Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:04, 3 June 2009

Domer48 is busy and is going to be on Misplaced Pages in off-and-on doses, and may not respond swiftly to queries.

• Pádraig, Rest In Peace a chara - sorely missed - not to be forgotten.

Today is 14 January 2025

Archives
Archive 1 - February 2007 to December 2007 Archive 2 - Jan 2008 to December 2008 Archive 3 - Jan 2009 to December 2009 Archive 4

Useful links

Irish Manual of Style~ Policy ~ Assume good faith ~ Citing sources ~ Warning templates ~ Sources of articles ~ Civility ~ Consensus ~ Dispute resolution ~ Etiquette ~ No original research ~ What Misplaced Pages is not ~ No personal attacks ~ Neutral point of view ~ POINT ~ Reliable sources ~ Verifiability ~ WP:Attribution ~ WP:Synthesis ~

WP:Avoid peacock terms ~ Misplaced Pages:Avoid weasel terms

Useful Noticeboard

3RR~ WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard ~ Third opinion Noticeboard ~ Misplaced Pages:No original research/noticeboard ~

Newboy

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

March 2009

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

Per AE, it was a different request on a different article. I agree the request is now redundant as a result of your actions. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, OK, that was not apparent from the request as it appeared on-screen. For the next time you want to request enforcement, please review my advice for how to compose proper AE requests at .  Sandstein  23:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Will do, and thanks for the advice. --Domer48_'fenian' 00:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom case:The Troubles

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

What for 1 revert? Have IQ's dropped? --Domer48_'fenian' 17:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No, 2. Should I report you? Mooretwin (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Well lets see the diff's then? --Domer48_'fenian' 20:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

1, 2- shall I report you? Mooretwin (talk) 10:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, nonsence! --Domer48_'fenian' 08:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The word is "nonsense". Mooretwin (talk) 10:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You'd think you'd know what a breech of 1RR was at this stage! Go ahead and report, it will just add to your list of time wasting activities here on Wiki. Spelling mistakes! More "nonsense".--Domer48_'fenian' 17:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Arbitration enforcement

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

I have? Were? What page did I move? --Domer48_'fenian' 16:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You've also breached 1RR on Troubles-related articles, and this has been noted to Arbcom. Mooretwin (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

1RR is out the window! So I did not breached 1RR on Troubles-related articles. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Awhile back, check SirFozzie's talk page about it. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

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

I agree, looks more like Arbcom blessing it, but they haven't yet. I wish they would. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Block

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

This is an unfair block Sandstein I am not sure that Domer even thought that they were breaching any Sanctions, what about Conduct and decorum which has not been enforced with an editor on the talk twice being asked to cut out the personal attacks, are you not running to block them? A stern warning if needed was all that should have been used here not a week block. BigDunc 20:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I have not moved any page, I removed text that was misleading on the Republic of Ireland article, after a good deal of discussion on the article talk page. The text I placed on the Republic of Ireland is accurate, subject pacific and covers the subject based on verifiable sources and according to our policy of neutral point of view two corner stones of wiki. The text I removed, I placed on the Ireland article. I did on the talk page discussion suggest leaving the text on the article, and was meet with a wall of silence. It was far from a cut and past job and involved a good deal of editing. I have not edited in violation of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#No moves pending discussion of this ongoing discussion and I have not violated any of our policies. There is nothing in the above discussion which suggests that our policies can be violated, and no decision is going to suggest it either. Now I agree not to add any more content onto the Ireland and the Republic of Ireland is page protected for two weeks. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

To make this clear, do you agree not to attempt to change the subject of the article Ireland from the island to the country until the conditions specified in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#No moves pending discussion are met?  Sandstein  20:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

YES! Clear enough? --Domer48_'fenian' 20:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Well hit the unblock button, because I still can't edit. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Still blocked. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

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

June 2009

That's a cheap move from you! You were asked to provide links for these directives, you can't so you block. What's next, Sandstein to come along and endorse it? --Domer48_'fenian' 20:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a fucking lie, and you know it! I gave an undertaking above, and I have not broken it. You are lying through your fucking teeth, in all your posts. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• SarekOfVulcan, this is a bit of a joke and way OTT. You are an involved admin and are in dispute with Domer and shouldnt be handing out a spurious block like this. Its pretty embarrassing to say the least.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Vin, read this discussion, and they say there not involved. As the fucker were is the directive from ArbCom preventing talk page discussions. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I said the Arbitration Committee has not put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed articles. This process here before the ArbCom even agreed to here the case. So were is the structure for determining the names of the disputed articles set up by ArbCom? That's disruptive? Check out the section titled Time table, and check out Back-up on this? I said there is no directive by ArbCom preventing discussion on article talk pages. If there is such a directive, provide a diff. Is that disruptive, were is the link? This is just typical of POV warriors riding rough shod over editors who dare challange them. I know Sandstein is going to come along now and back this fucker up. They are just as bad if not worse. There last block was just as bad as this one, again lying. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

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

What did I tell you, does not even have a rational. Never thought for one minute they would be pulled to account for their actions. The fucking arrogance, to drop a block and have not provided the editor with it before they were blocked. They would not even respond on ANI that they had to go make up a rational, because editors and Admin's would see what a fucking joke they were. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Language, please. I can guarantee that you won't get unblocked the way you're going, so please stop before you say something you'll regret. lifebaka++ 20:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree don't give them a way out Domer this is a piss poor block for asking a qusetion typical. BigDunc

I'll take on board the advice, I've had two bad blocks in two days! Sandstein putting my block log up as some sort of mitigation, is there not a rule about using an editors block log. How do you think I should feel? They are a joke! --Domer48_'fenian' 20:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Hang on here a minute, this is not a rational it's an excuse! Were are not interested in a history lesson, were is the rational for this BS block! I was not being disruptive. I want answers to the questions I posed! They are running to catch a bus, they are alright. They are running to get a bigger shovel for the hole they are digging. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a go at answering your question:

• were is the structure for determining the names of the disputed articles set up by ArbCom?

ArbCom put two, sequential structures in place. One was to last 14 days only, and proved unsuccessful. Their back up was to "...designate a panel of three uninvolved administrators to develop and supervise an appropriate procedure." This they did, and an appropriate procedure was determined via engagement WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. Sadly it also proved unsuccessful on the first attempt, so new supervisors were appointed and a discussion is currently ongoing at WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. You could, of course, debate whether that is a "structure" which is "set up by ArbCom" - but semantics aside, ArbCom clearly put in place a remedy to determine a structure.

• That's disruptive?

A matter of opinion, of course. I - personally - don't consider that disruptive. Without speaking for the blocking admin, it appears to me he interpreted it as an effort to continue a campaign to move the article without consensus of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. It was already been made clear to you (as a condition of being unblocked) that you should not continue with that effort. If his interpretation is correct, it could be considered as intent to disrupt.

• Check out the section titled Time table, and check out Back-up on this?

Thats not really a question, but I checked those links and it appears to answer your previous question. They show that a structure was in place, directed by ArbCom and mediated by their appointed moderators.

• I said there is no directive by ArbCom preventing discussion on article talk pages. If there is such a directive, provide a diff. Is that disruptive, were is the link?

There is no directive explicitly preventing discussion on article talk pages. There is an ArbCom-directed process though, and that is not on article talk pages. Therefore continuing to use article talk pages may not be disruptive per se, but it is certainly lacking any constructive purpose. Rockpocket 23:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Please calm down

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

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

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

Ok. Pursuant to discussion on WP:ANI and Sarek's agreement, I am undoing the talk page edit part of the block. For now I am leaving the main block duration as-is.

This is contengent on you behaving adequately well during the discussion to follow. Please don't threaten anyone, that will result in a reblock. It would seriously help the tone of the conversation regarding reviewing the block if you can remain civil and refrain from any more profanity during the discussions. If you can stay calm and cooperate and discuss this constructively I think we can try and resolve more of it tomorrow.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Georgewilliamherbert! --Domer48_'fenian' 12:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Why am I still Blocked

I would like to know why I'm still blocked? --Domer48_'fenian' 16:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

George hasn't edited since last night, but I assume he'll be around later, since he mentioned "tomorrow" above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Rockpocket, if you are still an Admin could you please, at once, without argument: (1) Unblock Domer and (2) Block Sarek while we review his Admin rights. Such an egregious pov block from an involved Admin I have never seen - and I have sure seen some bad blocks in my time. Sarah777 (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Since the discussion on the Republic of Ireland talk page, I’ve had to contend with POV warriors and some personal abuse. While I expect nothing less from some editors, Admin’s sitting on their hands (second paragraph) and offering mitigation, does bother me. Considering I was blocked once for calling someone a liar, I discovered, that this sanction is selective. Having been called it twice both here 18.07 June 1 and here 19.08 1 June, to see SarekOfVulcan then support this type of conduct , well what else can I expect? --Domer48_'fenian' 18:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Certainly not justice or fair-play. The list of blocked/banned Irish editors grows and grows. Sarah777 (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Filed a request for amendment to the Ireland arbitration case.

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

I'm blocked and I disagree hiding away this discussion. You want to insert an amendment that my blocker said was already there? --Domer48_'fenian' 18:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This proves that Sarek was wrong and that there was nothing from the arbs in relation to discusions taking place on the talk page. BigDunc 18:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I strongly oppose that suggestion. Anti-Irish censorship on Wiki in relation to British/ Irish disputes is already an abomination. Without adding more. Sarah777 (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It proves nothing of the sort. I only filed it to end the ongoing saga in a crystal clear manner. MickMacNee (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The admission by MacNee that Sarek was wrong is noted. Even if he was right it would still count as one of the worst and most malicious blocks I've seen. But now we see he was Wrong! Sarah777 (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

So they can provide a diff for an ArbCom directive preventing talking about the Republic of Ireland article on the Republic of Ireland talk page. If they can, well block everyone Irish Editor who is on it now talking. That includes you Sarah and Dun, RedKing etc. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)