Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:14, 19 November 2009

Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Attack or explanation?

Elonka, did you take VK's explanation of the phrase "cop onto yourself" as a chance to piggyback an insult onto Domer's incivility, or as a humorous explanation of the implications of the expression? If you didn't take it as a PA, then I don't want to move forward under the assumption that it was one. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I would rate the language as qualifying as a personal attack, yes. And, as I know now, it wasn't even a proper definition of the "cop onto yourself" phrase, which is probably better defined as "Get a grip onto yourself" or "Get ahold of yourself", from the old English "cop" meaning to take or seize. --Elonka 16:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for the clarification, I appreciate it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

And if it is Jdorney has now reverted twice in one day another clear breach of 1RR. Having only recently been blocked for 1 week for same. BigDunc 21:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Another snafu. Elonka had replied on my page - I missed it in the blizzard of messages. My bad. Sarah777 (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Dunc, myself and JD have differences but I'm not going to support egging someone to block him! He's NOT good at spotting "slant" but he does know his history. Credit where it's due :) Sarah777 (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to do with getting anyone one blocked, I have said it numerous times I don't want anyone blocked, even Rock, ;) BigDunc 21:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Irvine22

I have heard it mentioned the spirit of 1RR could you check out here, Irvine is just back from his second block in 2 weeks and is straight in with very controversial edits. Which have all been reverted. BigDunc 19:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to have a look at this user continued disruption be it in articles or edit summaries, you have warned users about probation and you have blocked others, you might have missed this post so I am asking again could you please look into this thank you. BigDunc 13:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, I'll take a look. --Elonka 17:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Ban violation?

Since User:Shell_Kinney is on wikibreak, is the ban considered dropped? Or is there another avenue that this should be taken to, or should it just be dropped? DigitalC (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you give me a diff of what she said exactly? --Elonka 21:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

diff DigitalC (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it's logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience that QuackGuru (talk · contribs) is banned from all topics related to Chiropractic for 6 months, starting in August 2009. This ban is still valid, regardless of whether or not Shell Kinney is active on-wiki. Can you give me diffs of what you think are the violations of this ban? --Elonka 22:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• diff - QuackGuru edits Quackery, adding information about D.D. Palmer, the founder of Chiropractic, below "He founded the field of chiropractic..." and directly below a reference tag containing "History of Chiropractic • Carl Cleveland, Jul '52".
• diff - QuackGuru adds information to a section of Vaccine controversy, adding information directly after a sentence that mentions Chiropractic.

From my reading of the ban, s/he was to be banned from "any topics dealing with Chiropractic", and the above topics obviously dealt with Chiropractic.

DigitalC (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• diff - while this edit is uncontroversial, QuackGuru is supposed to not be editing these pages at all. This article Trick or Treatment is about a book that "evaluates the scientific evidence for acupuncture, homeopathy, herbal medicine, and chiropractic".
• diff - is one of QuackGuru's several edits to Naturopathy. This edit is again below a sentence mentioning chiropractic. The article itself should probably be a no-gone zone, as it has several mentions of Chiropractic in it.

DigitalC (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• diff - QuckGuru's ban specifically mentioned QuackWatch. Here is another edit of him editing the article of a book examining Chiropractic, and adding a link to a review hosted at QuackWatch. The book review that he added again specifically mentions Chiropractic. DigitalC (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. Unfortunately, I won't have time to read these in detail... I recommend that you open a thread at WP:AE with this information, and see what others think. --Elonka 22:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Violation of probation?

The editor was warned about the probation but has decided to delete properly sourced text here and here after returning from a wikibreak. The editor has a possible COI. What avenue should be taken? QuackGuru (talk) 20:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the details of the ban which Shell Kinney may have imposed. However, if there are concerns that an ArbCom-related ban may have been violated, then the proper venue to bring this up would be at WP:AE. --Elonka 21:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Troubles discretionary sanctions II

Hi Elonka. I thought your Troubles discretionary sanctions proposal was quite good, and needed to avoid Troubles II. So I've asked at User_talk:Seraphimblade#Troubles whether the community might re-continue that discussion (somewhere?). It probably isnt an "incident" any longer, but the next incident is likely just around the corner. I've also asked for thoughts from Sarah. If you cant find community support, please bring it to arbcom to consider. John Vandenberg 04:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. --Elonka 05:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Per your suggestion, I have filed at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request to amend prior case: The Troubles. --Elonka 04:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Troubles related

How is any article, once determined by an admin. as 'Troubles related', to be de-listed? The particular article I have in mind is Irish Bulletin. The disruptive editor has been banned. How long more is 1 revert per 24 hrs. supposed to apply to everyone editing on this page? RashersTierney (talk) 20:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

There's no de-listing, it's just permanent. Per community consensus, all Troubles-related articles are under 1RR. However, the restriction does not apply when reverting vandalism, or reverting edits made by anonymous IPs. --Elonka 21:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you think that is reasonable and sustainable? RashersTierney (talk) 21:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The community consensus for it in October 2008 was quite strong, so yes. --Elonka 21:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I've edited here for some time now on many Ireland-related articles. I've never come across this restriction before, or if I did, just moved on because the editing rather than the topic was inflammatory. 'Troubles-related' might sometimes just be a hammer to crack some nuts. Or it might just be nuts. RashersTierney (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the stark warning at Irish Bulletin. Please don't reapply an unnecessary restriction. RashersTierney (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not the template is there, is irrelevant. The 1RR restriction is still in effect. --Elonka 00:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it should not be. RashersTierney (talk) 00:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support the firm but fair line you are taking. --John (talk) 07:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The firm but fair line who is taking? RashersTierney (talk) 07:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Elonka, whose talk page this is. --John (talk) 07:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

What possible benefit to the project is that restriction having at Irish Bulletin? RashersTierney (talk) 07:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It's keeping nationalists (of either stripe) from ruining the article, which in my view is a good thing. --John (talk) 08:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Based on what evidence exactly do you come to that conclusion? There was only ever one problematic editor there, who has since been banned as a sock (and the restriction had no bearing on his/her 'outing'). The 1 revert restriction and the intimidating warning are unnecessary and potentially discouraging positive contributions. RashersTierney (talk) 08:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how it is keeping British Nationalism in check; except in relation to a number of Irish articles. Perhaps we should explore the problem of British nationalism more widely - I see it all over British articles, like a plague. Even in the title of some roads articles. As British Nationalism is a vastly greater problem, far greater than any other nationalism bar American Nationalism I am concerned that the Elephants in the room are being ignored while minor problems like alleged Irish or Balkan nationalism attracts all the draconian action. Something very rotten in the state of Wiki? Sarah777 (talk) 09:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sarah. If you haven't already seen it, you might be interested in this page. --John (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ta John. I've not only seen that page I've nearly memorised it :) Sarah777 (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Irish Bulletin

Classic example of how clampdowns can degenerate into intimidation (as viewed by non-Admins). Where is the edit-warring that merits 1RR in this article? Was it the mere presence of Domer? If I decide to edit English historical articles will we have 1RR tags slapped on them just 'cos of my presence? If you can promise me that I'll get cracking straight away, starting with the Battle of Hastings and working my way up to the war in Afghanistan. Sarah777 (talk) 09:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

And if we go by the definition of "troubles-related" supplied by Angus then Irish Bulletin does not come under the Arbcom ruling at all. So any block based on an imagined Arbcom sanction would be a bad block which would mean the blocker would no longer be suitable to be involved in "troubles-related" articles. Sarah777 (talk) 10:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Elonka, you did an excellent job in identifying and stopping the 'gaming' IP at this article, and perhaps I should have thanked you for your extensive efforts before this, but I was always perplexed at the tagging of this article as 'Troubles-related'. My reservations on extending Admin. powers in this area are not due in any way to doubts about your good intentions or integrity. Just thought you should know. RashersTierney (talk) 13:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Picture request

Sorry, I don't...I'm based in London, England and took the photo on a visit to New York in February. However, there are staff based in the office in the cemetery itself who are quite helpful and they may be able to help you. Jack1956 (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Admins noticeboard

Just to let you know i have made a post on the Admins noticeboard about the BNP being considered an articles related to the troubles here. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thumbs up

I commend ya, Elonka, on your cool headedness. Those Troubles articles are really a headache, at times; doubly so for administrators. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Placing British National Party under 1RR

Sorry Elonka, no way is British National Party a Troubles, or even really an Irish-British relations, related article, warranting this. If the issue you are seeing is bad behaviour on that article between editors who are otherwise associated with editting Troubles related articles, that is an entirely different matter. Please don't embolden those who wish to discredit the entire system with decisions like this, which will only catch people out who have likely never edited a Troubls related article their lives, or worse, will be improperly abused to win content disputes utterly unrelated to anything about the Troubles, such as the current dispute on the article. MickMacNee (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

My attention was drawn to the article because of the recent edit-warring, which appeared to be an overflow dispute with involved editors who routinely edit Troubles-related articles. The article also falls within the proper scope. Per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles, and the subsequent community amendment in October 2008, the scope of the case is defined as, "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related." The article British National Party is clearly within that scope. Just search for the term "Ireland" in the article and read about the Party's policies. --Elonka 20:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said, it is an entirely different matter if you think Troubles editors are spilling disputes to other articles, especially if they aren't even disputing content related to the Troubles - the problem in that case is the editors, not the article, and as you know being an admin, there are ways and means to deal with that without tagging articles as Troubles related when they aren't - which comes to the second point, it is imo quite wrong to consider BNP a Troubles related article based on tiny amount of references to it in the article, on that basis, the amount of related articles would number in the thousands, for a start covering every British political party article. The BNP's brand of British nationalism really has nothing to do with Ireland at all. MickMacNee (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I must take the unusual step of agreeing with Elonka here. This is clearly at least as related to the "troubles" as the Kilmichael Ambush. Perhaps we are now getting a badly needed clamp down on the scourge of British Nationalism on Wiki? Not something even MickMac could argue with. Sarah777 (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Atleast that is related to the IRA despite being before the troubles. The British National party has nothing to do with the Troubles. If the fact it has a policy on Northern Ireland means its related to the troubles then EVERY article on wikipedia about Ireland, the UK and their political parties need placing on restrictions too. What a crazy development. This is hardly a clamp down on British nationalism Sarah, the restrictions have been imposed following people supporting or defending the BNP making silly accusations not those who oppose it. So its quite the opposite. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I trust Elonka to see how nonsensical your comparison of the BNP with the Kilmichael Ambush is, and thus, how credible the rest of your opinions are on what is and is not wrong with the Wiki. MickMacNee (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with MickMacnee's first post on this. The BNP issue is not a "Troubles-related" issue - it is an issue that involves many of the same editors, simply because they are editors who are involved on Britain/UK-related political issues as a whole. What seems to have happened here is that one of the editors in dispute seems to have claimed - initially almost as a joke here, here and here - that it is a Troubles-related" issue, specifically in order to get a 1RR restriction placed on the article. The fact that the BNP has policies relating to Ireland is, frankly, irrelevant - not all British/UK political issues should be defined as "Troubles-related". Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The notion that the BNP's Unionist anti-Irish policies are unrelated to "the troubles" while Kilmicheal is just goes to demonstrate how deep the cancer of British Nationalism goes on Wiki. Sarah777 (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

But the BNP's anti-Irish policies are not the subject of the dispute on that page, which relates to whether it should still be called a "whites-only" party. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That editor was being a dick with his ridiculous comments and has a major case of ownership on the article, I for one have made edits to the BNP article before they had even created an account. BigDunc 21:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

As before, I trust Elonka to see these statements for what they are, suffice to say the BNP policy on Ireland is actually apparently based on a goal of establishing an equal federation of independent states. If this is anti-Irish and an embodiment of Troubles brand Unionism, then I am afraid we will have to declare all EU articles as Troubles related aswell. MickMacNee (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the others who said this clearly isn't a "Troubles" related article. This party defines its main politics in relation to opposing non-European immigration, communism, Islamism, globalism and free market capitalism. If this is a "Troubles related article", then so is every single article in the British Isles. This party doesn't have "anti-Irish" anything as its core politics, in fact the opposite. - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I think I see the confusion here. If I'm understanding the concerns correctly, it's that some of you feel that the Troubles ArbCom case should only apply to Troubles-related articles. However, the case's scope has been expanded since its inception in 2007. For an example of how this works, see WP:DIGWUREN. The scope of that case was written to cover all Eastern Europe conflicts, regardless if they had anything to do with the editor Digwuren or not. So the name of the Troubles case should not be used to limit its scope, because in October 2008, the case's scope was expanded to include, "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland." So such an article within the new scope might or might not specifically refer to the period of time referred to as The Troubles, but that's not the point. The actual scope of the case now is British/Irish nationalism, whether the case name be "Troubles", "France", "XYZ", or "Chinese pottery". Ultimately, the main point here is to reduce edit-warring in a topic area which has been subject to a great deal of conflict. If articles are not being warred over, then the case won't be an issue. In fact, how's this: If an article is relatively stable for at least 30 days, meaning that established editors are no longer reverting each other, then it would be reasonable to remove the template from the article's talkpage. Would that address concerns? --Elonka 01:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

A straightforward mechanism for removing the restrictions after problematic editing has stopped would certainly resolve one of my main concerns. I still think the definition above is extremely broad and needs to be applied with the greatest restraint. This tag is not a panacea and carries intrinsic difficulties. RashersTierney (talk) 01:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It does not address problems that arise when an article which contains references to both Britain and Ireland, in whatever context, is subject to edit warring for reasons which have nothing at all to do with those references. In my view the BNP article falls into that category - the edit warring was about the party's racist membership criteria, not about its policies in relation to Ireland. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It is an enormous leap to say that the BNP falls under the topic "British nationalism in relation to Ireland" just because the article has once sentence about a policy on Ireland. This was a simple case of a run of the mill content dispute which had nothing to do with Ireland, spilling over into edit warring. You have more than enough tools at your disposal to deal with this normally, without making it appear that the Troubles case now has virtually limitless boundaries, with the subsequent chilling effect. MickMacNee (talk) 13:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

As an involved editor I have to agree, this has nothing to do with Ireland, but is (ans was) a back dorr atrempt at imposing a 1RR rule.Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

If multiple involved editors feel that 1RR is cramping their style, and that they need to be able to revert each other multiple times per day, that's a pretty clear example of a problem, don't you think? Revert is not supposed to be used as an editing tool, it's supposed to be used to get rid of obvious vandalism. Reverting is completely ineffective as a way to ensure longterm stable changes to an article. The proper way to proceed is to go through Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution, discuss the dispute in a civil and collegial matter, and end up with an article that reflects consensus. This culture of "we have to revert each other every day" is not acceptable. --Elonka 15:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that edited warring is wrong, yes. Bu I also would say that there is an edited waring procedure that we can follow, and that can result in a page being given a 1RR restriction. But this is not the way it should have been done. irt looks to be like a clear case of playing the system.Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Who here said reverting is OK? That was not the issue at all. The issue is, and still is, how is it appropriate to place a restriction created to deal with disputes in the topic areas of British and Irish relations, on an article which has nothing to do with British-Irish relations, to stop edit warring in a dispute that had nothing to do with British-Irish relations? MickMacNee (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the issue, it is clearly an involved issue and is being edited by a group of editors that are involved in editing the troubles articles. Off2riorob (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I have never heard such nonsense. If a bunch of us went over and edited an article on perhaps Fish would you class that as troubles related? This really is pathetic and i cant believe it has gone on for a second day. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if it is or could be associated to the troubles and uk nationalism then it is fine to template it, as editors are restricted at one article they will naturally look for other outlets for their position, as regards a bunch of you doing this and that, please take care to not get involved in WP:TAGTEAM issues. Off2riorob (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to partialy disagree with you. would have no connection to the Irish trouble, wereas the BNP have a policy on it. And if that was what the edit war was about there mightm be a reason for this 1RR restriction, its not (and as far as I an tell the BNP policy of Oiland has never been questioned on the page). It seems that the fact that a bunch of you (a shamrock of Irish?) are also editing a page that has a tenuous link to Ireland is being used to enforce a 1RR restriction in wholey inapropriate circumstances.Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Was this Fish meant perhaps? That's actually a good example of something you could, if you really tried hard, tag as a Troubles-related article, on account of some typically overwrought lyrical content in one song out of hundreds. Anyway, the BNP page is clearly not a Troubles-related article per se, and the specific issue in question on there is nothing to do with Ireland. Really bad decision and should be reversed - whatever the problems are on that page, please try to deal with them in another way, rather than by spuriously bringing the article under the umbrella of a wholly unrelated sanctions regime. --Nickhh (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

In the absence of anyone seeming to agree with your unilateral decision to brand the BNP page a "Troubles-related article", could you please remove the tag and the restriction, until you get at least something resembling consensus for this rather strange and illogical decision? As you know, you have made a formal request for the expansion of the scope of the original Troubles decision so that it includes anything to do with British or Irish nationalism, and to increase the range of sanctions available to admins under that decision - could you at least wait until some kind of agreement emerges there before taking arbitrary and controversial actions of this sort on an unrelated article, rather than simply ignoring what everyone else is saying, on your talk page and elsewhere? Not really a shining example of how to go about improving collaboration and adherence to process here now, is it? Thank you. --Nickhh (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If the article can remain stable for a period of time, such as 30 days without established editors reverting each other, I would have no objection to removing the template. --Elonka 22:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me Nickhh; "In the absence of anyone seeming to agree with your unilateral decision to brand the BNP page a "Troubles-related article". I wholeheartedly agree with Elonkathat the anti-Irish BNP is troubles related. (The fact that it is a racist xenophobic party which detests any foreigners is neither here nor there). I think the "mission creep" of "troubles" related articles to include Irish articles unrelated to the troubles (eg Kilmichael Ambush) is a disaster for Wiki in this area and I utterly oppose Elonka on her simplistic draconian proposals related to expanding the already excessive powers of random Admins. But identifying BNP as troubles related is spot on. Sarah777 (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake if we are applying these restrictions to any article that even mentions Ireland it should only happen when edit warring is over something in that article related to Ireland which has certainly not been the case, i dont think Ireland has been been seriously debated on the talk page of the BNP article ever. The edit warring was over the BNP being a far right whites only racist political party. This has nothing to do with Ireland. One editor was sticking up for the BNP, he then claimed the dispute was troubles related and now we have 1RR restrictions stopping us from getting on with sorting out the article. its just wrong and we should not have to wait 30 days to have an incorrect label of it being "troubles related" removed. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

A feature of the "British right" is that they have racist anti-Irish views. Remember all those cartoons in Punch depicting the Irish as apes during the Great Genocide? Sarah777 (talk) 23:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

To Elonka: But the point being raised is not whether the article is stable or not (loads of pages aren't), but whether it is a Troubles related article. It isn't. You're still not addressing that point, unsurprisingly perhaps. Apologies for not spotting (as above) that there was one person who does agree with your interpretation, but no one else does. If you want to slap a template on it saying "this article is not stable", go ahead, but please take off the one it has. I'm only bothered by this because it seems such an obvious and rather silly-looking error, which you seem unwilling to admit or address. And Sarah, I have no doubt the BNP hate the Irish along with plenty of other people, but even that doesn't negate the point that the BNP page - and especially the specific debate underway there - has nothing to do with the Troubles.--Nickhh (talk) 00:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be The Troubles-related to be within the scope of the case. See my above post from 01:25. --Elonka 00:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Civility

I have stricken my last comment. I hope that is sufficient. Thanks for your note. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The time maybe coming, to stricken Irvine22 from all those 'Troubles articles'. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Per this and subsequent to the conversation we had on his talk yesterday, I am inclined to agree with GoodDay on this matter. --John (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain more? From an outsider's perspective, that seems to be a normal comment about content. If there's something particularly inflammatory about it though, could you please spell it out for me? (preferably in a brief comment, with a link to a source or two). Thanks, --Elonka 21:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Its not outrageously inflammatory, but it is provocative (and I would say, knowingly so). The reason the decommissioning of arms was such a long, convoluted process is that both sides were very much interested in claiming the settlement was a victory towards achieving their respective goals. Suggesting that decommissioning was "imposed upon by unionism and the British and Irish governments" is to imply that the IRA lost their "war" and was forced to give up arms. This is consistent with the "No surrender" rhetoric of the Loyalist faction. In contrast, the IRA (and those of a Republican persuasion) will claim the IRA chose to decommission only after getting the concessions they demanded and therefore the British lost their battle against the IRA.

In short, that comment is just one of many persistent sly comments aimed at purposefully riling those who are familiar with the subject. It serves zero purpose towards improving the article and appears aimed at stoking disputes. Rockpocket 22:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Its also a part of a persistent pattern. Irvine has taken a position that the PIRA failed in its mission - an strong, possibly extreme unionist position. At one stage he was blocked for persistently edit waring over this. His comment above was yet another in that sequence and given his knowledge of the historical contact it was deliberately designed to provoke. We see a similar behaviour over attempts to try and make any Irish Republican English or Scottish in ancestry. What we have here is a persistent series of edits around a strong POV accompanied by provocative statements on the talk pages in the the edit summaries. A ban results in a temporary peace before he returns to more of the same. To someone without knowledge of the history it may seem innocent, but it isn't. We see the same pattern now shifting to Scotland, where s/he has taken a strong unionist to say that the United Kingdom's national anthem is the Scottish National anthem, Something not supported by citation and again knowingly aimed a provoking scottish editors (see the edit summaries). A study of his/her edits over a period of time (and the various blocks that have gone with that, not to mention the use of IPs and the one sock that we know of gives you a bigger picture here. --Snowded 01:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, you seem to have joined Rockpocket in characterizing my "position" as "Unionist". I have certainly never characterized myself in that way on Misplaced Pages, and indeed I would not. If you and Rockpocket choose to impute that position to me, and maintain that such a position is somehow provocative, that says more about your POV than mine. (And BTW the notion that PIRA "failed in its mission" may just as well be a traditional Republican position, taken by Anthony McIntyre, Bernadette Sands-McKevitt, Dolours Price and other such luminaries.) Irvine22 (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You self declared on your own page, and in various talk page conversations. Remember Chocolate Orange when you were accusing another editor of using racist language? Sorry Irvine I don't buy the protestation, its more wikilawyer/gaming etc, etc. I am weary of it. --Snowded 02:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the other editor to whom you refer will appreciate you raising that matter. Suffice it to say that I have agreed to move past that, and have been working constructively, on and off, with the other editor since. It is pretty telling, though, that not one of you - John, GoodDay, Rockpocket, RepublicanJacobite, Snowded - can point to a single instance of incivility on my part, or indeed provide diffs for these supposed "provocative" edits and summaries.Irvine22 (talk) 05:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me that, having identified a gap in the article's coverage of the decommissioning issue, I offered what you (Rockpocket) termed a perfectly good stab at a paragraph to plug the gap. Rather than engage constructively on that basis, certain other editors prefered to perpetuate personal conflict, tag team gaming and incivility directed towards myself. That is unfortunate, and I have not responded in kind, nor will I. I do however refute the suggestion that my contributions are anything other than content-focused good faith attempts to improve the article, and I regard your above characterization of my edits to be tendentious and unsubstantiated. Irvine22 (talk) 00:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Irvine, did you ever hear of the concept of getting it "right first time"? Eleven edits on Elonka's page to produce such a mouse - I mean, really! Sarah777 (talk) 02:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly so, which is why I responded by saying "Rubbish". The subsequent exchange may not have been helpful, and I will admit I should not have risen to his provocation, but his pattern of POV-pushing, provocations, and incivility invited my response. That response, as you know, was stricken, at your request, by me. And yet he continues his pattern, making reference to the civility policy as if he has ever shown any indication of having read it. How long must his actions and his attitude be tolerated? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

RJ, could you provide diffs of examples of my supposed "incivility"? Thanks in advance. Irvine22 (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) RJ, fair question, let me try and give you a thorough answer. There are a few key things to keep in mind:

• First: Venue. There are proper places to raise concerns about a user's conduct. But an article talkpage is not one of them. So when on an article talkpage, it's important to keep comments focused on the article. If someone says something absurd, there is no need to respond. Just swim away, unless it looks like the idea is getting traction, in which case a simple calm comment to show that you disagree, may be all that's needed. If someone's conduct is genuinely a concern though, bring it up in a the correct venue: An administrator's talkpage, or at one of the dispute resolution noticeboards, or at an administrator noticeboard, or file a User Conduct RfC.
• Second: Civility. If someone is being disruptive, it's never appropriate to just tell them that they're being an idiot. Because as soon as someone resorts to incivility, it weakens their argument.
• Third: Reduce the noise level, which will help administrators to do their job. When an uninvolved administrator arrives on the scene, they usually have no clue of the backstory, of who the "troublemakers" are, who are the good faith editors, etc. When the first thing an admin sees is two people calling each other names, to an outside admin, both those editors look equally at fault. The admin generally doesn't care who started it. So whenever possible, take the high road, so that editors with problematic behavior are more likely to stand out against the quiet.
• Fourth: Watch your contribs. One trick I use to tell who the constructive editors are, is to look at everyone's contrib history. What I'll usually see is a few editors who have a solid history of actually working on multiple articles and making well-sourced additions, a few editors who have a lock on a very small subset of articles where they spend the majority of their time, and a few who are just bouncing from talkpage to talkpage, engaging in dispute after dispute, but rarely ever actually building the encyclopedia. So what this may tell me is that if I ban or block the dispute-junkies, no one's really going to miss them, since they weren't doing anything constructive anyway.  ;) However, I also try to keep in mind that if there's a troll in there stirring the pot, the troll may be goading the normally good editors to a state of incoherent rage. So I look at other things than just contribs. But still, it's an important marker.

So my advice (to everyone) is: Don't take the bait. Keep your cool, keep on making solid well-sourced edits to multiple articles. If you have concerns about an editor's behavior, don't express them on an article talkpage, take them to another more appropriate venue, and then express those concerns in a civil way. If you're in a dispute on one or more articles, try to spend at least half your wiki-time working on other things too. It will help improve your contrib list, and it's also a wonderful way to lower your stress level, working on articles where you don't have to worry about being reverted every other edit. Plus, if you do all these things, it'll lower the noise level, and make it much easier for administrators to spot (and deal with) the genuinely disruptive editors. --Elonka 01:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Good advice. Irvine22 (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)