took time to explain the nuances give VK more time to do the damage he was threatening, undoing hundreds of not thousands of hours of work by other editors?
The bottom line here is that is rare to find a situation where these issues cannot be reserved with an editor genuinely seeking to improve the subject area, regardless of their POV. (It happens, but it's nearly always possible to edit an article to accommodate both sides of an issue). This is the only case I have ever encountered of an editor who is setting out with he main objective of removing as much trace of a subject as possible.
Here's one interesting point: so far as I can see, nowhere in any of these discussions, have seen any effort by Vintagekits to extend or improve coverage of MPs or of baronets, or even any desire to do so. All I have ever seen has been negative: arguments to delete articles or otherwise disrupt them. Isn't it time to extend his ban to cover other areas such as MPs and baronets, where he has such a long track record of conflict? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support your actions 100% BrownHairedGirl, I had no idea Vk was doing this. Per Rockpocket, I am horrified that he has rushed back into a contentious area. When I naively supported my own stylistic preference for the naming, I did not know this had been a whole area of conflict. Vintagekits, you have been told a good few times now you cannot use this encyclopedia for POV-pushing. Threatening editors with making edits unless they apologise is ridiculous behaviour. That is what you are blocked for and if I were you, knowing the whole story and everything, I would just accept the block and be thankful it isn't a longer one. --John03:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say, I'm largely satisfied with that explanation from BHG and am somewhat disappointed that VK went straight back into the baronetcy controversy like that. From what I remember, there was a slew of RfCs last year over this whole thing. VK's move logs show a lot of activity, all with the comment "per MOS". Personally, I'd not have applied a block of that duration; rather I'd have started at a day or even a week, from the agreed unblock resolutions above. Though I'm not familiar with/interested in the subject, I can follow BHG's rationale for the existing naming scheme and, unfortunately, I find it hard to do the WP:AGF thing here, given VK's past history. There are over a million articles here and VK's stepping back into the whole baronetcies thing was not in the spirit of his unblock agreement. In short - it's a long block, but I have to endorse it here - Alison☺04:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
. GH 10:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
