User talk:Traditional unionist/Archives/2008/July

3rr block
Hello. You have been blocked for 72 hours due to a breach of the three revert rule. Please be more careful in the future. Thank you. Regards, El_C 19:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How can anyone "manufacture a situation where you'd go over the 3RR limit"? You've made four reverts within the span of 24 hours, right? El_C 19:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Only one of which was a full revert, and even then it was accompanied with a reference. I have my suspicions that the user hasn't actually been reviewing the documentary as he claims (but I can't stand over that yet) and removed referenced information simply for me to replace it.  He then removed again a referenced piece of information, and I replaced it.  These are the third and fourth dits he submitted in evidence.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, for repeat violators, we do have to, somewhat, stick to rule's letter, or we risk disorder. El_C 20:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you quote that policy for me please? The policy I have read states that blocks are preventative and not putative.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, that is exactly why the block was issued, to protect the article and prevent any further disruption via a edit war. Tiptoety  talk 20:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean the block issued over an hour after the last edit was made?Traditional unionist (talk) 20:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * When it comes to 3rr reports, I consider an hour to still in the realm of the immediate. El_C 20:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * From WP:EDITWAR: " Edit warring is the underlying behavior, not a simple measure of the number of reverts on a single page in a specific period of time. " Tiptoety  talk 20:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The spirit of my 4 edits was NOT edit warring.  Each edit was different, each edit was referenced.  The underlying context and behaviour was an effort to improve the article at hand.  Again, I suspect (not don't know just yet) that the edit to the talk page and the removal of referenced information by the reporting editor was simply a device to have me brech 3RR.  I wasn't counting edits, after each edit I went away and researched the topic at hand and found a reference, even though the original was I strongly suspect sufficient.  I object here very strongly both to my block, but more so to the failure to investigate Dunc's behaviour which, I posit, is much more damaging than mine.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The reverts don't have to be all the same, you should know this by now. El_C 20:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And perhaps you could respond to the REST of my points? This episode centres around two editors who have a history of tag team editing, and centres around tags and removals of valid, verified, sourced, and proven information.  The disruptive editing in this case is amongst Dunc and Domer, again, both of whom have tag team edited in the past.  There is no sense of natural justice about this.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I can only aim at limited, averaged human justice; natural justice is beyond me. Claims of tag teaming and so on should be addressed before breaching 3rr, through whatever mechanisms the arbitration case has provided, or via an appeal or amendments. And I simply cannot be expected to review volumes-worth of dispute resolution records whenever I attend to 3rr reports. El_C 21:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * But you're plainly fine with administering a harsh block based on a technical breech without investigating either the behaviour or history of the reporting user. Is that natural or even human (whatever that is) justice?  Exactaly how disruptive was my editing?  Enough to warrant a 3 day block?  How does your action prevent future disruption assuming there was an unacceptable level of disruption?Traditional unionist (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's not harsh by my 3rr block standards. It is, as I mentioned, likely your last 3rr block that will measured in hours rather than days and weeks. El_C 21:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Last time I checked 72hrs was the same as three days, which makes this one measurable in days (though not weeks). Rockpock  e  t  22:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Last time you checked. El_C 01:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask for your blocking history, I asked for a justification for this block.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not what you expect from me at this point. El_C 21:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What's that meant to mean? Are you an unaccountable entity?Traditional unionist (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I already provided justification, that is. El_C 22:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I asked a set of very specific questions in relation to your decision, they were "Exactaly how disruptive was my editing? Enough to warrant a 3 day block?  How does your action prevent future disruption assuming there was an unacceptable level of disruption?".Traditional unionist (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, I wasn't in the position to tell exactly how disruptive the reverts were; rather, I weighed the block's length according to past blocks you have already served for 3rr and edit warring. El_C 22:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

That is a putative approach, which is contrary to policy. On reflection, taking into account the behaviour of the reporting efitor, as well as the fact that the 4 edits are all different, not all are reverts in the sense of undoing another editors edits, and the fact that the 1st edit is 23 hours before the 4th, how disruptive was the editing?Traditional unionist (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have nothing further to add at this time, as I feel have already addressed all of these issues. El_C 22:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you or do you not accept that you have breeched policy by implementing a putative block? You can;t block me and then run away when the hard questions appear!Traditional unionist (talk) 22:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how I breached policy; nor have I been unresponsive to your questions. You have submitted three unblock requests, all of which were declined by other admins. El_C 22:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You stated you blocked me based on previous blocks. Now leaving aside the fact that there was no disruptive editing actually going on, that is a putative block not a preventative one.  That is a breach of policy, unless you can explain how that wouldn't be the case.Traditional unionist (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Breaching the 3rr, in and of itself, is deemed disruptive. El_C 01:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ou're evading the meaning of my question. Your methodology was a breach of policy as you administered a putative block.  You have still not offered a justification of how your actions were within policy.  You have also failed to address the issue of the length of the block against the level of "disruption" caused, and the behaviour of the reporting user.  So, I'll ask again, do you accept that you have breeched policy?Traditional unionist (talk) 09:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm unlikely to respond to this line of questioning. El_C 09:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So you feel yourself above scrutiny? You are somehow unaccountable for your actions? That seems a little unreasonable.Traditional unionist (talk) 09:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm accountable in that you had three unblock reviews. But I am not obliged to endure this interrogation. El_C 09:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well we'll see. This has been handled abysmisally, and your attitude since the block has not helped any.Traditional unionist (talk) 09:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't see how my attitude has been anything but accommodating; I have been exceptionally responsive, and you've had ample outside review. El_C 09:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Eamonn McCann
Hey TU. Be careful and watch 3RR there. While the editor involved is clearly being abusive and IP-hopping to boot, just be careful with the number of reverts you do before reporting the matter. I'm going to semi-prot the page for a short while just to be sure as they've been going up to their 3R limit and then switching IPs. Nobody's fooled :) - A l is o n  ❤ 12:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I couldn't understand why the admin who dealt with it yesterday didn't do something more than say "now now, don't do that again". 3RR and blocking policy needs looking at. I'm gonna put something together on that soon.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Information.svg|30px|]] You appear to have made some reverts lately. Please be aware that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reverts on a single page within a 24 hour period. Rather than reverting edits, please consider using the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. The dispute resolution processes may also help. Excessive reverting may result in blocking of accounts. Stifle (talk) 13:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your warning was completely unnecessary. I was reverting vandalism, which I reported yesterday, but the admin who  checked it saw fit only to warn the offending editor after a final warning had been issued.  If 3RR applies to protecting WP from vandalism then we're in some trouble.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The three-revert rule applies to all reverts, except for a very limited number of exclusions. One of them is simple vandalism, which is one or more edits that any person who had just looked at the page would know immediately to be vandalism. (Examples: page-blanking, adding swearwords, etc.) This is not simple vandalism, and may not be vandalism at all. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Alas, it is simple vandalism. You should not fall into the trap of believing that because it's northern ireland it must be a shade of Gray.  Eamonn McCann was born in Northern Ireland, not Ireland.  That is backed up by WP:MOS and WP:IMOS.  The vandal was warned three times, then reported, then inexplicably warned AGAIN.  The next day he was up to his tricks again.  I was fully justified in reverting this vandalism.  It was NOT a content disputeTraditional unionist (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm Irish, and I know the difference. I can see it is vandalism, an average American could not. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Then you know that this instance was simple vandalism and warning me for 3RR was inappropriate.Traditional unionist (talk) 10:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I know that it was not simple vandalism, as simple vandalism is vandalism that any person who had just looked at the page would know immediately to be vandalism. I don't think that I'm going to be able to explain it any more clearly, I'm afraid. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

&larr; To be honest, Stifle, I can see TU's point here and my initial comment above reflects that. You're correct in that it's not simple vandalism, per your definition, but it is vandalism nonetheless. However ... WP:DTTR also applies and boilerplating TU in this instance was a tad unnecessary especially given that I'd already brought it to his attention - A l is o n  ❤ 10:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with Alison and I have one more point to make. The worst kind of vandalism is the one that is subtle because it does not get detected easily. If the Seigenthaler incident teaches us anything is that subtle vandalism is the one that damages Wikipedia the most. I was blocked without so much as the courtesy of a warning despite my long service, my record of civility, long standing vandalism fighting and up to this point a record without blocks of any kind. The block was imposed even though I proved on the talk page of the article Greek name that the edits of the IP scored 0 Google hits and despite the fact that the IP continued vandalizing the article as per WP:VAN: reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages Treating established editors this way is no way to run an encyclopedia and it is demoralising to all good faith editors who spend their time here to clean up the project only to get blocked as a reward. Reverting subtle vandalism should be rewarded not punished. Dr.K. (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have such an unblemished record which doesn't help me, but I agree with you!Traditional unionist (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you Traditional unionist. Your username inspired me to suggest something else as well. Maybe we can form an editor's union where at least we can establish a few rights for good faith editors so we don't just get slapped with sanctions without discretion. Why then have human admins at all? Just load the WP:3RR regulations into a robotic software program and then the program can count to four and slap everyone involved. Counting to four is not difficult and this should be a simple program to write. If humans are to be involved we must expect more from them. Things like respect for editors' intentions, history, vandalism fighting record and of course they should be able to deal with the subtleties, nuances and different varieties of vandalism without drawing arbitrary lines in the sand etc. If they can't handle that then by all means bring on the robots! At leat we would know what to expect from them. If I knew a robot would handle the WP:3RR rule enforcement by counting to four do you seriously think I would have gone past three reverts? Robots would be safer for users if such human behaviour continues. By the way now I am completely demoralised after this ill considered sanction against me and I don't want to even check for vandalism anymore. By the way I apologise for the intrusion and I thank you for your hospitality on your talk page. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies
Hi. As per GAA talk page, if you feel there is more to be gained from discussing or restating my apology in another forum, then I'm happy to do so. As stated, it wasn't my intent to suggest that your input was any less valuable than others. Just that we needed to focus on WP:CON. It was poorly put, but that was the intent. As you will have noted from the discussion (if the my note didn't distract from the actual content), I am on "the same side" as you in terms of ensuring context for why the GAA is perceived a nationalist org in certain NI communities. So I have to say that I don't think there is anything to be gained by sustaining any perceived conflict between us as editors. If you don't want to accept my apology, and instead want to put me on your mental "enemies list", then that's your prerogative. But I personally wouldn't understand it given that (as one of what appears to be a minority of Irish editors *not* bent on partisan editing) my attempts to temper nationalistic fervour has seen me labelled as a "unionist supporter" and "unpatriotic" by many. So, I personally wouldn't understand it. Guliolopez (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're trying to garner consensus, accusing me of being unconctructive when I've made four edits, mostly to add sources, isn't the best way to go about it. Some others see themselves as the guardians of nationalist consensus on wikiepdia, I have no illusions that your're one of them, but treating me as the unionist equalivent is not helpful.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar
Thanks, however you didn't complete process , you may wish to edit my page again and replace the with some text .Anyway thanks Gnevin (talk) 22:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I did but it didn't work. You seem to have undone that good work though. Traditional unionist (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources on councillors in Northern Ireland
Sadly, I've got nothing beyond ARK other than the results of Googling, which tend to be assorted council documents, press reports, polemics and occasional scholarly works. Fortunately, it seems that your discussion on my talk page proved rather more fruitful. Warofdreams talk 23:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Unionism in Ireland
I had a quick look over this by means of a copyedit and a few quick corrections and will have another go at it later when I've more time. Currently I'd say that it's way short of GA status, mainly due to the lack of references. There are also quite a few POV statements/labels such as

"traditionalist Democratic Unionist Party led by Ian Paisley, followed by the more moderate Ulster Unionist Party..."pluralist Conservative Party" who says the UUP are more moderate? Cite needed. Also the Conservatives are pluralist in what ways or according to who?

"A Unionist win is a virtual certainty in ten constituencies:" POV which could possibly be replaced with raw data showing Unionist vote share and/or lead over combined nationalist vote share. On that issue, the table showing overall Unionist vote share needs explanation as to which parties and groups are counted as Unionist.

"A power-sharing government between nationalists and unionists in 1974 was brought down by the Ulster Workers' Council Strike. Faulkner as a result lost the support of his party, where he was replaced as leader by Harry West," ??Hadn't Faulkner already been replaced as UUP leader by the time the UWC strike took place?

There are a few other style points: one which I didn't correct is capitalisation which is inconsistent throughout with unionist, Unionist, nationalist and Nationalist appearing interchangeably. There's more but those are just some initial thoughts. Valenciano (talk) 06:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)