User:O Fenian/Abuse

Warnings

 * 08:46, 13 February 2009 - unsourced warning
 * 14:17, 13 February 2009 - NPOV warning
 * 22:15, 27 March 2009 - NPOV warning
 * 22:18, 27 March 2009 - NPOV warning
 * 22:24, 27 March 2009 - NPOV warning
 * 18:03, 1 April 2009 - unsourced warning
 * 14:47, 2 April 2009 - unsourced warning
 * 17:06, 3 April 2009 - unsourced warning
 * 09:23, 11 April 2009 - NPOV warning
 * 12:42, 25 April 2009 - unsourced warning
 * 12:56, 25 April 2009 - unsourced warning
 * 17:08, 27 April 2009 - unsourced warning
 * 18:53, 27 April 2009 - original research warning
 * 22:36, 30 April 2009 - unsourced warning
 * 22:39, 30 April 2009 - original research warning
 * 15:15, 4 May 2009 - original research warning
 * 16:57, 7 May 2009 - unsourced warning
 * 07:52, 13 May 2009 - original research warning
 * 23:48, 29 May 2009 - original research warning
 * 09:48, 11 June 2009 - unsourced warning
 * 10:21, 11 June 2009 - unsourced and copyright warning
 * 20:37, 14 July 2009 - original research warning
 * 16:26, 20 July 2009 - unsourced warning
 * 16:38, 20 July 2009 - unsourced warning
 * 16:44, 20 July 2009 - copyright warning
 * 22:48, 2 August 2009 - unsourced warning
 * 20:01, 6 August 2009 - unsourced warning
 * 15:11, 7 August 2009 - unsourced warning
 * 12:17, 13 August 2009 - unsourced warning
 * 18:58, 20 August 2009 - unsourced warning

Addition of copyrighted material

 * 20:23, 20 July 2009 - Addition of unsourced content, which is a copyright violation from here
 * 15:07, 21 July 2009 - Same copyright violation added back

Example - Irish general election, 1918
Despite the many warnings above about adding unsourced content, this pattern of edits occurs. That's exactly how this editor continues to operate despite warnings. Add unsourced content, get reverted for making an unsourced addition, revert claiming I should only remove the parts that are wrong, and so on. This is despite their trolling tactic of "the rest of the article doesn't have many sources" being dismissed time and again, that is not an excuse to add more unsourced content. Verifiability and No original research are policies, and this editor seems to think they are exempt from these policies.
 * 23:12, 29 July 2009 - Adds unsourced content, including the comparison of voting patterns which is original research without a doubt
 * 11:12, 31 July 2009 - Revert by IP editor claiming I am vandalising, and told to "remove only the bits you find fault with"
 * 11:18, 31 July 2009 - Talk page comment with his usual gaming tactic of "the article is largely unsourced, therefore there's no problem with me adding more"
 * 22:36, 2 August 2009 - Revert by IP editor again saying I should "change only what is obviously wrong"
 * 18:49, 20 August 2009 - Revert by IP editor again saying "Pinpoint the unsourced items before reverting clarifications" despite citing zero sources

Example - Seamus Twomey
Same tactic as above, "the rest of the article is unsourced" yawn. The first edit was made despite the editor receiving two unsourced warnings and a copyright warning only hours before. Perhaps the reason they refuse to cite sources is that most of their additions are copyright violations and it makes it more difficult for other editors to identify them?
 * 20:23, 20 July 2009 - Addition of unsourced content, which is a copyright violation from here
 * 15:07, 21 July 2009 - Same copyright violation added back
 * 15:06, 21 July 2009 - Talk page comment with the usual tactic of "Much of this article is unsourced but generally accepted fact that has not been challenged. So don't be a one-sided pedant, Domer, finding any which way to keep facts out. Let details remain unless someone says they are wrong"

Example - John McKeague

 * 14:31, 20 July 2009 - Adds unsourced information, including information that is about a possibly living person
 * 16:26, 20 July 2009 - Warning issued for the above edit
 * 16:23, 20 July 2009 - Reverted with the usual tactic of "Much else is unsourced but not in doubt"
 * 14:54, 21 July 2009 - Reverted claiming policy is "just pedantry"

Example - Roger Casement

 * 09:53, 19 August 2009 - Makes an unsourced change, changing a date to July 1913 from 1912
 * 16:56, 19 August 2009 - Changed reverted by me, and a sourced added to support the original date of 1912
 * 12:49, 20 August 2009 - IP editor reverts back to his unsourced date, and removes the source I added
 * 12:51, 20 August 2009 - Change reverted by Domer48
 * 15:46, 20 August 2009 - IP editor reverts back with a source, which says August 1913 not the July 1913 he added originally

Disruptive edits

 * 19:20, 6 August 2009 - unsourced claims adding to an article about a living person

Blocks

 * - blocked for 24 hours at 21:18, 20 July 2009 for adding copyright violations
 * - blocked for 24 hours at 15:44, 21 July 2009 for evading the previous block
 * - blocked for 24 hours at 15:41, 22 July 2009 for evading the previous block
 * - blocked for 12 hours at 17:12, 22 July 2009 for evading the previous block, then a further 31 hours at 12:50, 23 July 2009 for again evading the previous block (for some reason the 12 hour block wasn't made to run until the previous block had expired..)

IP Hopping
Current list: here. -- Domer48 'fenian'  18:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)