Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Astrotrain

Moved from project page
''This was inserted as a threaded post under outside view by Kittybrewster. Threaded posts are not allowed in RfC, only statements and endorsements. Tyrenius 22:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)''
 * I try to bring balance to articles on Irish republicanism as many of these articles can be very unbalanced, additionally I have reported ONLY ever reported editors for breach of policy not their views.--Vintagekits 14:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

End of copied post

Comments from One Night In Hackney
With regard to multiple points by User:Kittybrewster:

The claim of me stalking is incorrect. Anyone is welcome to check through my contributions and see that I have added WP:IR to the talk pages of many, many Irish Republicanism articles, and I watchlisted them at the same time.

The Irish Republican Army are not a terrorist organisation, which is what IRA referred to. Had my signature been PIRA that would have been an entirely different situation altogether, but multiple editors failed to assume good faith. I offered to remove my signature within minutes of the matter being raised on ANI, and was told there was no immediate requirement to remove it. Despite this I removed the signature as a gesture of good faith while discussion was ongoing. I do not consider the 1916 signature to be contentious, and other editors agreed. I do not consider the use of 1916 in a signature to be a violation of WP:POINT (and certainly not WP:CIVIL or WP:NPOV), and it is curious that supporters of Astrotrain single out my signature while ignoring the multiple WP:POINT, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPOV violations Astrotrain has committed.

As for 303 referring to rifling, you are a long way off the mark. My username is a song, and 303 refers to the Roland TB-303 which is used in the production of the song.

Myself and Vintagekits are not acting in consort with each other, as this discussion adequately demonstrates.

With regards to me having different views to Astrotrain on notability, quite possibly yes. I tend to use Wikipedia guidelines on notability to determine what is notable and what is not, whereas based on the evidence provided Astotrain clearly does not. One Night In Hackney 303 23:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Quick reply to Setanta747:

The "anti-Irish POV" is actually a mistake on my part, it should have Republicanism added to it. I don't personally feel the aim of the project is to promote Irish Republicanism, but to improve the articles relating to it and add relevant articles. This is certainly what I have been trying to do, as can be seen by my contributions. One Night In Hackney 303 23:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That may well be the case ONIH. However, you can see how one might just as easily jump to the conclusion that someone who is interested in concentrating specifically on articles about the IRA, might have either bias or an agenda. You will note that my statement specifically included the words: "it might be just as easily suggested that those editors are engaged in pushing an "anti-Irish" POV". I could claim also for example, that your faux pas in suggesting that anyone who may be anti-Republican is automatically anti-Irish suggests a definate POV on your part. -- Mal 08:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I can see that, but it makes me feel slightly damned if I do and damned if I don't. People complain (and sometimes rightly so) about the quality of various articles, but most of the time I've had nothing to do with them and I'd say well over 90% of them pre-date the Wikiproject as well. How do you eat an elephant? One slice at a time. I've been working on and off one a Brian Nelson article for the last couple of days, which I started planning for over a week ago. When I was looking for some information on the boxing gymn Billy Reid attended I came across Gerry Storey and figured he was worth creating an article for. Perhaps if I didn't waste time reverting vandalism on Unionist related articles I could get more done?  One Night In Hackney 303 09:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It is essential that editors AGF. Good editors add to articles to improve them, regardless of their own personal opinions. Tyrenius 04:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Response to Astrotrain
What does my signature tell you about my POV? My POV is not relevant, just whether I am capable of editing Wikipedia without introducing bias. I have shown quite clearly that I can, the same cannot be said of you.


 * If someone adds IRA to their signature it tells me (and many others from reading the comments) a lot about their POV. Astrotrain 10:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * From WP:NPOV - NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases - again my POV is not relevant, just whether I am capable of editing Wikipedia without introducing bias. I have shown quite clearly that I can, the same cannot be said of you.  One Night In Hackney 303 19:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not say derogatory remarks should be introduced into the Margaret Thatcher article, the diff you provided clearly states "although not in the form of a direct quote". I hardly consider it a violation of WP:BLP to state that Gaddafi criticised Thatcher and why, without including the full quote. WP:BLP does not give you the right to remove sourced negative information.


 * Other editors agreed it was a violation of WP:BLP Astrotrain 10:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not one editor has stated introducing the criticism without a direct quote is a violation of WP:BLP, I suggest you provide diffs to substantiate any further comments you make. One Night In Hackney 303 19:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering why you don't provide many diffs with your response, and after carefully looking over it I have found out why. The majority of what you say is simply not true, and if you had provided diffs this would be instantly obvious to everyone else.

I did not state you could not look at the Wikiproject preparation page, I asked if there was any legitimate reason for you to do so. The fact you failed to provide a single reason speaks volumes. Also Tyrenius did not "broadly agree" as your entire point was that the presence of the word "deletionist" was incivil and offensive, and he stated "I don't find it offensive"


 * The project page was completely re-edited and bears no resemblence to the uncivil version. All it needs now is a reference to WP:BLP.


 * Sorry, what point are you trying to make? You claimed Tyrenius broadly agreed with you, he didn't. One Night In Hackney 303 19:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The uncivil words have been removed, if these were acceptable, they would have been kept. Astrotrain 20:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You did state Secret History of the IRA was not a reliable source, you stated "The source was not neutral", please explain how a book written by a unbiased author and journalist is "not neutral"? You also stated it could not be verified, I'm afraid it could. Despite your constant claims to the contrary, there is no policy or guideline that permits the use of offline sources, no WP:BLP clause says the sources have to be online.


 * I was not referring to the book in both those cases. Astrotrain 10:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Pardon? The Thatcher quote was on Ivor Bell was sourced by the Ed Moloney book. It is perfectly clear which source is being referred to on this diff, and it's the Ivor Bell one.  So please explain exactly what you were referring to then?


 * I was referring to the the source of the quote (ie Colonel Gadaffi). Astrotrain 20:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't think you understand sources. All that is necessary is that a neutral reliable source states that Colonel Gadaffi made the statement, there is no further verification needed. One Night In Hackney 303 17:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Sean Murray (Irish republican), an editor did not agree with you at all. You removed the statement about him being a member of the GHQ staff with an edit summary which included "please add back if you find another reliable one" (my emphasis), which clearly implies the source was reliable to start with. Also, the source in question also sourced this statement "Murray is a former member of the IRA and was jailed for 12 years for explosives offences in 1982", which you failed to remove at all. I posted a lengthy explanation about why the reference was reliable and A Man In Black asked for a better source for the 1982 conviction. I then removed the 1982 conviction pending a better source, which means the editor agreed with my actions not yours.


 * Do not agree with that interpretation. Again, you are claiming criminal activity without a valid source. Astrotrain 10:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, in your own words the source was reliable as I have adequately demonstrated. One Night In Hackney 303 19:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Ivor Bell, I did remove the tags as they were incorrectly placed on the article and no talk page message had been posted regarding them over 3 days after they were added. You then subsequently added them back and administrator Mel Etitis subsequently removed them stating "rm incorrectly placed (and unexplained) tags", so it is absolutely clear my actions were correct.


 * You should have addressed the failings in this article highlighted by the maintenance tags, and not simply deleted them.


 * No, I shouldn't. My actions were shown to be correct by an administrator, yours were not.  One Night In Hackney 303 19:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Bernadette Sands McKevitt, you claim "the only claim to notability is that she is sister of a terrorist fails to meet WP:BIO", however the version of the article when you added the speedy delete tag is quite clear what her actual claim to notability is - "She is a former leading member of the 32 County Sovereignty Movement" = notable.


 * The article was deleted by an admin Astrotrain 10:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Who then undeleted it, but that's not the point. The point is you have clearly lied once more.  One Night In Hackney 303 19:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Gerald Montgomery, I fail to see what you hope to achieve by bringing him to the table but I shall indulge you. The ANI report you linked to makes it expressly clear that there were sources for the allegations. This only proves your over-reliance on online sources, I shall once again state there is absolutely no policy or guideline that requires you to be able to verify any information with one click of a mouse button. Perhaps you would like to look at Dead external links, which states that roughly 10% of external links are broken in some manner. Links go dead, websites go offline, but barring some freak fire destroying every single copy in existence books and newspapers continue to be reliable sources. Did I even create the Gerald Montgomery (or related) articles? No, I never even edited one of them. I wouldn't consider three (?) people whose only real publicity was being named as possible suspects in a murder inquiry to meet WP:BIO.


 * The article was deleted and all history wiped. (Per WP:BLP) as the evidence was unsafe). Astrotrain 10:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That has little to do with the point I made, which is that books and newspapers are reliable sources. One Night In Hackney 303 19:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you can provide some evidence of people disputing the early closure of the Óglaigh na hÉireann (CIRA splinter group) AfD? Let's check the 'What Links Here' for the AfD and the article shall we? AfD links return no possible evidence of people disputing, and the article itself returns one possibly relevant result, an ANI report regarding you. Note that on there you flat out lie by claiming you didn't nominate the article, and there is widespread condemnation of your actions. The sole person who could even be vaguely considered to be disputing the early closure is Fraslet, who by some shocking coincidence has supported your largely factually incorrect summary of events. How strange! One Night In Hackney 303 06:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I was not referring to Óglaigh na hÉireann (CIRA splinter group) in the link you claim I flat out lie. Astrotrain 10:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well can you explain which article you were referring to then? You did this above, claimed to be talking about something else but failed to explain exactly what. Whenever you're ready?  One Night In Hackney 303 19:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * After a quick search- I was referring to Articles for deletion/Raymond Gilmour. Astrotrain 20:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have very little doubt that the nominator of the AfD for Raymond Gilmour is also a sock and used for further vote stacking.--Vintagekits 20:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Quick further comment - "articles on Irish Republicans are to be welcomed- provided they meet WP:BIO", I assume that includes Martin McGartland? After all, according to Tyrenius he's had "significant mentions, including national press, TV documentary, questions in parliament and references by politicians", and of course not forgetting the film being made about his story. But despite all that being pointed out to you, you still said this person is not notable!. Please say what it takes to meet WP:BIO then? One Night In Hackney 303 07:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Response to MrDarcy
He says "I do believe that Astrotrain edits from too strong a POV, one that is at least anti-IRA and that is arguably anti-Ireland/pro-England." There is no evidence whatever for this. I believe Astrotrain is indeed anti-terrorist as are right-thinking people all over the world including England, USA, Ireland (and the government of Ireland). I think MrDarcy should justify his statement or withdraw it. Tyrenius goes on to say that problems have only arisen recently (which is true) and my own view is that others have stoked up this stouchie (Scottish: a minor row) by writing articles about relatively obscure terrorists. I will be intrigued to see what happens when somebody writes articles about criminals on the other side of the sectarian divide. - Kittybrewster 15:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to state that I am not anti-Irish or anti-Ireland. Indeed I have created various Irish articles on Wikipedia- List of Irish flags, Bank of Ireland, Template:Irish Defence Forces, Template:Airlines of Ireland for example. Opposing the glorification of minor criminals does not make one anti-Irish. Astrotrain 17:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Response to One Night In Hackney
who states:

'The Irish Republican Army are not a terrorist organisation'


 * Terrorism Act 2000
 * SCHEDULE 2
 * PROSCRIBED ORGANISATIONS


 * The Irish Republican Army.
 * (etc)

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2000/20000011.htm

--Gibnews 01:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem confused. The Irish Republican Army are not a terrorist organisation, you appear to be confusing them with the Provisional Irish Republican Army.  One Night In Hackney 303 01:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

So is the British government. The actual ref is http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2000/00011--k.htm#sch2 Tyrenius 02:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Not at all. I'm replying to the deliberate misinformation above.  My original statement specifically included a link to which IRA was being referred to, a link which was removed when pasting my comment.  One Night In Hackney 303 02:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Indeed misleading. I've asked Gibnews to be a bit more careful in future. Tyrenius 02:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Most English speaking people would associate IRA with the terrorist organisation, regardless of what he linked to. He has still to explain why he added IRA in the first place. Astrotrain 10:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Do they? I think you are mixing "Most English speaking people" up with "Most English people". Once again your POV is shining through and clouding you comments.--Vintagekits 10:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Let us be clear, the Irish Republican Army, (and varients) IS a proscribed terrorist organisation, as confirmed by the schedule of the Act referenced. That is not my POV that is a fact. I think One Night In Hackney 303 is the one who is confused as he repeats himself above. --Gibnews 11:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

To be absolutely clear on the issue raised, any organisation that includes the phrase 'Irish Republican Army' in their name are included within the UK banning order. Thus the PIRA, RIRA and CIRA are all proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000. See the info I added to the RIRA page: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20050525/ai_n14641324. The Govt is not confused, the legislation was written as 'catch all' Weggie 12:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm aware the legislation includes all current groups using some deriviative of the name, but it doesn't retroactively apply to the original Irish Republican Army. One Night In Hackney 303 19:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The wording is as quoted, whether it exists or not, its listed as a terrorist organisation in the Act. Also listed


 * The U.S. State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations


 * Wikipedia Nationalistic terrorist organizations


 * --Gibnews 21:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Why are you persisting in beating this dead and totally irrelevant horse? No amount of links you can provide will make my statement incorrect, the Irish Republican Army are not a terrorist organisation.  Please check the article, it's breathtakingly clear. The Wikipedia list of terrorist organisations does not include the Irish Republican Army, the first one on the list is the Irish Republican Army (1922–1969).  One Night In Hackney 303 23:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The Irish Republican Army is listed as a terrorist organisation, the fact that you not prepared accept that is something that should be taken into account in relation to this RfC. --Gibnews 19:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again, why don't you read what I said? The Irish Republican Army (LOOK AT THE PAGE) is not a terrorist organisation. Not once have I said any other incarnation of the IRA is not a terrorist organisation, so I respectfully suggest you refrain from making any further wholly incorrect statements in breach of WP:CIVIL.  Also the article you claim designates the IRA as a terrorist organisation is out of date, the revised version is here.  One Night In Hackney 303 02:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do not threaten me. The British Government says the Irish Republican Army IS a terrorist organisation, and lists that name in the schedule of the Terrorism Act 2000 - that is a fact. As you are aware, apologists for the IRA have been known edit pages on Wikipedia in order to promote their POV that its a legitimate 'military' organisation, which it is not and has never been. Now read the following contribution by another editor who explains things well. --Gibnews 12:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * firstly, what have this got to do with Astrotrains behaviour? Secondly, if it was not for the IRA I would not be rule a free country and it would still by under Britsh imperialist sectarian rule. Thank god for the IRA.--Vintagekits 12:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think its only fair to the readers to suggest some possible counterpoints of your assertion above (I paraphrase):


 * if it was not for the UVF I would not be rule[d in?] a free country and it would be under totalitarian, Marxist, papist, sectarian rule. Thank god for the UVF.


 * if it was not for the British Army and security forces I would not be rule[d in?] a free country and it would be under totalitarian, Marxist, papist, sectarian rule. Thank god for the British Army/security forces.


 * Neither of the above views necessarily reflect that of my own personal opinion. -- Mal 00:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I really don't think this is the place to debate the merits of a terrorist organisation, however thank you (vintagekits) for spelling out your agenda, even if I don't understand your use of words. It simply confirms where the attacks on user:astrotrain comes from. --Gibnews 19:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have not threatened you, and I insist you immediately retract that statement and also your claim that I have said any post 1922 incarnation of the IRA are not a terrorist organisation. Your comment that the Irish Republican Army has never been a legitimate military organisation is incorrect and offensive, and I insist you immediately retract that also. Setanta747 does explain things particularly well, in particular when he states "from 1922 to the present day". The Irish Republican Army was recognised by the Dáil Éireann as the legitimate army of the unilaterally declared Irish Republic, and were not a terrorist organisation which has been my point since day one. One Night In Hackney 303 19:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Insist all you like, the IRA is listed, by name, as a terrorist organisation. --Gibnews 11:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The IRA were, and continue to be, an illegal organisation in Northern Ireland (from 1922 to the present day, and in the Republic of Ireland, from 1939). The Provisional IRA, likewise, has been an illegal organisation since its inception in 1969/70.

All this is quite beside the point however. Firstly, the addition of the acronym to your signature name is ambiguous at best &mdash; most people refer to the Provisional IRA as, simply, "the IRA". Even if you are referring to the old IRA alone, and everyone were to assume that upon reading your signature, there are people who would still be offended &mdash; I would argue that most moderate thinking people regard the Provisional IRA as merely a more extreme iteration of the organisation from which it sprang, and certainly it carried out the murder of people in attempt to further its political ambition, being a terrorist organisation.

All this really does start to make me suspect that you might actually have an agenda on Wikipedia as my hypothetical situation on this RfC page explored. After all, why would one add the acronym of an organisation one didn't have any particular support or liking of? You may notice that I, for example, haven't added the acronym UVF to my sig. By doing so of course, I could be referring to the post-1966 terrorist organisation, or to the organisation which existed in 1916 &mash; often held in 'higher regard' than its modern namesake. Either way I would run the risk of offending someone. Or how about I display "1Para" with my sig..?

Equally, "1916" is evocative, and these very labels, when painted on walls in Northern Ireland, mark 'territory' of extremist neighbourhoods. While you were wise to remove the labels you gave yourself, you were very unwise to have added them in the first place.

I think all this may have profound consequences for the examination of this request. It may turn out to be nothing more than a clash of campaigns, at best.. and possibly even involving provocation. -- Mal 09:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no objections to anyone displaying anything in their signature not prohibited by guidelines and policies. Anything they choose to display there should not reflect on them, unless their editing is shown to be tendentious in some way. I can adequately demonstrate that I always try and maintain NPOV while editing. I've selected a few specific examples, but there's plenty more available.


 * Added a terrorism category to an article I created


 * Described the killing of an off-duty female UDR member in front of her three year old daughter as murder


 * Rightfully classed the Omagh bombing as a terrorist attack


 * Hopefully that addresses some of your concerns? One Night In Hackney 303 17:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)