User talk:Rockpocket/Archive 20

Easter Rising - warring
Tag-team edit warring by Aatomic1 and R fiend continues on this article:


 * 1) (cur) (last)  14:57, January 1, 2008 Aatomic1 (Talk | contribs) (40,178 bytes) (Synthesizing states that Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing.) (undo)
 * 2) (cur) (last) 13:48, January 1, 2008 Domer48 (Talk | contribs) (39,905 bytes) (→Planning the Rising - As per discussion, please read WP:SYN, and WP:OR. Please provide a definitive statement) (undo)
 * 3) (cur) (last) 21:46, December 31, 2007 R. fiend (Talk | contribs) (40,178 bytes) (clarify opening (plus grammar)) (undo)
 * 4) (cur) (last) 08:55, December 31, 2007 R. fiend (Talk | contribs) m (40,162 bytes) (→Planning the Rising) (undo)
 * 5) (cur) (last) 01:17, December 31, 2007 Aatomic1 (Talk | contribs) (40,158 bytes) (Reinsert referenced material) (undo)
 * 6) (cur) (last) 00:58, December 31, 2007 Sarah777 (Talk | contribs) (39,885 bytes) (Please read WP:SYN and WP:OR, please use the talk page) (undo)
 * 7) (cur) (last) 23:00, December 30, 2007 R. fiend (Talk | contribs) m (40,158 bytes) (Reverted edits by Domer48 (talk) to last version by R. fiend) (undo)
 * 8) (cur) (last) 22:43, December 30, 2007 Domer48 (Talk | contribs) (39,885 bytes) (Please read WP:SYN and WP:OR, please use the talk page) (undo)
 * 9) (cur) (last) 19:08, December 30, 2007 R. fiend (Talk | contribs) (40,158 bytes) (see talk) (undo)
 * 10) (cur) (last) 20:00, December 29, 2007 Domer48 (Talk | contribs) (39,885 bytes) (Says no such thing. Put it up on the talk page, and let editors see what it says) (undo)
 * 11) (cur) (last) 19:43, December 29, 2007 R. fiend (Talk | contribs) (40,158 bytes) (undo)

(Sarah777 (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC))

My recent edits
Hello Rockpocket. I appreciate your support & patience. I'm sorry to take up more of your time, but I'd like to answer the constructive criticisms you've made on my talk page.

"Even if the other editor is rude to you, replying in kind is not acceptable." My harsh words have been restricted to those who, in my opinion, have gratuitously vandalised my edits, for example by repeatedly removing both article content and the reference I'd provided for it at the same time as accusing me of never providing references. Where editors with doubts about my contributions have dealt with me courteously I've responded politely and constructively.

"Please not that WP should state facts, not explain, justify or reason... value judgements and reflect your opinion." I realised that this passage was likely to cause problems on these grounds & so replaced it with one that only reports fact & does not contain judgements of mine some time before you contacted me about this. I had previously made a similar voluntary revision to a potentially problematic passage I'd added to another page.

"Finally, when adding controversial or historical content, you must cite a reliable source." I *have* been doing so, other than for the Sands football song & where I've linked to other articles. *All* the info I've added has been verifiable by reference either to works that were already in the articles' bibliographies that I happen to have read or to books that I've added to said bibliographies. Unfortunately, I can't prevent other editors from repeatedly claiming in edit summaries, entirely falsely, that my info is unsourced, or prevent them from deleting the references I've added.

"A link to another article is not sufficient." I'll take this on board as of now. I had only relied upon links to other WP articles where I was 100% confident from my knowledge of sources outwith WP that the info in the other articles was accurate & verifiable.

I'm sure you've spent enough time on me as you care to, but I felt I had to respond as you seemed to have been taken in by the false, & I believe malicious, accusations that contributions weren't covered by works that had been referenced.80.229.9.98 (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks again, & sorry for asking for more of your time & energy. I don't plan to make a habit of this, but I'd like to ask how you suggest I proceed in the case of a particular difference of opinion...

I recently edited the William Wallace article. I now find that RiverHockey has removed the text...

"One very prominent error is the depiction of Wallace as a kilted Gael rather than the Anglophonic lowlander that he was (the 'nationalisation' of Gaelic culture and popular generalisation that Scotland as a whole is 'Celtic' date from the eithteenth century). "

...& given the edit summary "remove biased entry from troublesome user...".

I don't understand the accusation of bias because I really can't see what bias is being alleged. In the light of what I've put in edit summaries, I'm not about to complain about being called a "troublesome user" - its significance here is that I don't believe I'll get a reasonable response from RiverHockey if I just ask for an explanation. I did have a spat with RiverHockey on the Battle of Culloden talk page, but I've since attempted to improve the tone between us on that page & it certainly isn't something that need spill over into discussion of an unrelated article.

My instinct is to undo RiverHockey's edit with "See talk" in the summary & ask on the talk page what the problem is, but I'm not sure at what point reverting becomes an edit war. An alternative would be for me to leave the article as it currently is for the mo', but ask for an explanation of the allegation of bias on the talk page & say that if bias can't be established reasonably swiftly then I'll restore the text.

Thanks in anticipation for your advice.80.229.9.98 (talk) 08:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll reply here simply to keep the conversation together. There is not really a good justification for his reversion, so I have reverted back and asked RiverHockey to discuss his problems on the talk page. If you adopt a collegial tone with him and try to work with him to address his issues, then he should reply favourably. If he doesn't then he is the one being troublesome, since you appear to had added good sourced content. I find WP:BRD a really good way to edit. Be bold, but if someone reverts then don't re-revert, instead engage with them, ask then specifically what the problem is and how you can address it. Work them around, then make the agreed change with their support. That way you build relationships, which builds trust, which builds good articles.


 * I note that on the same article you and RepublicanJacobite worked together to add some material. Thats how it should work and will go some way to show other editors of your intentions. I may take time, but stay patient and turn the other cheek to comments like the "troublesome user" one. Rockpock  e  t  08:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi!
Thanks for watching the debate. I have just joined wikipedia (new years vow of all things) but followed the meta-stuff for years. But in practice it is a bit different. I am kinda worried about how RS, FRINGE, UNDUE and NPOV (amongst others) are being used to detract from content and rather push an overall POV of the article. It seems you are doing a great job on focusing on this aspect, so kudos. In this case Hrafn has been editing the biopsychiatry controversy article singlehandedly for a too long time and already chased away the "owner" of the article. Not a good start on my wiki career this. : \ --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 08:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

William Wallace
His edits are based on an online source that holds no merit. I can make 10 such pages and upload them online tonight. Since I can not upload any books for you, this site seems to hold more truth. -RiverHockey (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, my edits are actually based on the knowledge I've acquired as a proper, academic Scottish historian - the online source was already cited when I began my editing & just happens to mention the basic facts that I've added. Also, there seems to be some confusion on RiverHockey's part about the actual meaning of what I added. I described Wallace as an Anglophonic lowlander, i.e. someone from the lowlands whose first language was [Middle] English (what a modern commentator might call 'medieval Scots). I made no comment whatsoever on his ancestry. Incidentally, the account on the website to which RiverHockey has linked ignores the very good possibility that Wallace's family got their name from being descended from the native Brythonic population of southern Scotland - the so-called 'Strathclyde Welsh' - rather than because they'd migrated from Wales to Scotland. That's not especially surprising as that account is decidedly amateurish in tone & was probably written by someone with such poor knowledge of the ethnographic history of early medieval Scotland that they'd never even heard of the Strathclyde Welsh.80.229.9.98 (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That was one of many sources that I pulled up for convenience. I will work with you on Wallace, but your Battle of Culloden edits seem to only provide justification for the Hanoverian atrocities. I don't care if you've cited books related to Covenant Theology, they are obviously going to defend their faith and it's advocates reputations. I can publish a book that claims that the World is Flat, but that does not make it any more true. I believe this to be an example of "History being written by the winner." Of course atrocities were committed on both sides, but unconfirmed excuses shouldn't be incorporated such as you did within Battle of Culloden. Lastly, the Jacobites did not routinely rape, burn families from homes, or provide no quarter like their English enemies. Although I am Catholic, I am not Scottish, of Jacobite ancestry, and my partner happens to be a Presbyterian, so I have no deep seated hatred for Covenanters, etc. (as you've implied such sentimental attachments may have clouded my judgment on my talk page).-RiverHockey (talk) 03:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You've made much the same claims & allegations on the Culloden talk page & I've responded there. I suggest that we no longer clog up Rockpocket's talk page as it was only the Wallace issue that brought us here & that's now settled. As for what pro-Stuart thugs routinely did, I strongly suggest that you do a lot more reading on Scotland under the later Stuarts.80.229.9.98 (talk) 10:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Cesar Tort pulling out
It seems Cesar is quitting the project again (as he says on my talk page). It is sad, because he is certainly a more focused editor I am. (Especially since I am still learning how to cite properly). I think the core of the issue is that Hrafn thinks only scientific literature counts as valid in this debate, but I am unsure on how to characterize the debate. Perhaps the best option is after all to turn it into a generic "Controversies in psychiatry" since this could include more facets of the debate, especially since the critics are known to criticize many aspects of psychiatry, not just the bio-psychiatry aspect. This could also help keeping out controversies out of the otherwise good psychiatry article. Anyway, it seems like I have to do the reintroduction of sources that Hrafn removed. Though this will be problematic since I myself can't do verification. Especially I disagree with his opinion that the sources are "partisan" considering; obviously people criticizing the hegemony won't be mainstream, that's the point! Caser Tort has a critique on this on his talk page. Thanks for the help again. :) --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I was recently researching on journals, and came a across several articles. And since found many interesting articles done by informed skeptics. I looked up the organization but when I look up the diff between now and a random old one I feel it is heavily biased. I didn't know SCICOP was an RS, since I feel they usually just give out opinions. diff

When I read the old version, I looked up the journal and figured out that this was right. I even saw they were featured on a science program here in norway. They do generate new empirical evidence so I don't see why they are criticized. For example I found an highly interesting article on analysis on errors done in telepathic research that lead me to a stub on economics here on wikipedia.

Anyway, it does seem we are slowly improving the biopsychiatry controversy article. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminbruheim (talk • contribs) 01:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point
Nice one. I will try to have more faith in the ability of the community as a whole to deal with these problems. I've been getting back into editing Irish and troubles related articles and allowing myself to get annoyed by the unreasonableness of some people. See here for example. Must every Irish article become a battleground and achieve consensus only at the expense of sacrificing article quality? I appreciate your voice of reason, as always, in this fraught area. Best wishes to you, --John (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 'Scuse my butting in but this conversation indicates why many Irish editors are so wary of Admins! Someone who feels that deleting a ref to "British Isles" in an Irish article as "surreal" really doesn't get it - and certainly could not be safely regarded as psychologically capable of neutrality in relation to Irish articles. And as for "improving the quality of the article"!!! Whoever tried to insert that term was the person attacking article quality. Sarah777 (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * John may be an admin but neutral he is not. He has shown his hand on a number of occasions. Take anything he says with a pinch of salt and just remember the slant and often intentionally provokative stand point that he comes from.--Vintagekits (talk) 03:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough, I was having similar discussion with an Irish friend in a bar last night. I honestly don't think we will be able to stop these articles resembling a battleground. Despite the speculation of those with an axe to grind, I am neither British nor Irish (nor, for that matter, American). I find it amazing that, on different occasions, I have been accused of being all three simply because of an edit I made to an Ireland related article. This tells me that, among certain editors on certain subjects, no edit will ever be assessed without attributing motive to the editor (a case in point in this very thread). With that inherent assumption, I don't believe we will ever see this ongoing situation resolved. The best we can perhaps hope for is a level of civility among those fighting those battles.
 * Whether or not that can be approached and resolved by the community alone, I don't know. But I guess was have an ArbCom remedy that, as the moment, is not really being widely implemented. This is due, in part I believe, to the fact that prior admin action under that remedy was turned into a cause célèbre by certain anti-admin activists. However, I happen to have faith in the system. I think the wheels will continue to turn slowly, but eventually those people who are unable or unwilling to adhere to community norms will be weeded out. I expect even then it will still be a battleground, but at least it might be a slightly more policy compliant one! Rockpock  e  t  04:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Rockpocket; my comments were directed at John rather than you. I did not support the defrocking of R fiend (proposed) but I must point out it was for Admin abuse, not POV or edit warring. Some Admins seem to be gliding over that point. I would also reiterate (cos I'm not coy about naming names) that I could not regard John as neutral in Irish/British pov issues. I ask that yourself and John be equally open and name those you consider "unable or unwilling to adhere to community norms"; part of the "lynch mob" (John on the R fiend page) ; "anti-admin activists". When I read such wild talk from Admins (of whatever nationality) - I must wonder why anyone is surprised that some of us are a bit "Admin-wary". Sarah777 (talk) 04:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't consider the assertion that there are people involved in this may be "unable or unwilling to adhere to community norms" to be "wild talk". There was, you may remember, an RfAR naming a large number of editors for that very reason. Insults, revert-warring, threats, sock-puppetry and meat-puppetry are all in violation of community norms, and these were all documented. Those editors that continue with this behaviour are, I believe, the ones that will "eventually" be "weeded out". Exactly who, if anyone, this is remains to be determined. The comment was addressing John's concern about disruptive editors taking heart from the R fiend situation. The only thing one should take from that is that it is wrong to misuse tools, anyone who sees this as an endorsement of disruptive tactics will eventually get what's coming to them.
 * Regarding the "anti-admin activists", I was referring to Giano, in particular, and a number of his acolytes in general. Giano's self adopted role as advocate-to-the-wronged (in his opinion) appears to be reaching its inevitable conclusion. As righteous as his motives may be, his methods are disruptive. He too appears unable or unwilling to adhere to community norms.
 * I don't endorse any reference to a "lynch mob". I think the recent RfC and ArbCom has been a fair process. It shows that admins are not free to use their tools anyway they please, that admins do not "stick together", and that we serve the community and must listen to what the community says. Please don't misunderstand me: I don't believe poor behaviour from other editors in this (and I don't know if there was) in anyway mitigates the misuse of tools. R fiend lost the trust of the community and, rightly, needs to earn it again if he wishes to be an admin. However, if there was poor behaviour from others, maybe it should be addressed, and we have ways of doing that. Rockpock  e  t  07:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Rockpocket, firstly I must point out that it was not John who implied the referrals of R fiend was the activity of a lynch mob; it was two others (one of whom recently failed to be appointed an Admin). Secondly I don't share your view of Giano and was one of the over 300(?) well-established editors who recently voted for him. We differ on many things but I do realise there are very good Admins around and obviously I'd count you among them as I've said before (I think). And as I would John btw; just not his neutrality on the whole British/Irish thing. Finally, while it appears R has a history blocking in disputes he is involved in (a pet hate of mine from personal experience) and that was what caused him the problems the actual edit that led to his problems was utterly faultless - so if the system works it works in mysterious ways. (Sarah777 (talk) 13:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC))
 * I thought that language was a bit extreme for John, I see you have said your lines in penance ;) I think Domer is taking the right approach, here. If there is concern about his role in all of this, a seperate RfC is probably the best place to discuss it. Rockpock  e  t  20:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

new RD-inspired article
Please apply the template (I forget what it is) to WP:RD/M, and update your index! —Steve Summit (talk) 04:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks! The index on the WPRDAC page is a bit out of date, I'll sort that out later this week. Rockpock  e  t  04:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Attention please
Rockpocket, you have got to do something about this warring Admin - he is obviously angling for an excuse to block me. See latest edit:

* (cur) (last) 11:12, 20 January 2008 Sarah777 (Talk | contribs) (40,766 bytes) (philip, PLEASE STOP edit warring) (undo) * (cur) (last) 11:08, 20 January 2008 Philip Baird Shearer (Talk | contribs) (39,194 bytes) (→List of known massacres - removed Fallujah for further discussion on the talk page.) (undo)

Sarah777 (talk) 10:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm out of reverts.

List of massacres immediate edit requested
Hi - would appreciate it if you would look at Talk: List of massacres where I'm requesting an immediate edit to add the Babi Yar massacre that has more than the required number of citations and is not controversial: Sarah had marked it originally because it only was showing one citation, and she agrees that there are more than enough now. This has nothing to do with Fallujah, and belongs in the article. I could list dozens more citations - this one is not controversial. I'll be glad to make the edit if you want to give me an open window of five minutes to do it - I'm not going to touch anything else. Thank you. Tvoz | talk 19:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello Tvoz. Considering the acrimony and edit-warring that has been brewing on that page, I would rather wait a while to ensure there is no major objections forthcoming (though, I don't expect there will be. It looks appropriate to me). If no-one protests, I will make the edit later today or tomorrow. I'm kind of hoping that the problems on this page can be solved on a case by case basis. Rockpock  e  t  19:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. I think Greysteel is fine too.  Tvoz | talk 20:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] Thanks for adding those two - I agree with your sense that case-by-case may be the only way we can solve the problem of the page. About Greysteel - I went over the first four citations and re-wrote them into the "cite news" format so that the footnotes can display the article titles, etc - and I found a better url for one of them - same article, just a better url. So, could you replace what's there with this? Thanks Tvoz | talk 05:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you advise?
A while back I went through all the RFCs (History & geography) - just going back through them and saw this one Talk:Republic of Serbian Krajina. Aatomic1 (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Not worth bothering about. Aatomic1 (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Fear of fish
Please never ever delete valid content from wikipedia. `'Míkka>t 22:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have responded on your page. Rockpock  e  t  23:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "could have its own article" - exactly. Please assume good faith and believe me that it was not my fantasy. Unfortunately I am kinda busy now. Let us discuss the issue a bit later (this is not a matter life and death nor political obsession, so it can wait). I am dealing with all these phobia topics for quite some time and I have solid reasons to do what I did. `'Míkka>t 23:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you did, which was why I didn't challenge your speedy deletion without a rationale at the time, preferring to find sources and rewrite with verifiable content. I also had solid reasons for moving the article, as I explained. I would have appreciated you discussing those, rather than move-warring and leaving a curt and inappropriate message. I look forward to hearing why fear of fish is preferable to ichtyophobia (a term used in at least 6 reliable sources, including a psychology textbook). Rockpock  e  t  23:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

New Semester, New Appeal
This semester I am teaching academic writing to a group of teachers at my school. This course starts on Monday Jan 28. I would like to know if you are still interesting in "mentoring". You can see the syllabus at School_and_university_projects/ITESM_Campus_Toluca/SyllabusIf so, please leave a message on my talk page and update the mentor's page School_and_university_projects/ITESM_Campus_Toluca/Mentors, if. If not, please remove your name and information from that page. Thanks! Thelmadatter (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Gerry O'Callaghan‎
Usual nonsense from you. THose AfD were overturned because the delete votes and the nominator was a bigotted banned user!--Vintagekits (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you direct me to that discussion/decision, please?
 * No I couldnt!--Vintagekits (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I can find no evidence provided that an Afd was "overturned", as you say, and you are unwilling to direct me to the evidence then I am left with no choice to revert back to the AfD decision. I'll give you a few more minutes. Rockpock  e  t  00:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Seek and you shall find - nothing shall be handed to those to eager to follow my edits!--Vintagekits (talk) 00:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So, just to be absolutely clear - you have reverted my good faith edits which I fully explained in the edit summary - based on some evidence that you refuse to divulge to make some sort of WP:POINT. Again, I'll give you another chance to please provide evidence that this AfD was "overturned" before I re-revert. Please stop playing games. Rockpock  e  t  00:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Gerry O'Callaghan‎ on yer watch list as well? lol!!! Ask ONiH about those AfD's if your soooooooooo wooried about it. --Vintagekits (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * PLAYING GAMES!!! You are the one following me around like a fuckin stink! Your the one playing games! --Vintagekits (talk) 00:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Have a look at Talk:Patrick Joseph Kelly, all the AfDs involved substantial sockpuppetry, see Requests for checkuser/Case/O'Donoghue. Granted it's slightly out of process unmerging the other articles without asking, but we don't want to get bogged down in red tape and I don't believe it's unreasonable to give VK a short amount of time to improve the articles to where they are capable of being standalone articles. One Night In Hackney  303  01:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, ONiH. Seems like a good call from Quarl. I have no issue with Vk being bold and improving those articles based on Quarl's statement. However, The lack of informative edit summaries and purposely obtuse responses to perfectly valid requests simply result in more drama, and draw Vk ever closer to a return to ArbCom. Its like watching a moth to a flame. Rockpock e  t  01:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Arbcom would laugh in yer face like they did last time! I know it pisses you off big style to see me editing on wiki - infact I delight in yer displeasure - what you should real do is stop obsessing about me and actually create an article for a change instead of following me about like a lost wee five year old girl. Oiche mhaith a chara.--Vintagekits (talk) 01:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm somewhat disturbed that you seem to think the above exchange, not to mention you behaviour over the last few days is acceptable editing behaviour.
 * On the basis of your parole: "...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." I, and by the looks of it other admins, would say you have managed the trifecta this evening alone. Thats some going, even for you.
 * I'm not interested in "stalking" you, I'm interested in keeping the project in the best shape I can. When I see poor grammar, incorrect spelling, malformed templates or reverting of AFD decisions without justification, I'm going to fix it. I would, and do, do the same for any editor and I would expect any other editor to do the same to my edits. Ignoring problems just because you can't handle your edits being corrected by me is not acceptable. I'm sorry, but since no-one else is fixing those problems, then I will do it. You don't have to like anyone around here, but you do have to accept that other editors will edit your contributions mercilessly and respect their prerogative to do that without losing you temper and being incivil. If you can't trust yourself do that, then you are the one with the problem and you are the one that needs to fix it. Rockpock  e  t  02:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please. Back away from the edge, Vk. If you go any further down this path you can put your ArbCom prediction to the test and I'm not currently seeing support from anyone for your version of events. Rockpock  e  t  02:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Troubles
If I were a member of the WP constabulary -if there were a WP constabulary-, I would be marching steadily in the other direction. This all has the feel of a series of domestic-violence incidents. Bielle (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Welcome to my world, Bielle ;). The on-wiki stuff is only the half of it. I have my own Republican stalker, you know, whose mission it is to out me on the world wide web as an obsessive compulsive Unionist, and I occasionally get abusive email too, presumably from the same person. Still, the large salary and a comfy window seat in the Admin lounge make up for all the hassle. Rockpock  e  t  21:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am presuming that to be so outed is not a good thing. Certainly being stalked is not a good thing. Does it matter if being an o.c. Unionist is true or not? (I am of the "publish and be damned" school myself.) I wonder what would happen if everybody, absolutely everybody, currently caught up in the WP Troubles were to just walk away and not look back. And then there is what price sanity, comfy seats and fat salary or not? Bielle (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, when people make physical threats against me, I would prefer they make them against Rockpocket rather than the name I share with my wife and family. Moreover, certain editors central to this issue have taken to publishing the addresses of people that they are have a problem with. I would rather that not happen, especially since there has been cases where wiki-stalking has led to credible real life threats, resulting in jail time for the perpetrator. Intimidation can take many forms.
 * Some people will not walk away from this subject for the same reason some people will never accept the Northern Irish peace process. Its not about writing an encyclopedia for (most) of them, its about continuing the good fight. Rockpock  e  t  22:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, while not saying it's in any way comparable to real-life threats there is (as I have discovered, again) a Wiki-establishment that gets a bit power-crazed, full of their own importance and have no hesitation in abusing that power to protect that sense of self-importance like some puffed-up octogenarian Justice on the Bench. We all have our crosses to bear, eh? Sarah777 (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed we do, Sarah. I have offered a comment about your recent problems on your talk page, for what its worth. Rockpock  e  t  00:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Rockpocket, I am deeply sorry for what has been happening. It puts my own (comparatively modest) abusive email correspondent in perspective. No amount of comfy seats and high admin salary justifies this sort of thing. Sarah, stuff like this probably isn't helping the situation. Best wishes to all. --John (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, John, but it isn't so bad, many other admins have much worse stalking problems. I have been working with some stalking victims and people from the Foundation on this subject, some of the stories would make your hair stand on end. Genuinely disturbing. Mine is a bit of an amateur (and for the record, I very much doubt it is Vk - I don't want that accusation pinned on me too).
 * I understand what point you are trying to make, Sarah, but it isn't helpful. I find it interesting that Vk claims four editors have emailed him in support of his allegations, yet the same people don't feel compelled to say so publicly. Thats pretty cowardly, in my opinion. I 5 people believe I have been stalking Vk then I would ask them to put it in an RfC rather than namecalling.
 * Vk seems to have begin to sense that his current stance is not going to fly, yet the personal attacks continue from the safety of "his" pages . I wonder how many consecutive blocks it will take before the message gets through? Rockpock  e  t  06:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool it chaps. Two things; the only emails I have sent to anyone (Wikiwise) in the past 6 months are some to Fozzie the other day and, for the record as this is all getting a bit nasty I had nothing to do with the Anon IP post you just removed. (The few IP contributions I've ever made were always signed with my name). I don't have any issues with Rockpocket at all - but there is a remarkable similarity between the reasons Vk gets into bother and my own problems, apart from a shared perspective on some political issues. I know there are other issues and I have made it abundantly clear where I stand on the issue of threats back at the Arbcom; I admit I haven't been following the Vk story very closely recently - are there suggestions of "new" threats? But certainly the issue of "incivility" under provocation is a thing I (obviously) don't think some Admins (not including Rockpocket btw) are tackling very well and I saw the block for incivility as unjustified based on the words quoted. Sarah777 (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sarah, I wasn't suggesting you had sent an email. I was trying to point out that Vk seems to believe "normal editors" support him, yet there is a process for "normal editors" to have their say (WP:RfC, which I have been encouraging) yet no-one appears to use that, preferring to stir anonymously and by email while saying something different on-wiki. That is what I find cowardly. If I am guilty of what Vk alleges, then its a serious issue and it should be addressed. RfC is the place to do that. You, to your credit, don't seem to have a problem saying what you think.
 * Also, just to be clear, there are no new threats from Vk directly. This incident is about incivility and personal attacks, not a re-occurance of those threats. The off-wiki stalking, threats and posting of personal information has been happening in parallel, since the ArbCom. I don't know who is behind that, but the fact it is Trouble related tends to narrow down the candidates. I have my suspicions, but without evidence would not make any specific allegations. Rockpock  e  t  19:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Problems, problems, problems
Now I know for a fact that plenty of admins will have seen this message, considering the page it was left on. Not a word was said about it though. I don't think this sort of thing is particularly helpful.

Synthesis being added. Paul Butler said there was a "campaign against properties belonging to the Orange Order and other loyal institutions [by nationalists]", and that was combined with this source to add a fact that was in neither source, see the talk page discussion. In fact there's a particularly hurtful personal attack on me in that section too - "but try to edit constructively rather than try to remove info that is in your partisan interests to" - hurtful in the sense I fell off my chair laughing. Not a word was really said about either. That's not a criticism of Foz as I've already discussed it with him and I know he tends to take a more laid back approach, but it's still problematic. Note in that discussion TU said here that Paul Butler (a nationalist, obviously) is a reliable source. Which brings me nicely onto....

This discussion, with comments such as this describing the authors of sources as "three bigots" and this saying "Two of these three authors, are Irish nationalists". So let's just rewind to the above shall we? If Paul Butler (writing a letter to a newspaper!) is a reliable source, then surely published books by nationalists are equally reliable? Or is it a case of nationalists are only reliable sources if they say something TU agrees with?

I could go on and on, but you get the idea. Oh and with Foz on break, I'd recommend some more eyes on the Orange Institution, it's a hotbed. One Night In Hackney 303  19:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As below, I need to shoot out for a while, I'll respond when I get back. Rockpock  e  t  20:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * So I have had a look at the article and the incident you refer to and I agree you have a point. There probably was synthesis there, but I see no evidence it was malicious, simply an editor reading something through their POV. TU says as much himself, and that sort of thing happens on both sides and its up to others to point it out and help correct it. It becomes an admin matter if the editor does it repeatedly and persistently. It looks like Fozzie took a hand in that, so what exactly is the problem, that I personally didn't get involved? I have not made an edit to that page since 2006, before I cleaned my watch list. Thats why. I'll keep an eye on the Orange Institution if you would like, and feel free to let me know if you have problems with this editor and synthesis again and I will see what I can do.


 * You point out a few examples of unhelpful comments, and true enough, much of them are not particularly constructive and most are inflammatory. I had noticed the one on Vk's page, and considered it a pretty mild bit of sarcasm that goes on all the time between these editors. The others are new to me. But I note you are not above these sorts of comments yourself. Adding "...instead of pretending the OO don't torch their own halls for the insurance money or to gain sympathy" will inflame an situation rather than solve it, and I'm sure you were well aware of that. If you point is that he was making assumptions not supported by the source, then why on earth would you make an assumption to back it up (and one that you knew would be inflammatory at that!)


 * All these sorts of comments are a real hindrance to solving content disputes. As soon as one is made, the red mist descends and solving the dispute becomes unlikely, because it is no longer about that facts, it becomes personal. You totally shot yourself in the foot with that comment, because you were completely correct, yet managed to make yourself look as biased for the sake of a dig. Rockpock  e  t  02:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Meh, I'll hold my hands up to the off the cuff remark but I consider it a far lesser problem than what I was attempting to address. However there's also some history it would have been more helpful if I'd provided it:
 * I originally removed the Republican/Nationalist claim (unsourced at the time) and asked for clarity, rather than the meaningless terms in the article.
 * TU then equates one incident of one OSF member (not a SF member) to add "on occasions by members of Sinn Fein"
 * I re-add the (possibly accidentally) removed tag and re-write per the source.
 * So as you can see it's something he's been wanting to add something along those lines for while...


 * Back on the subject of biased sources, how about this? Note there's one article by one person, nice weasel wording of "some" wouldn't you agree? The article is written by one Newton Emerson, who is described here as a Unionist and (worse still!) a "net satirist" (but who's "well-respected" according to his article here.....). Now I don't really want to get involved on an edit war on that article, but is a term sourced only by a "net satirist" and blogs and the like really suitable for inclusion?


 * Now onto Bobby Sands, where a proper old argument ensued a while ago.
 * That started it, please be sure to check the sources provided.
 * I reworded it per the sources
 * And in return I get this message on the talk page (I won't post any more talk page diffs, it's lengthy....), saying "The sources DO say that, your edit can clearly be seen as POV - the rioters cause the deaths of those two people, their deaths were as a direct result of rioters"
 * As far as I'm concerned, my edit reflected exactly what the sources said without any embellishment or assumptions, and in return I get accsed of making a POV edit when it reflected exactly what the source said. That's the mentality I'm up against here, where people are intent on adding what they think an article should say and embellishing sources to suit their POV. And it is pretty high volume, I'm not just using a couple of isolated incidents.


 * And tangentially related, this is a telling diff. Nice and simple yet still hasn't been done, makes you question the motives of some editors really doesn't it?


 * And just to address some of your points. No, of course the problem isn't that you didn't get involved. It's just a good example of how priorities seem to differ. I consider that if edits such as that are allowed to go unchecked the encyclopedia is damaged. The subtle or blatant introduction of bias from editors who are known to be biased causes problems, and if you don't believe me look how all this came about in the first place. If you check back through to early 2007 (possibly late 2006) you'll see that VK attempted to remove what he considered POV from certain articles (unattributed use of terrorist, atrocity, murder etc etc). This was fiercely opposed by some British (and assorted other) editors, and the dispute raged and raged from there. While his methods might be at times as wrong as you can get (and I invite you to read the second sentence of my statement here), ultimately what he was trying to say was proved to be right. Nobody wants a Troubles ArbCom round 2, but if round 1 hasn't drawn a line in the sand then it's inevitable. One Night In Hackney  303  03:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that he has made substantial contributions is probably the only reason he's still allowed to be here with conduct that would normally result in an indef block. Tyrenius (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's another choice remark for someone to hold their hands up to... "Funny, most fascists I came across weren't rehabilitated using that method, I found a crowbar worked best!" I spotted it, but confess I lamentably failed to warn the user. Tyrenius (talk) 03:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd have just laughed at you and asked you enforce the Troubles remedies to stop content being compromised. Harsh, but true. One Night In Hackney  303  04:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * So you consider that's quite acceptable to say. Most editors think what they say and do is quite acceptable. It's only when others say and do them that it becomes unacceptable. Tyrenius (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't believe I said that did I? I just think your time would be better served looking after content that nitpicking. Speaking of content, you really should be more careful yourself. For example you made this edit to change "successful", yet neglected to change "One of the most widely publicised failures" which was in the lead. Strangely enough TU wasn't complaining about that phrase, he only objected to "successful", how odd!!! Never mind though, I fixed it. One Night In Hackney  303  04:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not nitpicking. I'm giving some wider context to your criticisms about other editors which you found inappropriate and a "particularly hurtful personal attack" about "partisan interests". Rockpocket has already pointed to one inflammatory comment you made. I pointed to another. It's no good criticising others, if you do the same thing yourself (and then blame admins for not dealing with the others, but shrug it off when your action is pointed to). This is a widespread editor syndrome of double standards. I am not by any means singling you out as the worst culprit, but, as evidenced, you are not exempt. You have singled out an edit by me which you seem to agree with, so I improved the article.  The fact it needed further improvement is not something to lay at my door. Tyrenius (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The "particularly hurtful personal attack", which I said was "hurtful in the sense I fell off my chair laughing". I've been attacked with iron bars, knives, coshes, baseball bats, batons, CS gas etc etc, I'm really not bothered about anything someone says about me online. One Night In Hackney  303  05:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've just found out the significance of your edit summary "No platform" on your talk page, as in No Platform, to delete attempts at dialogue from a user. That is not helpful, to say the least. Tyrenius (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wrong. I refuse to have what is the latest in a long line of disruptive SPAs (check the BNP article history and talk page and archives) on my talk page, when there is ongoing discussion on the BNP talk page. How biased am I? One Night In Hackney  303  22:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I note on Talk:British National Party you advocate putting "Fascism" in the infobox on the basis that there are four sources describing them in this way. As there are numerous sources describing the Provisional Irish Republican Army as "terrorist", do you likewise advocate putting "terrorist" in that infobox? As there are at least four sources describing the death of Norman Stronge as "murder", do you accept this as the valid definitive statement? If not, then you seem to be adopting inconsistent standards and are guilty of the POV editing you state you are keen to address in other users. Tyrenius (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Erm, no. Again, check the history. The SPA has repeatdly attempted to add "alleged by critics/opponents" (or similar) to the infobox, which is in itself a breach of WP:NPOV and arguably WP:BLP. There's nothing except conjecture to say these people are critics or opponents of the BNP. When thwarted on this, he responds by occasionally attempting just to remove it in its entirety when there is a clear consensus that it should remain. "Terrorist" is not an ideology, so I fail to catch your drift.


 * A quick question for you in return.....the world and his wife describe the BNP as far right. In fact if I was to list every scholar, politican, publication and media outlet that describe the BNP as far right using the method "x says" the list would quite possibly be longer than the current article. Bit of a Flat Earth situation don't you think? One Night In Hackney  303  22:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology, Terrorism, in the modern sense, is violence, the threat of violence. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human person with malice aforethought. Provisional Irish Republican Army is described as a terrorist organisation by the government the United Kingdom. The European Union has taken the IRA off their lists of terrorist organisations. I don't think ONIH is guilty of the POV editing, according to wikipedia, but you really seem to be trying to make a WP:POINT --Domer48 (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * PS, Nice to see you back Tyrenius. --Domer48 (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it will be for a short a time as I can make it though (nothing personal). But you have misunderstood WP:POINT, which is about disruptive editing. It advocates " points are best expressed directly in discussion, without irony or subterfuge. Direct statements are the best way". I am quite serious in what I've said above. Tyrenius (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Guys, I'm not seeing this going anywhere helpful. We have all said things on occasion that, on balance, were probably not the most constructive. (Yes, even I have, and I am damn near perfect, don't you know).
 * Pointing out examples doesn't prove much, except to note that no-one is above it. The issue here is persistence. If, after being warned time and time again you continue with a problematic behaviour then its time to take action. As Tyr points out, there is now WP:TER to enable one to document examples. Please use it and we can begin to sort this out. Rockpock  e  t  19:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody can ever say you don't have an interesting talkpage Rockpocket. Entertainment at its Wiki-best - all the best troublemakers come here :-) Sarah777 (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Anon IP
This anon IP is changing the images on the Politics of Northern Ireland templates without any discussion or attempting to achieve consensus for these changes, he is the fourth or fifth IP in this range to try and do this over the past few week all from the same IP range the others have all been blocked for this, can you look into it.--Padraig (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have warned him to stop. I have to shoot out for a half hour. If he continues, feel free to revert without risk of 3RR (it has now reached the point of vandalism. If someone warns you about 3RR, direct them here.) and I will deal with him when I get back. Rockpock  e  t  20:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, he seems to have stopped, though I'm sure will be back. A long block will do no good, since he appears to have a non-static IP. If he returns, drop me a note and I can either issue a short block to stop the immediate problem or else consider semi-protection. Rockpock  e  t  21:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Blocks are pointless unless they go over 3RR which the others IPs did, but the IPs are all from the same range so it obvious it the one editor involved as they all edit the same articles, this is the same IP range I had problems with before that where blindly reverting all my edits, a checkuser came up with a possible on one of those for regular editor on here that was involved and named in the arbcom. Semi-protection would be a solution as it would stop edit wars starting.--Padraig (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Semi-protected Template:Politics of Northern Ireland 1972-98. Tyrenius (talk) 02:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's try and kill the massacres (again)
Rockpocket, I want to try another AfD or rename proposal here. How do I do it? Sarah777 (talk) 11:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Animal testing
A request for mediation has been filed here. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 03:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

List of massacres/ Greysteel
You may have missed this above - I would like to replace the rendering of the citations with written out ones in cite format so they can be displayed on the page and read. I posted it here because it is just cleanup to the material you already added - I 'd like to avoid getting hit by the crossfire, but if you'd prefer I post it on that talk page I will.

[copied from above]Thanks for adding those two - I agree with your sense that case-by-case may be the only way we can solve the problem of the page. About Greysteel - I went over the first four citations and re-wrote them into the "cite news" format so that the footnotes can display the article titles, etc - and I found a better url for one of them - same article, just a better url. So, could you replace what's there with this? Thanks Tvoz | talk 05:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, and I'm sorry I missed your earlier request. I await, with trepidation, at what is going to happen when the protection expires tomorrow... Rockpock  e  t  22:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks - and I said something on the list talk page about planning to do it before seeing you had already done it!   As for no protection, I have no illusions (or delusions) about how long the fighting will be held off, but hope springs eternal.  Thanks for your help. Tvoz | talk 22:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.


 * Hi Rockpocket, you've been editing this article for a lot longer than I have, do you have any idea when these article RfCs were conducted? I asked about them on the mediation talk page, but didn't get much help. I'd like to read them before we begin mediation, so I know what has been agreed before. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey Tim. I don't recall ever having participated in an RfC on this page before, and have kept a close eye on it so I doubt I missed any. I guess they may have occurred prior to my participation at the beginning of 2006. Rockpock  e  t  20:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)