User talk:Domer48: Difference between revisions

File:San patricios flag.jpg

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

This editor is a Grand Tutnum and is entitled to display this Book of Knowledge with Coffee Cup Stain.

This editor is a Veteran Editor II and is entitled to display this Bronze Editor Star.

Veteran Editor II

This editor is a
Veteran Editor II
and is entitled to display this
Bronze Editor Star.

This editor is a Grand Tutnum and is entitled to display this Book of Knowledge with Coffee Cup Stain.

Today is 8 September 2024

Archives
Archive 1 - February 2007 to December 2007 Archive 2 - Jan 2008 to December 2008 Archive 3 - Jan 2009 to December 2009 Archive 4 - Jan 2010 to December 2010 Archive 5

Useful links

Irish Manual of Style~ Policy ~ Assume good faith ~ Citing sources ~ Civility ~ Consensus ~ Dispute resolution ~ Etiquette ~ No original research ~ What Wikipedia is not ~ No personal attacks ~ Neutral point of view ~ POINT ~ Reliable sources ~ Verifiability ~ WP:Attribution ~ WP:Synthesis ~ tools ~ WP:Avoid peacock terms ~ Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms

Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Useful Noticeboard

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

Template messages

Warning templates ~ Template messages/Sources of articles ~ Template messages/Cleanup ~ Template messages/Disputes

Diff

[1][2][3]

-- Trolls will be removed with Extreme prejudice!

Irish Freedom (Fenian Newspaper)

I noticed that you moved Saoirse (Fenian) to a new title. I'm just wondering if it would not be better at Irish Freedom - Saoirse or Irish Freedom Saoirse based on this. If the current title is the best then should it not be at Irish Freedom (Fenian newspaper) (without the capital N) or Irish Freedom, both of which are redirects to the historical publication? By the way I re-wrote it a bit as it looked a little like a copy and paste. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 11:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Two different papers. Irish Freedom was never called Irish Freedom Saoirse. Republican Sinn Féin's newspaper is called Saoirse Irish Freedom. I've no problem with Irish Freedom (Fenian newspaper) (without the capital N) or Irish Freedom. I'll build it up when I get a chance. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Manchester Martyrs

I think we've had some disagreements over this article in the past, so I'd like to run it by you again now. I want to add just a little bit more info on the reprieves of O'Meaghar Condon and Maguire, possibly explain the false names that some of the accused gave, and admitted to in their speeches to the court, and add a few citations to support some of the statements in the final section. When that's done I'd like to take it to GAN.

Is there anything in the article now, or in what I'm proposing to add, that grates with you? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Got any socks?

As I certainly have, and there's another equally disruptive one from the same sockmaster as well. What a pity the disruptive sockpuppeteer in question didn't take any notice of what was said last time he was caught socking, I seem to remember a community ban was mentioned. Still that'd be no great loss, he's been nothing but a whinging POV warrior for years now! Sock report to follow... 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this the one our old admin friends backed up? BigDunc 14:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Old and new! This is getting beyond a joke!--Domer48_'fenian' 14:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking forward to the report on the sock. I'm considering putting one together on dishonest claims and accusations and a double standard that is applied to editors. Any time you ask to be given a Diff to support claims you get ignored! --Domer48_'fenian' 14:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe it's one you are referring to no, although I could tell you a story or two about an editor you're currently having problems with. Got slightly sidetracked with a more pressing problem, it'll all be sorted in a day or two though. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Look forward to it! I'm just going through the motions with this editor at the minute, its going to RfC as a first stop. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we're talking about different editors, will fill you in on the details later. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries a chara, I have a good idea who your on about! Look forward to the report and then the excuses. I was just spouting above about a problematic editor. I've a pain in the arse with it at this stage it needs to be addressed. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for violating ArbCom probation by reverting more than once per week at Sinn Féin. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Elonka 16:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The block is for again violating 1RR/week probation as listed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. Specifically, at Sinn Féin, you reverted Jtdirl (talk · contribs) on January 19,[4][5] and then reverted Snappy (talk · contribs) on January 22.[6][7] Per the terms of your probation, since you have been blocked, this extends the expiration date of your probation, to April 22, 2010. Please let me know if you have any questions, --Elonka 16:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Your pettiness really knows no bounds! Now I'll deal with it at the Admin recall against you. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

That you have failed to support your probation on me and provide the diff's you were asked too you have a really serious conflict of interest. I will address your abuse! --Domer48_'fenian' 20:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If you disagree with the block, you are welcome to request a second opinion via the {{unblock}} template. As for recall, my conditions are at User:Elonka/Recall. --Elonka 20:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

History

Since you keep insisting there are no diffs, here's a summarized timeline from mid-October, of administrators who were dealing with you (including myself):

• October 12, warned about edit-warring by SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs)[8]
• October 20, warned about edit-warring by SarekOfVulcan[9]
• October 25, warned about civility by Elonka (talk · contribs)[10]
• November 4, warned by Elonka about edit warring on Arbitration case page.[11]
• November 6, warned by Elonka about civility[12]
• November 8, warned by Elonka about edit warring.[13]
  • endorsed by John (talk · contribs)[14]
• November 9, banned by Angusmclellan (talk · contribs) from editing Peter Hart (historian)[15]
• November 10, blocked by Angusmclellan[16]
  • Unblocked by SarekOfVulcan[17]
  • Ban questioned by Tznkai (talk · contribs)[18]
• November 11, placed on probation by Elonka[19]
  • endorsed by SirFozzie (talk · contribs)[20]
• November 26, cautioned to "tone it down" by Spartaz (talk · contribs)[21]
  • endorsed by Chillum (talk · contribs)[22]
• December 16, blocked by Elonka for violating 1RR probation.[23]
• January 19, cautioned by Elonka about civility.[24]
• January 22, blocked by Elonka for violating 1RR probation.[25]

Is that sufficient, or would you like more? --Elonka 21:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Still no Diff's to support your placing me on Probation for edit warring? The above diff's are really just a poor transparent attempt at justification/well poisoning. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

As shown above, you were cautioned about edit-warring on October 12, October 20, November 4, November 8 (by two different admins), and on November 9 you were banned from editing Peter Hart (historian) for disruptive behavior. The diffs are all above, and some of the diffs even link to more diffs. Why do you keep saying there are no diffs? --Elonka 22:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Still no Diff's to support your placing me on Probation for edit warring? The Ban from editing Peter Hart (historian) for disruptive behaviour was lifted as being without foundation! Again more frantic attempts at well poisoning. The fact that you are aware of this illustrates how unfit you are for the position of an Admin. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The ban placed by Angusmclellan was not lifted. Checking Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles, the ban is still active. There were definitely questions about it, but it's been supported by multiple administrators. So as long as the ban is still logged at the arbitration page, it should be considered to still be in force. --Elonka 23:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sad really? You know full well the ban was not valid in the first place and just because the Admin had not got the good grace to strike it does not mean its still in force. That you would even attempt to suggest that the ban was "supported by multiple administrators" is an insult to the inteligence of both editors and admins who read the discussion on the admin's talk page. It was straight after it was dropped that you placed me on probation really really bad form. Still no Diff's of me edit warring which would support your placing me on Probation for edit warring? --Domer48_'fenian' 23:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Domer, why don't you just leave it? Who gives a shit who said what or when they said it. I agree with you on most of what you say but I don't see where this is getting you. Tell me to piss off if you want, but I think you should drop this. Jack forbes (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Jack we have an issue with Admins who have a problem telling the truth. I'm supposed to be on probation for edit warring but she will not provide the diff's of me edit warring and I'm now blocked for violating a probation which I dispute. She makes claims and accusations which have no basis in reality. Check this one out here or this one here and maybe you'll grasp what the problem is Jack.--Domer48_'fenian' 09:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Right, I get it. Elonka is providing some diffs of you being warned for edit warring but not the edit warring itself. Jack forbes (talk) 11:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You got it! Exactly the same as here --Domer48_'fenian' 11:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Questions

Good grief, how on earth are you still an admin? Actually I know part of the answer to that already, since you've deliberately chosen recall terms that are extremely unlikely to ever be met. What's the problem, I guess you know that given the chance the community would give you the boot you richly deserve? Still, there's more than one way to skin a cat but we'll sort that out later. I have many questions, but I doubt I will get answers to most of them since previous experience tells me you'll just run away without answering them. So on that note, we'll deal with the still outstanding questions then move onto the ones relating to this latest joke.

1. Going back to the "discussion" (and I use that term loosely since you refused to reply to my points once you realised you didn't have a leg to stand on) here. Why is your claim that you can issue any sanction you see fit to any editor at any time not only contradicted by a proposal you were involved in having failed, but is also directly contradicted by your earlier own admission? So did you; A) Lie about having the power to issue any sanction you saw fit to any editor at any time? Or B) Deliberately waste ArbCom's time with a frivolous amendment that would have given you certain powers in one specific topic area when you later allege you've got God-like powers across the entire project? There is no option C), so pick one and be damned please.
2. Why, given you warned the editor in question about the 1RR restriction here, did you not take action over this breach (also note the blatantly false use of minor edit flag, and no edit summary either) of 1RR, where there were two reverts in 3 minutes? And don't give me any flannel about the first edit not being a revert, since the revert definition is "in whole or part" don't forget. You're not possibly going to claim that there's no similarity between the first version and the previous day's version (especially compared to the previous lead) so I don't recommend trying it. Perhaps you took no action because he's an admin? Or rather than me speculating, why don't you tell us why you did not block him?
3. Why given Domer believes you are involved in a dispute with him about whether his probation was correctly applied in the first place, a dispute which I certainly agree exists, are you taking admin actions against him? Why not make a report at WP:AE and let someone else handle it to avoid any possible accusations of impropriety?
4. Following on from the previous question, did you actually investigate the issue before deciding whether a block was needed, as that would certainly have happened at AE? If you had, you might have seen this. Scolaire points out that "there is not even the beginnings of a consensus" as to what one particular bar in the chart should display, and suggests removal while discussion is ongoing. Snappy says there's no consensus to remove it. All well and good so far, but then what happens? Despite there being absolutely no consensus as to what that bar should display, Snappy updates it anyway. You have to love tactics like that, if someone wants to remove it while discussion is ongoing then there's no consensus but if Snappy wants to change it he can change it to whatever he wants despite the lack of consensus for that either. So Domer reverts until there actually is a consensus, and lo and behold you turn up and block him straight away. Could he have been blocked for breaching his probation? Quite possibly, but the correct question is whether he should have been and a proper investigation of the situation would have shown you exactly which editor was being disruptive yesterday and it wasn't Domer. The editor actually being disruptive gets nothing said to them, and Domer gets a week off A week for that is a Stalinist punishment, there's no two ways about it.
5. Since when do you or the wider community have the authority to amend the terms of probation from an ArbCom case, seemingly without a valid and actioned request for amendment from ArbCom? Assuming you do have that authority, why has Irvine22's probation not been similarly extended due to his blocks while on probation?
6. Why are you alleging that any page ban exists for Peter Hart? No such ban exists, as I detailed in full here (which you'll note that no admin dared to reply to, there seems to be a pattern round here doesn't there?). Since silence = consensus, the mere fact that not one admin replied to that post saying "yes, there is a ban" means the consensus is that there is no ban. If you're going to ban someone using an ArbCom remedy, you'd better make sure you've followed the procedure that the remedy specifies. So where are the diffs that support the procedure specified in the remedy? Unless any admin claiming the ban is valid can actually provide those diffs, the ban does not exist. The fact that it's logged onto a page where non-admins can't remove the fraudulently applied ban is irrelevant, unless just one admin can provide the diffs there is no ban. The diffs should have been provided at the same time as the ban was logged, so it isn't even logged properly So either provide the diffs required by the remedy now and add them to the log, or admit there is no ban and remove it from the log?

Shall I hold my breath waiting for a reply? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to the answers to these pertinent questions from Elonka. BigDunc 14:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I appears there will be no answers forthcoming! We don't need to assume good faith with this so called Admin with the multiplying examples of dishonesty. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

More unsupported claims!

Elonka calims here at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles that the "final remedies" are supported by community consensus, and directs editors to this discussion in October 2008 and "remedies remain in force indefinitely." This is totally untrue! As a result of this discussion here in April 2009 it was determined that the sanction at issue were not part of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles and that the sanctions were "a community sanction, not an arbitral remedy", and the Admin assumed therefore "that the case page [would] be amended to reflect this." The case page was not amended to reflect this but the determination was reluctantly was accepted at the time. It would amount to basically a discretionary sanction as some Admin's would enforce it and others would not.

Elonka then having put me on probation in response to Angus having his improper ban on me over turned then tried to encourage him on his talk page to start a thread at WP:AN about discretionary sanction, and since he though better of it, she had to do it herself. This request for "Discretionary sanctions for Troubles articles" at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents was rejected, and although she claimed to accepted this as not having any consensus, she still went just a couple of hours later and chanced her arm at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment but alas, she had no luck there either. Despite this, Elonka has insisted on applying discretionary sanctions on editors and refuses to provide any supporting evidence for them. This needs to be addressed! --Domer48_'fenian' 22:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Care to supply some diffs of me applying discretionary sanctions in this topic area? --Elonka 23:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been supplying diff's left, right and centre of your carry on. Now were are the diff's of me edit warring, that lead to you placing me on probation!--Domer48_'fenian' 00:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sorry for any miscommunication. The term "discretionary sanctions" is very specific, as regards certain areas of arbitration enforcement. However, they are not authorized in the Troubles topic area at this time, and to my knowledge, I have never implemented any discretionary sanctions in this area. The diffs that you referred to there, are simply enforcement of arbitration remedies, meaning to place an editor on probation, and to enforce revert restrictions. To see the exact wording of the available remedies, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Remedies. Specifically: "To address the extensive edit-warring that has taken place on articles relating to The Troubles, as well as the Ulster banner and British baronets, any user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation by any uninvolved administrator. This may include any user who was a party to this case, or any other user after a warning has been given. The administrator shall notify the user on his or her talkpage and make an entry on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Log of blocks, bans, and probations.". Hope that helps clarify? Best, --Elonka 01:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Now were are the diff's of me edit warring, that lead to you placing me on probation!--Domer48_'fenian' 10:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Remove this unsupportable block

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).

Domer48 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The Probation which was placed on me was based on an accusation of edit warring. Having been repeatedly asked for diff's of me edit warring by a number of editors [26][27][28][29], and for the Admin to support there accusations no supporting diff's have been provided [30][31]. The Admin was advised to go to either WP:ANI or WP:AE but declined to do so. I have not edit warred, I've no intention of edit warring, and none of my actions warrant a block.

Decline reason:

You were validly made subject to an arbitration enforcement probation prohibiting you from exceeding 1R/week at [32]. If I understand you correctly, you do not dispute that you violated that probation, but you contend that the reason for that probation was invalid. That is not, however, subject to review here. If you disagree with the reasons for the probation, you should have appealed it to the Arbitration Committee instead of violating it. Be advised that you may be made subject to an indefinite topic ban if you continue to violate arbitration enforcement sanctions.  Sandstein  13:29, 24 January 2010 (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.

Sandstein we've come to expect nothing less for the likes of you! --Domer48_'fenian' 14:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Just for a laugh, and show you up, please provide the diff's to support your claim that I was "validly made subject to an arbitration enforcement probation"? --Domer48_'fenian' 14:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

So nothing forthcoming then on the diff's? Maybe if someone done a little investigating they might find the diff's, and if not? --Domer48_'fenian' 23:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe if an Admin asked her nicely for the diff's to support her accusations it might help? --Domer48_'fenian' 23:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

And in case I was mistaken as to which diffs you wanted, here's evidence of you edit-warring on or about 11 November, when the probation was imposed. The Sinn Féin article is the most obvious: 10 November, 9 November, 8 November, ... you can look at your edits elsewhere and you'll find other cases of edit-warring, but none are quite so repetitive. If I'm still wrong about what you're after, leave a message here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 04:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The probation was imposed here at 01:13, 11 November 2009 less than an hour after your silly and unsupportable page ban on me was concede on your talk page. So it could not have been those diff's because it notes previous discussion between you both and beside even three reverts in three days does not exceed 1RR unless 1RR now means 0RR. In addition, you also had these edits here [33][34][35][36] in addition to these [37][38] spot the problem? Anyhow what about these edits and be sure to count Dunc Valenciano Me Mooretwin Dunc Valenciano Me Scolaire Mooretwin Mooretwin Me GoodDay 213.94.188.113 check out the note on their talk page on 1RR Valenciano Mooretwin.

So lets see

• 1)No violation of 1RR
• 2)Two editors who did not take part on the talk page reverted but not cautioned!
• 3)Only one editor informed of 1RR so she knows what 1rr is and cautioned no one else despite their edits.
• 4)Editors continued to revert after the 12th
• 5)I've always used the talk page
• 6)I edited inline with consensus

Nah still need Diff's of edit warring! Now before any more of the Scottish brass band of Admins show up, or anyone else for that matter, provide Diff's of Edit warring that support the Probation. No Diff's, you get removed! PS Angus you illustrated 2 reverts over three day and one edit so no edit warring on or about the 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 November! And she did say the Sinn Féin Article. Now if editors want to use diff's after the 11th please do so. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that's three (actually four: 18:26, 6 November 2009) reverts because the edit is 17:43, 4 November 2009. Forget 1RR and 0RR, edit warring has nothing to do with those: 1 revert a month, if repeated for a while, can be edit-warring. My favourite, because it descends to levels hitherto unseen in anything Troubles related, is this. And it's not like you can pick and choose who'll try and answer your questions. Right now your choice is between me and nobody, because nobody else seems to be interested. If nobody is who you want, just let me know and I'll fuck off and leave you in peace. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)