Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:45, 20 August 2013

User page

Talk page

Admin

Logs

Awards

Books

Cailil is currently extremely busy in real life he may be unable to respond to messages for a few days. He will be checking in daily but will not be able to respond to everything immediately

Newbie on the road to perdition?

Several other editors have drawn my attention to this chappie: User talk:ÓCorcráin. I think he's in the same position I was in when I first started editing. He knows what he wants to write but, like me, he doesn't realise what he's getting himself into when editing articles about the Troubles. He's polite and seems erudite but he's getting frustrated because some of his edits are being reverted. I've looked at his most recent ones regarding the Provisional IRA and I think one of the regular contributors there will revert him. The danger, in my opinion, is that his frustration will cause him to be rash. I've left him a couple of nice messages and invited him to look at the UDR article to see what I've done there but perhaps a couple of pointers from you might save tears for everybody in the long run. We all know what happens when teddy gets thrown from the pram. SonofSetanta (talk) 08:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi SoS. I had a look at this. I think its too early for an intervention from sysops (unless I've missed something). Encourage that user to engage the article talk pages and discuss controversial edits. I think your explanation on his talk page about how controversial some of those changes are is good. If he fails to listen let me know--Cailil 17:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

OK Calil I'll do that. He seems to be knowledgeable enough, just not experienced yet. I certainly don't want him to fall prey to any tag teamers because that'll just put him off editing and to be honest we need good editors on Irish articles, especially troubles related ones. SonofSetanta (talk) 10:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

AN

It was a valiant effort to close that topic, but, unfortunately, once a topic devolves into the admin vs. non-admin bottomless pit, it's doomed. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

sigh I know. It seems to have gone quiet at last--Cailil 19:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

Cailil I feel I need to draw your attention to someone who is edit warring at Operation Banner. It is User:Asarlaí. I have not raised any complaint on any notice board because I don't want to start a bout of ill feeling between editors. I respect your judgement in these matters and won't be jumping on any bandwagons. I just want to see this type of thing stopped. The edit warring can be seen here here and I have left a message for Asarlai here. I won't go into the content - you can draw your own conclusions. SonofSetanta (talk) 10:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I need to see the individual diffs SoS, the link you give above goes to the page history (there's a lot to sift through there) can you be more specific? You need to point me to: a) the initial edit (the one Asarlaí is reverting), b) his 1st revert, and c) his second and/or subsequent reverts--Cailil 13:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok Cailil. The first diff is here at 17:01 yesterday showing where he puts the POV material back in which I've deleted on 1 August. Then I come in here and make a series of edits until here to correct errors, twisted source material and POV, but not reverting him - finishing at 17:37pm yesterday. Asarlai then starts to edit again here at 18:02pm and makes seven edits up until this one at 19:37. . His objective appears to be to slant the article in an anti-British fashion. I've made suggestions to him on his talk page and on the article talk page to try and persuade him to follow the manual of style but instead of taking the guidance he has launched into an epistle of justification on the article talk page. I've replied to that in friendly fashion, again reminding him of how the manual of style works and inviting him to edit with me. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok well unless I'm missing something this is Asarlai's only revert within 24 hours? If so he has not breached the 1RR. If that edit is a repeat of another one do show me when he did that revert before. As it stands I don't see a second revert and thus there is no grounds for action. It looks like a content dispute and I' suggest trying to tone everything down and sort out the differences between the 2 of you. I'm sure you can both work together to improve that article. If direct talk page discussion doesn't help let me know. DRN might be able to help you--Cailil 15:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

It looked like edit warring to me. I take something out and he puts it back in again. The line between edit warring and content dispute is very thin and perhaps because of my own actions I have prevented edit warring on this occasion (doesn't that make a pleasant change?). There's been nothing today because I can't edit again as it's within 24 hours. I'm a little wary because, whilst exercising good faith, it appears that this chap has an anti-British agenda. Something we've seen less of recently. We'll see does he respond to my invitations. I'm not touching the OP Banner article again until Monday when I will remove the excess text, which I've already put on the 10 UDR article. If he edits it back in then I'll be saying it's an edit war rather than a content dispute. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually SoS you'd BOTH be edit-warring then. In the situation of an edit-war it doesn't matter who started it, all that matters is that ppl are reverting. In short discuss don't revert. Find consensus first then edit the article.
As regards "I take something out and he puts it back in again", he needs to undo your edits twice (within 24 hours) to breach 1RR. In this situation follow the "Bold revert discuss cycle": you were bold, he reverted, & now it's time to discuss. Try to AGF here. If all that fails let me know--Cailil 15:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

OK Cailil. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Sad but - see below

I need to draw your attention to here. Unfortunately I know from the many incidents of the past that talking to this individual makes no difference. Rather than having my extremely enjoyable time on here marred by getting involved in a WP:BATTLE I've decided to nip it in the bud. No doubt there'll be some dirt dragged up on me but I'm just going to have to suffer it. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to give me a character reference? I'd be grateful. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

As you are aware you must notify an editor about an ANI report that you make against them, instead of trying to canvass support for yourself. Mo ainm~Talk 11:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

What's this then? SonofSetanta (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

It is where you notified me after I had responded on ANI and also here, any reason why you are linking to it? Mo ainm~Talk 11:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The place for semantic arguing is here or on my talk page. Not on Cailil's talk page. You've been a Misplaced Pages editor long enough to know that. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion

By all means close the discussion at the Arbitration Noticeboard. I've got your message loud and clear and hopefully so has Mo-aimn which was exactly my purpose in raising the complaint. I could have just done what I normally do and alerted you here and sought advice. The thing is though: I AM enjoying myself on Misplaced Pages now, whereas before I was having to fight all the time to be allowed to edit anything in because you and I know that there are republican and unionist cabals on here and they both fought for a long time to try and establish their own POV on articles to do with the troubles. It was shocking. I wanted nothing to do with it then and I want nothing to do with it now. I belong to NO cabals or tag teams. I work alone or in conjunction with other editors who want me to work with them, and there are a few. I was stupid enough to allow the WP:BATTLE to affect me when I was User:GDD1000 and USER:The Thunderer but I'm not going to allow that to happen under this identity. I want a long history of good editing and Good Articles to speak for me, not a long history of blocks.

You, like me, will have noticed certain familiar names recently, getting involved where they weren't involved; trying to do a hatchet job. I was expecting a probe to follow, just like this one, and I suspect there'll be more. I need your help to stop them getting me banned from Misplaced Pages and from trying to make a mockery of the articles I work on by introducing POV against the manual of style. I know I've chosen a difficult area to work in but it's where my passion lies and the results are good, the wiki is getting benefit from my work. I'll do my bit by staying out of trouble and not falling for the edit war trick but I have my bad days and that's when they might catch me. I know I'm being stalked by editors who just want to find the right opportunity to get me and I know I'm naive enough in some ways and on some days to get careless. Please help me, as you have done in the past. I know I won't get any special treatment from you and I can expect a metaphoric kick up the arse when I do slip up, but I respect your impartial judgement which is why I'm letting you know my fears, founded or unfounded. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Changed information on former identities.

See here and here. I've also put the information on my homepage here. As I've said above: the past is firmly behind me and I only want to do things in a convivial and collegiate manner. I always did but I got suckered into behaving the same way as those who were attacking me. No more succumbing to WP:BATTLE however. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Help me out here

Cailil you told me to "drop it" as far as the complaint went at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Mo_ainm. I've done so. It seems however that there's a bit of knife twisting going on. Mo-aimn doesn't seem to want to drop it and there is support for him from two editors who don't appear to know the history of all this or what degree of freedom Troubles Sanctions give to sysops. Mo has gone straight back to the Ulster Special Constabulary article, without discussion and changed the copy again whereas I would have thought a colling off period would have been more advisiable, which is what I'm doing. He hasn't bothered to link his retired account to his new name as you advised. In addition he is again raising the question of my old accounts. From my perspective it's just more of the same old, same old - Mo-aimn seems to be gaming. It may seem like bad faith on my part but previous history would suggest that his only reason for going back to the USC article time after time is to try and get some sort of reaction from me. Will you please intervene? SonofSetanta (talk) 12:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Blatant attempts to get SoS liable to be topic-banned full-stop. Same old tactics they used on Mooretwin which the admins willingly obliged. Mabuska 14:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You ask him to "drop it" and this is what his next step is, Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Mo ainm, along with a sob story on each of the editors who SoS felt were less than sympathetic to him by their comments on ANI. Really is amazing the power given to me by SoS and Mabuska that an edit made to one of SoS articles is an attempt to get a topic ban for him. Serious ownership issues. Mo ainm~Talk 08:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wolfe Tone Societies. Thank you. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

HighKing

See the ANI thread mentioned above and User_talk:Black_Kite#HighKing. I'd be interested in your take on this. I can't see an obvious topic ban breach (based, of course, on the actual topic ban wording), but the complainant is suggesting it should go further than this. Short of spending a long time digging out diffs of your interaction with HK, I thought pinging you here would be better. Black Kite (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

By way of explanation, check the history of actions here. The anon IP reverted twice with a blank edit summary, and twice more with a "breach of sanctions" edit summary (over a period of 8 days). The piece of text in question - "the quote" - was not referenced. I (or any other editor) had been given no reasons for objecting to the edit, which was in line with WP:IRE-IRL and WP:IMOS. The anon IP didn't respond to two notices on their Talk page over the space of a week. Nobody could have known what reason the anon IP had for reverting, and in fact the anon IP has not once mentioned the "direct quote" as a reason - this was something brought up at AN/I. The anon IP's AN/I notice was a complaint that I was breaching my Topic Ban, which clearly I'm not. Since then, a brand spanking new editor has tried to make this into some sort of a breach of the topic ban, and deserving of some punishment. The anon IP has since reverted WP:IMOS related edits by other editors. So to reiterate - the anon IP left no reasons for reverting, didn't respond after I posted a notice on their Talk page (or anywhere), and the text in question wasn't referenced. Taking into account the other warnings on their Talk page, at this stage it looked like a (normal) anon IP petty vandalism account.

But something fishy is going on here. The new editor, Zoombox21, is clearly not a new editor, and appears very very familiar with my editing history. If the anon IP was simply "fixing" a quote, why start edit warring on other articles with reasons at odds with the general community? Or make accusations of sockpuppetry between myself and Murry1975 (we've heard that one before?). Or dig back into my past (very very familiar with my editing history) and post notices about an alternative account that was used in the past (again - we've seen this before from a certain banned editor). --HighKing (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

HK I did in fact highlight that your policing of IMOS is not constructive. To reiterate myself from my comments at the time of your current topic-ban:

Furthermore an area that I stated as concerning 12 months ago was your policing of iMOS, indeed the volume of WP:IMOS edits you make is reiniscent of "gnoming" by GoodDay, but also of your policing of the phrase 'British Isles' above. This was precisely the issue in the GoodDay RFAR (fait a compli) too many edits to too many articles by a single user, seemingly (or actually) with their own agenda.

While I see that there are issues with deliberate attempts to evade WP:IMOS by some I can also see a serious over use of it by others. I am very concerned that your (and otehrs') behaviour of policing terminology is falling into that category of edit which resulted in GoodDay's ban. The IMOS issue itself is adjacent to 4 ArbCom rulings (RFAR/Article titles and capitalisation, RFAR/GoodDay, WP:Troubles, and RFAR/Ireland article names) and 1 community probation (WP:GS/BI). This is not an area where border line behaviours will be tolerated. Furthermore, there is no authority for the MOS to override any policy or normal consensus editing. I will remind you of the actual position of the MOS vis-a-vis policy:

Style guides are used as a means of creating a consistent end result. They do not affect content, but rather how that content is presented. The English Misplaced Pages's Manual of Style (MoS) is a guideline, or a set of "best practices" supported by consensus. The MoS is not a collection of hard rules."

There is no authority for anyone enforcing or imposing Style elements anywhere, in any situation. WP's MOS is not used in the same way as journals or other publications use a Manual of Style (these are in fact rigid an enforced). Furthermore I have stated this twice in 2 years. We've seen what happens when you don't heed such advice. The IP and Zoombox21 ‎ (both now blocked as obvious socks) are engaged in harassment BUT the edit they highlighted at ANI is way out of line. You changed info from a direct quote. You didn't check. Making drive-by terminology policing edits IS A PROBLEM not a positive. Although this isn't a direct breach of your ban it is a problem and if part of a pattern a reason for concern. I don't see a reason to act here but for your own sake I suggest you step back from this type of edit and focus on improving articles holistically rather than gnoming like this - you can see what happened to GoodDay--Cailil 15:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Amen. Whenever HighKing feels the urge to make an edit citing Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles as a justification, he should think again. He should leave it to other editors to fix any style issues involving Great Britain, Ireland or the British Isles. EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks Cailil for the even-handed analysis. For me, making drive-by terminology policing edits is a (my) problem, not a positive. --HighKing (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

BTW, just noticed 99.232.63.163 wasn't blocked but is another address used by the socks. --HighKing (talk) 15:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

An eye will be kept on it but with 1 edit there's no need to block at this point--Cailil 17:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Again

Cailil the fallout from this copyright lark won't go away. Despite the fact that I've cleared it all up. I wrote a new article, Wolfe Tone Societies and was remiss in not using quotation marks to show where I'd copied and pasted from CAIN and where I'd quoted from several books. User:Psychonaut took exception, blanked the page and accused me of deliberate plagiarism. Because the link for the discussion page didn't work I took it to ANI and asked for the page to be restored so I could fix the errors, as well as moaning about it. Did I open Pandora's Box or what! I've been beaten so hard for daring to take my case there. The culmination of it is that Psychonaut is calling for me to be banned, using the issues I had over copyright a month ago as the basis for it. If you have time, I know you're busy, could you comment on the proposed ban please here. For once I've done nothing wrong. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

You need to back off this type of edit SoS. I wont close that thread because I have not the time to look into it. But my last close DID say that if old habits were returned to the matter would pick up from the last ban discussion. I suggest disengaging from these discussions and issues for the moment--Cailil 14:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Glad to see you back. I can promise you faithfully I have not returned to any old habits. I've done nothing disruptive and all the image copyright issues are well gone. I worked hard to ensure that. It seems that some people won't let it rest however. It's all being dragged up again to try and have me banned indefinitely. I'll take your advice though and leave the discussion until you or one of the other two sysops I've contacted can have a look at the problem. Thank you for agreeing to do so. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

It's probably worth noting that, despite high hopes of help from other users, the assistance to resolve most of the copyright issues actually came direct from OTRS. The editors who complained about me just kept tagging images for deletion if I made the slightest error. OTRS helped me understand the more complicated licences, like British Crown Copyright, and the result was that I got to keep most of my images, although some had to be reuploaded in different versions with new licencing. Plus, all the images taken by me: despite those other editors calling me a liar over and over again, I was able to prove they were mine and kept them all. I learned a lot from the experience. I just wish it hadn't been as a result of a witch hunt. I think that goes to prove that some editors here are quite happy to give someone like me a bad name when in actual fact I'm always more than happy to learn something new which helps me enjoy the wiki even more. Have you seen my user page now? In the absence of grief from others I spent a little time learning how to tart it up, something I've wanted to do for a long time. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

You need to depersonalize this SOS. And as general advice don't reply to everything on the ANI thread and don't ask multiple admins the same question. All in all SOS I suggest disenaging from this type of edit. Being able to collaborate is an essential aspect of working here. If you want to keep doing thes eedits you NEED to sort out your relationship with the others, despite what you think they aren't 'out to get you'--Cailil 01:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't realise it was coming across as personal. I was certainly annoyed about the way the errors on Wolfe Tone Societies were handled by User:Psychonaut. I'd never come across anything like that before and it threw me - a touch of neophobia. I would have preferred that he contacted me directly about the problem and I would have fixed it. I believe you know my commitment and I also believe Psychonaut does too. I'm collaborating all over the place to an extent that I've never done before, it's very evident on the articles I'm working on, which is more than I've ever worked on before too. I don't think Psychonaut's style helped, but there is ample evidence that I co-operated with him, and others, in a collegiate manner on multiple occasions to sort out copyright concerns. Where I got paranoid was over the free use UDR badge. When he started questioning the validity of the UDR sign I had created some years ago I thought that was a prelude to having it deleted and for him to then get the UDR badge derivative removed too. I admit my paranoia. It was a consequence of having my own self taken pictures questioned and having to prove they were mine. I know I posted too much on the ANI board but I couldn't help myself. When I saw all the criticisms, some of them very inaccurate, I felt I couldn't let them lie unchallenged. I know I'm far too wordy. It doesn't show in articles (I hope) but it does in discussion, like this. Far too long but my mind is so busy I've got to get it out. SonofSetanta (talk) 07:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the situation has calmed down now and is probably resolved going by the comments on the ANI board. I also see the Wolfe Tone Societies article is restored. No doubt you've had a hand in all of this and once again I need to thank you for your kind intervention. I was right though when I said I'd done nothing wrong this time - wasn't I? Or was I? I note your comments above and see no real scolding in it, just friendly advice, which I appreciate very much and will take, but the lack of a block or a good telling off seems to suggest that, for once, I was not at fault? SonofSetanta (talk) 10:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Calill, I firmly believe SoS is learning, and I am willing to take it on board to help them out as much as possible as they do make many good contributions to Misplaced Pages, and SoS does appear to appreciate my help compared to the behaviour of some of the editors who do seem to be out to get him. SoS is not the troublesome editor you usually get in Ireland related articles, and through direct showing of how to paraphrase etc., such as I am at the Wolfe Tone Societies article, they will avoid future problems in that area as that is all it seems to be the problem. It makes quite a change! If needs be I will be SoS's mentor as I know and understand the subject field and issues affecting it better than most of those who could be appointed. I also have a greater deal of patience and willingness to work out differences with editors who are willing to do the same and SoS has been showing as of late they are able too compared to other editors you have had to deal with. I will stake my own reputation on it. Mabuska 23:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much Mabuska. I would be very pleased to have you as a mentor as well as an editing partner. I joined the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration as a direct result of my interface with you and as I have outlined elsewhere am really enjoying editing the wiki now in a way I've never done before. As an historian with a neutral POV and a third level education to go with it, I firmly believe I have much to offer. I can certainly cope with the more disruptive editors on Irish articles much better. That was always my downfall in the past. SonofSetanta (talk) 08:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

He won't let go

Cailil this editor Psychonaut is still lobbying for a ban against me at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_for_CIR_enforcement, despite so many editors opposing his views. Is it just me or does it appear vindictive? His allegations are at best a corruption of the truth. May I ask you to intervene please? SonofSetanta (talk) 09:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

It's sorted. Kim Dent-Brown stepped in. I've left him a message of thanks. SonofSetanta (talk) 10:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I second what Kim said here. Please listen to him. If you keep butting heads like this you WILL end up restricted/topic-banned or worse. In the strongest possible terms I urge you to avoid copyright sensitive areas completely for a while. And again de-personalize this, if you keep approaching the issue from the mindset that others are 'out to get you' you'll miss the point and the learning opportunity. Sometimes the copyright editors get it wrong BUT just as its up to the editor adding content to articles to source it properly it's up to the image uploader to provide the exact and fully correct licensing information. It both cases casual approaches lead to disaster--Cailil 11:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I've listened to him, and I've listened to you. There is no issue surrounding copyright. There hasn't been for several weeks. The outcomes prove that I was treated unfairly by some, and when I stood up for myself they tried to show me as disruptive instead of trying to educate me. OTRS taught me more in a few e-mails. It's over now because I wouldn't give up and kept asking for help from the right people, including you. Misplaced Pages politics don't interest me and I'm never going to be as good at them as others but when the boot was put in this morning I should have complained about WP:WIKIHOUNDING and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I didn't because I felt you and Mabuska would disapprove and had both told me to back off. Which proves I do listen.

The WP:BATTLE between myself, others and disruptive POV editors on Irish articles put me off Misplaced Pages for long periods and got me a bad name. To have had copyright issues shoved up my nose too was unwelcome. I'm still here though and I'm better for the experiences. I should at least get brownie points for perseverance. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Well you have made 3 reverts on it already twice on 2 seperate admin, read the criteria for speedy deletion before you add tags to articles that you don't like. Mo ainm~Talk 14:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)