User talk:Domer48: Difference between revisions

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

-- Trolls will be removed with Extreme prejudice!

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

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

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]

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)

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 Wikipedia:Biographies of living people or Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)