This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Domer48 (talk | contribs) at 09:15, 11 November 2009 (→Probation: con). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 09:15, 11 November 2009 by Domer48 (talk | contribs) (→Probation: con)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | If you object to anything you read on this page, then the correct solution is to click here. Domer48 (talk) 16:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC) |
- Pádraig, Rest In Peace a chara - sorely missed - not to be forgotten.
-- Trolls will be removed with Extreme prejudice!
Veteran Editor II
and is entitled to display this
Bronze Editor Star.
|
 Archives |
|---|
Useful links
Irish Manual of Style~
Policy ~
Assume good faith ~
Citing sources ~
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 ~
tools ~
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
Template messages
Warning templates ~ Template messages/Sources of articles ~ Template messages/Cleanup ~ Template messages/Disputes
Diff
Page ban at Peter Hart
I did tell you that you would be banned from editing Peter Hart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) if you restored the coat-rack criticism and questionable sources. You did so here. You are now banned from editing the Peter Hart article for the next three months. I have of course reverted your edit. Please do not add similar questionably sourced criticism of Hart to any other article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think so! No Troubles remedy gives you the authority to ban Domer from that page, I suggest you read them. There is an ArbCom case that would give you the authority to ban someone from a page, but as you haven't followed the correct procedure required by the remedy from that case that can't apply either. That said, and without having had time to investigate the merits of the edits in question, I would advise Domer in the strongest possible terms not to add the disputed material in question or any other possibly controversial material without clear consensus on the talk page. This should forestall the need for any petty and vindictive blocks, and unless Domer says he is going to restore the material any block that is attempted is not a preventative one and therefore against policy. I would caution anyone even thinking about using tools right now to investigate recent ArbCom cases involving page bans issued without authority and use of tools to enforce them. 2 lines of K303 12:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
No worries, I knew the Ban was BS! It will be ignored and your advice taken on board. --Domer48'fenian' 12:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- You won't be surprised to learn that you're blocked for a week. Next time it'll be a month. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Domer, I've unblocked you, because I believe that your edit was not in violation of the ban (which I do believe to be valid, per WP:BLPBAN).--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sarak unless Angus can provide a diff where he "counselled" him on "specific steps" prior to warning him, he can't be banned. Angus can you provide the diff. BigDunc 16:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Domer, I've unblocked you, because I believe that your edit was not in violation of the ban (which I do believe to be valid, per WP:BLPBAN).--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Angus McLellan post a link to the remedy that gives you the authority to issue a page ban. --Domer48'fenian' 16:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Either of Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living people or Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. Especially the second one. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
ONiH mentions the case that allows me to be page banned, and says the procedure wasn't followed. Looking at it, I would have to agree. Where is the diff where I was counselled as to specific steps I could take before being warned, I don't see one? WP:BLPBAN was never even mentioned until after I was blocked, this looks like a desperate attempt to justify a poor block after the event to me.--Domer48'fenian' 16:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Last I checked, the troubles case allows a single admin to place someone on probation - not a topic ban.--Tznkai (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Check out also the sequence of events and the criteria laid out at WP:BLPBAN? --Domer48'fenian' 18:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- BLP special enforcement is not meant for this sort of thing, but Domer, a good rule of thumb is the criticism section is meant as a summary of criticisms, no single block of criticisms should take up more than a quarter screen, and the criticism section should never be more than a quarter of the article's length as a whole.--Tznkai (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Also, for a top level article, general criticisms are preferred to specific criticisms. The more specific ,the more likley the article supposedly about the topic A, becomes focused on something A wrote.--Tznkai (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, see here. Reasonable questions I thought? Likewise in the following section here natural questions to ask. The responces well, make your own mind up. General criticisms are preferred to specific criticisms, but removing all the criticisms and critics? --Domer48'fenian' 19:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'll weigh in in a few hours.--Tznkai (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
No worries. --Domer48'fenian' 20:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Probation
Because of ongoing edit-warring at Troubles (Britain/Ireland)-related articles, per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Remedies, your account is now under official probation for the next 90 days: "Participants placed on probation are limited to one revert per article per week with respect to the set of articles included in the probation. Any participant may be briefly banned for personal attacks or incivility. Reversion of edits by anonymous IPs do not count as a revert." --Elonka 01:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- PLEASE cop onto yourself! I've done nothing to warrent any Probation, and coming from you is a joke. Now I'll be accepting nothing of the sort and will likewise ignore the same. Good luck. --Domer48'fenian' 08:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- You do that, and I'll block you myself. Elonka is an un-involved administrator with regards to this, so the way you deal with this is make a request at AN/AE, NOT to declare that you're going to do it anyway. Understood? SirFozzie (talk) 09:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah look who shows up. Still smarting over you very very bad blocks on me being overturned! If she wants me on Probation she can go AN/AE. With the number of bad blocks at the minute, this is going to look bad! Now bye bye. --Domer48'fenian' 09:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Anymore of my friends show up here with the same nonsense will be seen as baiting. I have not violated any of the restrictions on Troubles articles and in light of the bad blocks and bans this latest nonsense can only been viewed as petty. --Domer48'fenian' 09:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)