User talk:Sheodred/Archive 1

This editor has agreed-to unblock restrictions in place

Restriction	Enacted	Expiry
you are to be listed as formally warned under the troubles restrictions (this will happen anyway)	Jul 8, 2012	Never
you are limited to editing on the article talkpages only on any Troubles-related articles, broadly construed, for a period of 3 months	Jul 8, 2012	Oct 8, 2012
you are limited to 1RR on any other page on Wikipedia for 6 months	Jul 8, 2012	Jan 8, 2013
you will not, under any circumstances, change "British" to "Irish" or vice versa, anywhere on Wikipedia	Jul 8, 2012	Never
you will always adhere to all 1RR restrictions on any article that is subject to it	Jul 8, 2012	Never
Any violation of the above will lead to a return to an indefinite block	*	*

Peter O'Toole

Howdy, you're a bit behind. My change was made & was self-reverted, all on November 18. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• And, I might add (to Sheodred), you may want to read WP:DTTR. Unless you were trying to make some sort of point. In that case, read WP:POINT. freshacconci talktalk 16:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok no problem sorry about that. Sheodred (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Advice

Ok, so you have an ANI, a now-closed 3RR report ... you've been chastised for not following policy on proper escalation, and calls for WP:BOOMERANG. Can you take a step back, breathe deeply, and recognize that although you feel you're doing the right thing, you're actually causing more disruption than the other user? Step back - breathe - focus. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Concur, Sheodred get in touch if you get frustrated and I'll help. All that happens if you fire up like this is that people get into a "plague on both your houses" mood. The community will eventually deal with disruptive editors, particularly those who try and make up policy. However they need to be given time and space and if you are one of the protagonists, stand back. --Snowded ^TALK 20:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I apologise, I should have followed policy but the red mist decended, I will take a little break, just to calm down. Sheodred (talk) 10:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Three revert rule warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Anglo-Irish is not a nationality and then you re-edited it to have the article infobox then say he was British and that his nationality was the Kingdom of Great Britain, why did you do that, that was not in the infobox before I intervened. Sheodred (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for edit warring

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 week as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I should not have blocked you as I was involved in the content dispute. My apologies. I have opened a new section on the Shackleton talk page to discuss WP:IMOS and would be glad if you could explain your views there. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

I was blocked by an admin/editor who was involved in the same article I was editing,I only was making the edits under the guidelines of IMOS, which were being ignored for the most part. The blocking admin also reverted edits a number of times on the article involved, and I think it is highly inappropiate that he was the one that blocked me. I defended myself here, a week I feel is also a bit harsh. Sheodred (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Accept reason:

It looks like Ruhrfisch has already unblocked you, when he recognized that he was involved. Are you still unable to edit? I tried to find an autoblock, but the interface seemed to indicate that it wasn't active when I tried to unblock it. Syrthiss (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I can edit now again, thanks. Sheodred (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You should not have been blocked by Ruhrfisch, but please refrain from continuing to edit war, there are other, uninvolved admins aware of this now, and you may find yourself reblocked if you carry on--Jac16888 ^Talk 15:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. Sheodred (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. And bear in mind, what you're arguing over is in the grand scheme of things, a very very small thing, if you find yourself getting stressed about it, why not just forget about it, go edit something less troublesome--Jac16888 ^Talk 15:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)--Jac16888 ^Talk 15:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I know, but its like talking to a wall sometimes with these people. It is stressful sometimes, I was only trying to follow the IMOS, I was not pushing any POV. Sheodred (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

They probably think exactly the same thing about you. What you have to remember is that they believe they are doing the right thing just as you do, we're all here because we're trying to make this crazy idea of an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit a little bit better. But just think about this, all this drama is coming from a difference of one word. 10 years from now will this matter in the slightest? Or 5? Or even a year from now? Sometimes its better just to take a step back and find something else to do--Jac16888 ^Talk 15:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Consider agreeing to a voluntary restriction about articles like Ernest Shackleton

Hello Sheodred. I've been reviewing WP:AN3#User:Sheodred reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: ) which still needs to be closed by an admin. It is regrettable that an involved admin blocked you, although they then corrected their mistake. Meanwhile, I'm afraid that your actions would normally qualify for a block, since it represents long-term warring about the use of 'Anglo-Irish' to refer to Shackleton. (On the merits I think you may be correct, but that's not my call. The advice of WP:IMOS is not an exception to 3RR). If you will promise to cease making edits regarding Irish nationality on any articles for one month, I'd be willing to close the 3RR case with no action. You can still make recommendations on talk pages. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

This kind of self imposed restriction would hold a bit more weight if the same was asked of Ruhrfisch an admin who abused his tools using Rollback in a content dispute, reverted 3 times in 3 hours, protected the page on their preferred version and blocked the editor they were edit warring with. Are these abuse of tools just going to be ignored? Mo ainm~Talk 21:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

If you think it's serious enough, there's a place for it ... especially considering they rightly unblocked the editor because of their error (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Where ANI? Mo ainm~Talk 21:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Very well, I will accept what you said regarding the one month self-restriction, but this whole issue with the incorrect usage of Anglo-Irish, and admins abusing their tools to push their POV must be dealt with, it is a serious breach of protocol, and has diminished the standing of admins in the eyes of observers. Sheodred (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Per my closure of the AN3 report your restriction is now in effect, and will expire at 22:56 on 1 January 2012. You can still participate on talk pages on this subject. It is traditional that even voluntary restrictions (like this one) can be enforced by blocks. If you are ever uncertain about the scope of the restriction, it is best to ask. There are places where the Anglo-Irish issue could be discussed further, and you are free to participate on such pages if you want to. EdJohnston (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Ed, very much appreciated. Sheodred (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Muiredach Tirech

Whilst i don't know if i can agree to your slightly emotive edit summary, good call none the less, never actually noticed how out of place it was when i wikilinked it. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Cool, no problem, you might say it was slightly emotive, maybe the use of Northern Ireland in the article was not intentionally POV, I will assume good faith.Sheodred (talk) 13:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to note - i never added it in, it was already there when i wikilinked it. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I know, I never accused you. Sheodred (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I know you didn't, though the edit-summary and the assuming good faith comment kind of made me wonder did you think it was me lol :-) Mabuska ^(talk) 16:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Britons/British

Hello, Sheodred. You have new messages at Cuchullain's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mary Shelley question

Per WP:BRD, would you please discuss your edit to Mary Shelley on the article's talk page? Your original post was that "According to Wikipedia are not the bios of people born in the United Kingdom be referred to by their home countries?" but I cannot find this in the WP:MOS anywhere and would appreciate a more specific quotation of the MOS or policy / guideline in question. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I said nothing about MOS, and I made a grammatical mistake when typing, which I corrected when I noticed. You are the admin, you tell me about MOS,, all I know is that bios of the United Kingdom are referred to their home coutries, such as Sean Connery, Arthur Conan Doyle, Beatrix Potter, John Lennon, Tom Jones, Dylan Thomas......the list goes on, it also backed up by a reliable source.Sheodred (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom

Just so you know, ArbCom are next after AN. They are the highest Wiki authority. If AN doesn't get responses, ArbCom certainly will. They've already blocked Irish agendas in the past, as well as banning mulitple editors with agendas. So they know what they'll be dealing with when I throw your huge list of disruptive edits at them. Either way, don't think no admin response means I don't have other avenues to report you via. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 09:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You obviously have not considered that they will take into account the editor and his interactions (does not look very good for you) who made the report do you, don't be surprised if it backfires. Stay off my page please. Sheodred (talk) 09:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't take the baiting Sheodred, that's the problem with British POV pushers they have a lot of friends and usually drown out any attempts at neutrality, with weight of numbers, take a day or two off and just ignore the fools who are on this site. Mo ainm~Talk 09:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Mo Ainm, I decided to start doing that, I unwatched the page, it is best to let them shoot themselves in the feet whilst I ignore them. Sheodred (talk) 09:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

"Say nothing until you hear more" - an old saying, useful in this situation. Best of luck. Slainte. 58.7.197.112 (talk) 13:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Ta tu cheart ansin! Sheodred (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Na habair e. 58.7.197.112 (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd say Mo ainm's comment is just as inflammatory as MarcusBritish's in nature hoping to instill an aggressive response. Neither were required. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC

WP:TROUBLES case

To be sure that you are aware of the provisions of the WP:TROUBLES case I'm leaving the official notice for you. Noticing that you've engaged in a good-faith discussion at WT:IMOS reduces my concern. For the record, there was a 3RR case concerning your edits at Ernest Shackleton and the link is here. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to The Troubles. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final decision section of the decision page. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page.

EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

To clarify to observers this notice is about my self-imposed restriction until the 1/1/12, this notice was placed here in order to make it official I can still make proposals and comment, that is all. Sheodred (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

AN/I

I have raised this issue at AN/I. You are not squeaky clean in this issue, so expect criticism. I suggest taking it on board. --Errant ^(chat!) 00:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Very well. Sheodred (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Corcoran (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link to Mayo

The Pilgrimage (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link to Alias

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked you indefinitely for using your talk page abusively. Please contact me via email if you want to discuss the block. You can also send an email to the Arbitration Committee, and I will be posting on AN/I for review. causa sui (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you can email me here. causa sui (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Per our private email conversation, I shortened the block to 1 week and restored your talk page access. causa sui (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

THank you very much! :) Sheodred (talk) 01:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Due to your block evasion with TheOneWhoWalks (talk · contribs), I have reset your block and extended it to 2 weeks. Your block will now expire 2 weeks from now. You are advised that further block evasion will lead to you possibly being indefinitely blocked. Regards, –MuZemike 23:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Violation of interaction ban by MarcusBritish You agreed to an interaction ban between us. Please take my talk page off your watch list immediately and stop looking for excuses to provoke trouble. Whether the socking incident and further AN/I nonsense constitutes as a breach of that ban is questionable. If you don't want it bring into question then do as you agreed and leave me alone! That AN/I was purely vexatious, and you damn well know it! Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 23:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I have not broken any interaction ban (see explanation further down from 19/12/2011 Sheodred (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)), but you have, you appear to be obsessed, compulsive and pathetic maniac, interesting how you filed that user as a sock of me because, contrary to baiting you, the IP reported on AN/I had nothing to do with you. You filed the SPI on the basis of punctuation,and an admin actually did a CheckUser on the basis for that, shows that admin is not fit for his role if they jump to conclusions on the word of an editor who's only purpose in life is getting me completely banned from wikipedia, won't happen Marcus, lol sorry old chap, that other user had an account before I was blocked you moron and they have COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CONTRIBUTIONS, anyway I will be back with or without this questionabe block extension. Hugs and kisses xxxxxxx. Sheodred (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Violation of interaction ban by MarcusBritish http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/watcher/?db=enwiki_p&titles=User_talk:Sheodred – maybe you don't realise, but personal attacks like that get a lot of attention. So your return is not granted. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 00:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

You're not fooling us, you know. It's pretty clear that you used that account to bait MarcusBritish. Moreover, do not test us with your blatant attacks, or we will have no problem upping the blocks. –MuZemike 00:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Look, understand this, it was a meatpuppet (only because I drew him in, they had the account before any of the incidents involving myself and Marcus occurred and never got involved in anything negative before that) not a sockpuppet, it was a seperate individual that lives and goes to uni with me who I expressed my concerns to recently about the whole affair with Marcus when I was initially outraged by my block (hence the same IP range and university Marcus, as for your statement on SPI, there are over 15,000 students in UCC, but feel free to assume that everyone from UCC, Cork or Ireland that uses common punctuation styles, is a sockpuppet of me).

The indefinite block that befell him was my fault, so although I acknowledge that it was meatpuppetry (on that one occasion), I deny it as sockpuppetry on my part, (although I understand the logic of them being similar), so please don't block him indefinitely .

I don't know what implications this statement will have, presumably bad, but I just wanted to clarify the matter, as for the block extension, I can accept that in retrospect, and I apologise to MuZemike for questioning and criticising his conduct. As for Marcus, I don't know if admins have the powers to view an editor's watchlist, but if they can they will see that Marcus has been off my watchlist for a while now despite his accusations on my talk page (how ironic), I did not breach any interaction ban, and I also removed all the contentious topics I was involved in for the time being until my block and self-restriction has expired. I am not looking for a medal, I just wanted to clarify. Goodnight. Sheodred (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry us usually seen as as bad, if not MORE bad then sockpuppetry. Although we do appreciate your honesty on this matter it most likely will not result in your block being shortened but if an admin is feeling generous it may get the meatpuppet's block reduced from indef. Again; thanks for deciding to stop "enhancing the truth". Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 00:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

No that is fine, I was not looking for a shorter block, if anything I am more worried about a longer (or indefinite) block as a result. Thank you for your response, and to reply to Snowded's comment below; I do accept the stupidity of my actions, I should have exercised restraint in respone to what was going on.Sheodred (talk) 00:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Violation of interaction ban (gravedancing, trolling, accusations) by MarcusBritish A-ma-zing! A meat puppet with exactly the same bad typing habits as you ("......" is not not common punctuation, unless you're looking for somewhere to sign), as well as both accounts using "old chap" 20 minutes apart [1][2]. Quite a "buddy" you got there, maybe you aught to save those "hugs and kisses" for him. Or should I just say, plainly put, we're not that gullible. AGF wears thin after your record and only you would attempt to come up with that likely story to try to gain credit from a weak-idealogical guideline. Meat puppets who have only been registered a month are watching my page and using AN/I now are they? Lol.. right... pull the other one, it has bells in it. Of course their handful of article edits (i.e. two, the rest are userpage) look different; a different wardrobe to try to avoid detection, and order of registering means nothing. Besides, they didn't log in for near a month.. suddenly when you're blocked, they did. Sheer coincidence? If you wanted to meat or sock, you could have just gone off UCC's IP, tish. Never mind, what what? Home run for the Wiki team! Tally-ho and pip pip... old boy. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 07:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

"A-ma-zing! A meat puppet with exactly the same bad typing habits as you ("......" is not not common punctuation, unless you're looking for somewhere to sign)" User:MarcusBritish No(yawn)..you are wrong...it is called ellipsis. Sheodred (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Marcus, if there is an interaction ban why are you here throwing cans of petrol onto the flames? Sheordred has been pretty stupid, but you seem to want to provoke more stupidity rather than resolve matters, you are coming across like a conflict junkie. Shoedred please just take a break and don't react or do anything for some weeks. Marcus, please stop acting like a petulant child who has the teacher on his side simply because his opponent has made too may mistakes, including allowing you to provoke. --Snowded ^TALK 08:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That is some quite helpful advice provided by Snowded above. Technically your posting here can be seen as violating the interaction ban which AFAIK you agreed to as well. If not then it's still not a good thing as it could also be considered as gravedancing. Take this page off your watchlist. Otherwise you will just keep on being drawn in. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 09:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Also: You still need to assume good faith! Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 09:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Snowded and Barts1a - MarcusBritish stop adding fuel to the fire for your actions if you keep them up will boomerang. If either side is baiting each other - just ignore it! It's hard to do but it's the best option. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

	Season's greetings and best wishes for 2012!
	In the sincere hope that 2012 is a better year for all of us, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edit at John Tyndall

Regarding your edit of January 3 which changes his nationality to Irish again. You did not provide an edit summary and you did not discuss this change on the talk page. Please keep in mind the warning which I left for all editors at Talk:John Tyndall#Dispute about Tyndall's nationality. Unless you obtained a specific consensus somewhere in favor of your change to 'Irish' I suggest you should revert your edit. I am considering an indefinite block. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 06:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Its pipelinked to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and do not threaten me with indefinite blocks for a neutral edit, thank you very much. TheFortunateSon (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Long term warring on the nationality of BLP subjects who were born in Northern Ireland. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

• With your January 3 edit changing the nationality of John Tyndall from 'British' to 'Irish', you have continued the pattern of warring which first came to attention at WP:AN3 on 1 December, per this link.

Details
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I take note that you declined to revert your edit at John Tyndall in order to avoid this block. When I set up the one-month voluntary restriction, it was with the hope that you would learn how agreement is reached on Wikipeda and begin to work with consensus. My hope was disappointed. You are continuing to operate as a single-purpose account whose goal on Wikipedia is to promote Irish causes. One of your objectives is to change a large number of biographical articles to assert Irish nationality for anyone who was born in Northern Ireland. As you know, opinions differ about this, on a per-article basis. Irish issues have provoked a huge amount of discord on Wikipedia. Ethnic edit-warring on the topic of Ireland is covered by the WP:TROUBLES Arbcom decision, of which you were previously notified. Here is a list of all the noticeboard discussions from November and December 2011 that you were involved in. On December 15, User:ErrantX closed a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive732#MarcusBritish and Sheodred which showed that you were making a huge list of modifications to articles regarding Ireland. Without asserting that every one of MarcusBritish's claims were true, I conclude that you were creating a lot of turmoil and that you seemed to feel your cause was so worthy that you didn't need to get any centralized consensus for your changes.

Your block can be lifted if you will agree to stop making any edits regarding Ireland or people connected with Ireland on articles or talk pages, or on any policies or style rules regarding Ireland, indefinitely. I am requesting a very wide restriction because:

1. Previous sanctions didn't work,
2. You have violated policy in your pattern of edits regarding Ireland
3. To require you to decide if you have any non-Irish interests on Wikipedia.

With passage of time, this restriction might be reconsidered. EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, edit-warrring my arse, this is the last straw, I am not going to beg for a lift for a biased, extreme, wrong and shallow indefinite block , I am finished with wikipedia, have a happy new year. TheFortunateSon (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

For the record about admins not putting any sanctions on MarcusBritish, because it is 'retroactive', I raised the issue about his threats to contact my university before with other admins, but they ignored it, most admins these days cannot be bothered to pick up the mop.

And in answer to EdJohnston's block, I self-reverted my edits on articles like these here], because I believed it was contentious, so to label me as an edit-warring and blunt editor is downright wrong, I tried to reconciliate with Marcus to no avail, I bring proposals to IMOS, when there are nationalistic-problem edits involved in certain articles.

EdJohnstons one-sided treatment of me in relation to [this], telling me I had to impose a timed self-restriction on editing nationalities on Irish related articles (which I fully complied with and adhered to), whilst the involved admin who blocked me for more or less disgreeing did not even get a slap on the wrist by EdJohnston.

Also there people who violated the Troubles restriction, were not subjected to an indef block like I was, their belligerence was worse [3].

This edit was not placed on a restriction or blocked to deter his behaviour despite Ed's awareness of this issue: [4]. His edits are mostly reverts and nationalistic edits, but nothing has arisen from this pattern of editing behaviour [5].

I only bring the contributions of another editor into this because it is relevant what I feel to be a punitive block, no community discussion and I was not even advised to take a mentor or anything, just BANG, indef blocked. Which is why I am leaving this project, there are too many admins who have treated me non-impartially and have ignored my concerns when I brought-up MarcusBritish's interaction-violations on my talk page and off-wiki threats on [[6]]'s talk page to them, when they could not be interpreted as dated (hence no sanctions now because it is conveniently retroactive), and I have had enough of it. TheFortunateSon (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Look your own behaviour made it very difficult for the community to deal with MarcusBritish. He was not edit warring, but was being provocative. You edit warred despite several blocks. If you want advise then I think you should accept a 1rr restriction on any Irish article and nominate a few mentors who can check out articles where you think you are right - i.e. get others to review don't edit war.--Snowded ^TALK 15:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your block in relation to disputes around nationality. Thank you. --RA (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Requesting review of my block with discussion TheFortunateSon (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Uh, if you want your block reviewed it might be a good idea if you explain why you think it should be reviewed, and of course the very recent block evasion pretty much dooms any chance you have at the moment. See WP:GAB and more specifically WP:NOTTHEM and of course WP:EVADE before posting another request. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

EdJohnston

I would appreciate if you showed an even hand towards other disruptive edits as we see here [7] you have taken no action whatsoever against him or the edit-warring admin who wrongly blocked me before here [8]. I am constantly being singled out here and you have ignored these two users and MarcusBritish's repeated topic ban violations and incivility.

I made no edits under that IP that was a violation as there is nothing under WP:Sock that prohibits making an edit-warring report Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections..

I acknowledge that IP was me, but I would not have made that report if you demonstrated that there was uniformity and an even-handed approach, which in my honest opinion was not fulfilled, you were ignorant of Seanwal111111's multiple disruptive edits but not mine, which was a single edit which was backed up with a coherent explanation as people will see from the details of the block. , which I feel is not going to be reviewd anytime soon, so I will give it a month or two before I request again.

And regarding this account WinterIsComingOdran. I was trying to start a clean slate, and despite my positive contributions I was unable to continue my positive contributions and clean state because of the usual opposing editor who has an axe to grind for me, so obviously the only way I can really start afresh is getting my block reviewed. TheFortunateSon (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Seanwal111111's ignored edit-warring

By the way, your quote here from the the page linked; "Seanwal111111 has been engaged in undoing some controversial changes of nationality on biographies of people born in Northern Ireland. In the cases I checked, these are all articles where User:Sheodred had previously changed the person's nationality from 'British' to 'Irish'." A lot of impartial and uninvolved editors would disagree with you using the word controversial to describe those edits, you are now portraying Seanwa1111111 as a non-edit warring editor in the report which is false and misleading, he has been doing this for a long period of time, but hey what chance do I got against bullies who look out for his mates, this is exactly what happened to VintageKits, he became a victim of a small group of editors and their admin buddies who ousted him from the community because he disagreed with some contentious views and edits of theirs.

Anyway this is it, I won't be back for a while, hopefuly things will have improved here and in real-life when I apply for an unblock again. TheFortunateSon (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you would mention VK. Your first edits were right around the time he was finally indef blocked. By the way, I count over 20 admins who took some action in his block log. You think some small group of editors has 20+ admins in their pocket, and they are in a conspiracy against you specifically? You may want to consider the possibility that VK was finally given the boot because, despite a lot of users who genuinely liked him and despite the fact that he did make some good edits, in the end the disruptive editing and nasty talk comments outweighed anything positive he had done and even his own mentors could no longer support him. I'd hate for you to end up in the same position, so please, don't look to him as a role model if/when you return. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Liam Neeson". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 24 January 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 00:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am blocked for the moment, so I will not be participating. TheFortunateSon (talk) 01:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Really

This probably did more to prevent your future unblock than any of your actions before now. This is a volunteer project. There is no time limit. I reviewed it earlier, saw nothing that convinced me that the problem would not recur later, but chose not to decline it. Playing "boo hoo, nobody actioned it, so screw you" is the exact wrong attitude we want on Wikipedia (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

"boo hoo, nobody actioned it, so screw you" I disagree with everything you just said, that unblock request was up there for nearly 24 hours and not a single reply (I know there are admins watching my page and no action was taken, not even a comment, some might be busy in real life but I know not all of them are) It is only when I decided to remove it that an admin replied in response to me removing it...how ironic, if you think I really have nothing better to be doing than waiting for an admin to casually ponder my fate after nearly a day has passed since my request for review then you are sorely mistaken, if you had anything positive to contribute (which I don't think you have) you would have commented on the review on my talk page before I withdrew it, but you come on here now after I withdrew it to insult me...just leave me be. Sheodred (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

But if I have to take up the standing offer I shall.

Block review

I have received your request for a review of your block by email, which expanded a great deal upon the block review you posted on, and later deleted from your userpage. Whilst I am personally unfamiliar with all of the details leading to your block, I have to say that I found your propositions for a return to editing persuasive. I would therefore encourage you to post a new unblock request, including all of what you said to me in the email. Please be patient whilst an administrator takes the time to review the block; he or she will probably need to consult with the admins already involved.

Should your request be declined, your last course of appeal lies with the Ban Appeal Subcommittee of the Arbitration Committee. Before making a request to the BASC, you should follow these instructions. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I thank you very much for your reply Alexandr. NeoSheodred (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Hi I have an outstanding issue about a block I received a whilst ago, I believe it was disproportionate to what I did, I was given an indefinite block for what was perceived to be long term edit-warring which is not true, I always engaged in discussion on the talk pages, brought up proposals on the relevant talk pages, and even made meaningful contriubtions to good articles, I believe that I have been unfairly treated by a certain "cabal" of editors, who seemed more interested in hounding me rather then helping me become a better editor and being civil. I have had time to reflect over the course of my block, and I admit that my edits can be interpreted as disruptive from a certain perspective, I will not engage in any edits to nationalities relating to Irish nationalities without prior discussion first and reliable sources and I am aslo willing to self-impose a 1RR, but I assure you my contributions are not solely on Irish related issues but others also. I did cause some problems for myself at the start of my indef block because I evaded the block but only to start on a clean slate, I edited constructively when I tried to evade and did not engage in disruptive edits, but yes it was still a breach of rules, but my intentions were good. I created articles on Enable Ireland and Ogra Chorcai. I would like to start on a clean slate but can only do so if my block is reviewed, and would ike a mentor, Rannpháirtí anaithnid would be my ideal mentor he has always been understanding and was always impartial in disputes that arose, he also managed to avoid getting dragged into horrible disputes on talk pages and edit-wars on Irish articles with opposing editors, I have a lot to learn from him judging from his approach to articles and users here. NeoSheodred (talk) 12:54 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

There's too much wrong here for this unblock request to be accepted. First of all, you were using this account to evade your block (again) two days ago. You still do not seem to grasp what edit warring is or why it is not acceptable. And finally, you insist on blaming a "cabal" of editors instead of focusing on your own behavior. TNXMan 19:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Are you fucking kidding me, that is a vandalism only account that vandalised an account on an article for a fucking chicken, SINCE WHEN DO I VANDALISE PAGES, I am making a file for ArbCom, this is beyond bullshit. NeoSheodred (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I've contacted Rannpháirtí anaithnid regarding this request. Just one remark: you say I was given an indefinite block for what was perceived to be long term edit-warring which is not true, I always engaged in discussion on the talk pages. Looks like you still don't understand what edit warring is: it is simply prohibited. Even if you're engaged in discussion and make 10 talk page edits per 1 article edit, it still can be edit warring. Max Semenik (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Evading one's block isn't very promising, Sheodred. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

After Sheodred's block, I requested a community review on the basis that I thought an indefinite block was disproportionate. Community consensus was that an indefinite block was justified (particularly in light of Sheodred longer-term editing history). Consensus then was that all that Sheodred needed to do was to request to be unblocked and the likelihood is that the block would be would be reduced.

While that is community consensus, it is something that I feel can aggravate a situation too. It can increase the sense of persecution and injustice on behalf of the person being blocked. That said, I'm not impressed with how Sheodred behaved in response to the block. Any sense of injustice or feeling of being persecuted does not excuse the sort of block evasion seen and certainly not the vandalism seen.

I'm not sure if I want to mentor Sheodred. This is quite a long block log and the comments above don't show the sort of attitude needed to benefit from mentorship. Additionally, I think, in light of Sheodred actions since being blocked and the comments above, that community consensus may be necessary before unblocking and Sheodred beginning mentorship.

Future comments from Sheodred may still change my mind and I hope that Sheodred will be able to return to the project and contribute positively. I suggest Sheodred take a few months off and develop an interest in other Wikimedia projects. If Sheodred still wants to contribute to this project after doing so then the standard offer may still be open. --RA (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to help out if Sheodred is prepared to check things with mentors first. I suggest he comes in on probation with a strict 1rr limit all articles ----Snowded ^TALK 16:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You have to remember RA that two of those blocks were instantly reversed because they were wrong as they were admins involved in an editing dispute and the block by causa sui was because MarcusBritish falsely tagged me as an attack page, that was a drive by block. So three of those blocks should never have happened.I went an entire year without getting blocked until I was dragged into a dispute, although it was my fault for allowing myself to be baited. I will happily have Snowded as a mentor should RA not be willing.

Anyway I admit that I actively engaged in edit disputes, I got too personally involved in them, it was too late to ask for a mentor by then. But I mean everything I said about the restrictions I will adhere to. NeoSheodred (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I will just move over to wikiversity indefinitely, as much as there are decent and well-meaning editors here, who uphold neutralality and are happy in helping each other out and wikimentoring unfortunate lost souls like myself, there is simply too much of the opposite type here, I may or may not see you guys in six months, I will do better on that project and do my best to avoid people like MarcusBritish and their companions. Fare thee well. NeoSheodred (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Sheodred's comment of 17:52, 4 February 2012 is of the kind necessary for mentorship to work. I'd be happy to collaborate with Snowded in a trial mentorship, if he and Sheodred are willing, when Sheodred decides to come back.

I still suggest Sheodred take a few months off (not least to clear your head and rid yourself of bad feelings) before coming back when you're ready. Believe me, it can often be good to take a wikibreak after a poor experience. You'll come back better for it. --RA (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Request

Details
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request. Sheodred (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: It has been over six months since I have been blocked and in that time I have had a lot of time to reflect and address things of a personal nature, I am a different person from what I was at that time, and I have come to understand the futility of getting too personally involved and drawn into pointless tit-for-tat comments and edit-disputes, most notably ones relating to nationality, no matter how right or wrong one is. I have learnt about such topics there will always one who will be vehemently opposed to your POV even if it is illogical, foolish or wrong and vice versa of course and that the most important aspect of edits is not the edits themselves but the reaction/response gives to opposing editors. I took the advice of my peers who sought to counsel me after the block I received, and I assure them and the admins that I have no more intention of being dragged into such disputes. I hope the period of taken leave of anything to do with wikipedia has proved that. I would like the chance to start afresh on a clean slate.NeoSheodred (talk) 14:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC) Accept reason: After review with the blocking admin, and with your acceptance of restrictions, I am unblocking. The following restrictions must continue to appear here on your talkpage for the duration, and will be listed at WP:RESTRICT: you are to be listed as formally warned under the troubles restrictions (this will happen anyway) you are limited to editing on the article talkpages only on any Troubles-related articles, broadly construed, for a period of 3 months you are limited to 1RR on any other page on Wikipedia for 6 months you will not, under any circumstances, change "British" to "Irish" or vice versa, anywhere on Wikipedia you will always adhere to all 1RR restrictions on any article that is subject to it Any violation of the above will lead to a return to an indefinite block (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC) I haven't been following the Irish vs British edit warring much since January, so my agreement to this is hardly necessary. But if the whole thing were up to me, I wouldn't lift Sheodred's block unless he agrees to the condition I proposed back then: Your block can be lifted if you will agree to stop making any edits regarding Ireland or people connected with Ireland on articles or talk pages, or on any policies or style rules regarding Ireland, indefinitely. If Sheodred declines to accept this restriction, then I hope someone who has some time can verify that Sheodred has not continued to sock during this time. The past socking is documented at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Sheodred. The known sock puppets are at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sheodred. I am not personally aware of any new socking by Sheodred since January 16. A list of some past edits of Sheodred that cause concern is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts/Archive 2#Re: Sheodred. The list was compiled by Marcus British, an editor whose work is sometimes open to criticism, but I believe the list he compiled gives us a good overview of what Sheodred will probably go back to doing if he is unblocked without any restrictions. That is, unless Sheodred has had a miraculous conversion to neutrality during the past few months. Nothing in Sheodred's unblock request (above) gives any hint of a new caution to be exhibited on Irish topics. Unless (one can always hope) he has agreed to refrain from edits relating to Irish nationality. What does it mean, "I have no more intention of being dragged into such disputes"? Is that because he will now edit more sensibly? In what way, exactly? EdJohnston (talk) 02:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC) Thank you for your response, I will edit sensibly although I feel the restriction on me making any edits whatsoever to Ireland related topics is harsh, however I will request an alternative, a 1RR for me instead of a 3RR for all topics and a trial/probationary period where any violation of what I mentioned will result in an instant reblock without question and any edits I will include will be discussed beforehand with the article contributors and must be reliably sourced. I would require a mentor and Snowded and RA have expressed before that they would be willing. But as you are the administrator it is your call of course. NeoSheodred (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC) Sheodred, what are your future plans for editing the John Tyndall article? And in general, what are your plans for editing the nationalities of people born in Northern Ireland? EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC) (talk page stalker)Just to add in response to Sheodred's proposal of a voluntary 1RR on Ireland-related article, anything to do with British nationality in regards to Ireland (the main topic he/she edited on before, changing "British" to "Irish", etc.) is already covered by a 1RR under the Troubles restrictions. — JonCॐ 11:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC) I'm not an admin, nor do I have any involvement with your situation, but I just wanted to comment that personally, I find this and the recent statements above to me a sign of good maturity. Sometimes you see things in a different light after taking a break, and I'm glad to see that this happened to you. If you edit properly and follow all the policies, I'm sure you will do well and finding encyclopedic editing to be a rewarding experience. Good luck to you. A university student like yourself, Jesse V. (talk) 05:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Thank you Jesse, in response to your question EdJohnston, I believe I addressed that in my previous comment but if I am permitted after an unblock to edit such articles under the 1RR it will only be if there is overwhelming consensus, there will be no bold editing whatsoever. But as Jon has stated the 1RR is already implemented under the Troubles restriction which I completely forgot about but I looked through the Troubles restrictions and I do not appear to be on it, but even so I will propose the 1RR, but a possible temporary/indefinite restriction on nationality edits until a certain time when the community and yourself feels otherwise would work as well. I have decided to leave anything on my talk page as a gesture to show that I have no intention on sugarcoating or hiding what I have done in the past but I wished to say that my behaviour at the time reflected alot of personal stress I had been suffering from in real life. I need to redeem myself and start on a clean slate. NeoSheodred (talk) 11:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Details
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Going out on a limb here Clearly, with no action on this unblock in 5 days, it's not going to happen. Personally, I'm a bit perturbed by your attempts to negotiate. I'm also cheesed at your belief that you actually need to be on the list of people formally-warned about the Troubles restrictions to have been bound by it. It makes zero sense for you to return to the articles that got you into trouble. Although there is some sign of personal growth, I'm not 100% convinced. Here are my proposed restrictions based on things said above, and they really aren't negotiable: you are to be listed as formally warned under the troubles restrictions (this will happen anyway) you are limited to editing on the article talkpages only on any Troubles-related articles, broadly construed, for a period of 3 months you are limited to 1RR on any other page on Wikipedia for 6 months you will not, under any circumstances, change "British" to "Irish" or vice versa, anywhere on Wikipedia you will always adhere to all 1RR restrictions on any article that is subject to it Any violation of the above will lead to a return to an indefinite block (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC) I agree to what you have proposed. Thank you Bwilkins. NeoSheodred (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC) I support any admin unblocking Sheodred under these conditions, which I believe ought to be logged in WP:RESTRICT. My suggestion to Sheodred is that he should go back to the original 'Sheodred' signature and not use 'NeoSheodred'. For purpose of these restrictions I would view John Tyndall as a Troubles-related article. The same for any other person born in Northern Ireland. It appears that restriction #4 has no time limit, which I support. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)