User talk:37.228.200.43

Hi 'User 37.228.200.43', I remember trying to contact you before but see no evidence of the conversation. I received no reply from you.

I'm puzzled by the persistence with which you pursue Cathal. Maybe you know him, maybe you only know about him through the media from the very public controversy which occurred and died down in about 2007-8. You obviously feel very strongly, and Wikipedia does, I suppose, allow you to express those feelings and get something off your chest. But you must realise that what you're doing is pretty futile. Can you explain to me what it is drives you? I'm really sorry if there's some past trauma which you're trying to work out; there may be some other reason. But I'm sure it can't be good for your mental health to go on like this. I'm certainly finding it stressful. Please, if you can, reply with something more than just "edit-warring"! Dmhball~enwiki (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Peter Tatchell, you may be blocked from editing. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Your recent editing history at Peter Tatchell shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

An attempt at discussion
Hi again 'User 37.228.200.43'. I'm not used to how Wikipedia talk works, so I hope that posting on each other's talk pages is a sensible way to conduct a sort of conversation.

I'll attempt to answer some of the points you raise, and I recognise that you feel very strongly about the issue of Cathal Ó Searcaigh's sexuality. But for me, the two big issues are 1) the provable facts of the case and 2) the very nature of a Wikipedia biographical article.

Facts versus allegations: As you make clear, it's not disputed that Cathal had homosexual sexual affairs with Nepali young men. He has been very openly homosexual for a long time. But you have alleged that this amounted to paedophilia, and that is unsubstantiated, after investigation failed to come up with any evidence to suggest that any of the young men (not "boys") were under the legal age of consent, whether under Irish or Nepali law. Considering the extraordinary amount of public comment the case attracted, stirred up by a media frenzy, it would be very surprising if there were not a thorough investigation. In the event, no charges were laid, there was no court case, and the matter did indeed "die down". What died down was the huge of outpouring of confused emotion which pressed the homophobic, anti-Irish-language buttons of a certain section of the Irish public. While the confused controversy raged on, I was willing to suspend judgement until all the facts were known, and if the investigations had resulted in charges and a conviction, I would have been disappointed but would have accepted that and changed my views. More than 10 years on, it's not logical to go on feeling you must allege paedophilia when you have no facts on which to base that feeling.

The nature of Wikipedia: A biographical article obviously can't contain every twist and turn of a person's life. It's probable that a conviction for paedophilia would have to be mentioned. But all the gory details of an unsubstantiated, and frankly rather hysterical, campaign? That would tend to suggest that there is still some doubt over the question of guilt or innocence, when in fact the actual evidence was the opposite. Wikipedia guidelines say the following:


 * Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

So that's my rationale for playing down the episode. You may disagree, but Wikipedia is not the right platform for playing out your disagreement. As you point out, Cathal is my friend and I admire his art. That's my motivation for standing up to what I regard as unfair attacks. I'll again ask you, what is your motivation? Why is this such a big thing for you? If you don't want to answer that, at least think about it, please. Dmhball~enwiki (talk) 22:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Reply to 37.228.200.43
Dear 37.228.200.43, it's good to talk! Thank you very much for your long, detailed and very reasonable account of the reasons behind your CÓS article edits and your own personal motivations. I do understand where you're coming from, and I will reflect on your suggestions. I'll consider adjusting the wording and emphasis in line with the suggestions you make, but not straight away – I'm extremely busy with other matters at the moment, and I also want to take a bit of time discussing this with other friends who have extensive knowledge of the whole affair.

I will however make a brief response to one of the points of contention, charity. I think everyone agrees that the mixing of charitable giving with romantic and/or sexual affairs was ill-advised to say the least. But from Cathal's own account, and other who were aware of it, I'm convinced that there was no direct one-to-one correlation: in other words, money was not conditional on sex, to put it bluntly. Many of the young men Cathal helped were not homosexual and did not have that kind of relationship with him. And some of the 'affairs' were with young men who did not receive charity. Cathal says, and I completely believe him, that he would have tried to help young women to improve their education and life opportunities too, had that been possible within the restrictions imposed by Nepali society.

Please bear with me until I've found some time to address the wording, and I will contact you again when changes are made. Dmhball~enwiki (talk) 10:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)