Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/The Troubles Jan23

User:BigDunc is accusing me of being a troll and is generally ignoring points being made on the Michael Collins article. I would appreciate it if an admin could have a look into this please. NewIreland2009 (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

personal attacks examples would include talk page comments and edit summaries, such as [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. I suggest you stop now. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Unfortunately, from all of the editors involved in the Michael Collins fiasco bar one, I have been met with extreme passive aggressiveness and complete ignorance of the question I'm raising. Its hard not to feel cynical under these circumstances - hence why I'm bringing the matter to ANI, because I really hope this isn't the way wikipedia is run. NewIreland2009 (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been aggressive but that is only because users continue to ignore the question I've raised. All I've wanted to do is improve the Michael Collins article but I've been met with passive aggressiveness ever since, as well as mindless assertion of policies that don't apply to the issue at hand. If users would simply adress the point I'm making then I wouldn't be so agitated. NewIreland2009 (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You indicate on your user page Being aggressive is the only way things get done. I beg to differ, and I hope an Admin will poit this out to you. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NewIreland2009, being as aggressive as you are is, indeed, an excellent way to get blocked from editing. You came out of your corner swinging the second you started editing here, and now complain that other people's "passive aggressiveness" is justification for being aggressive? No. Stop it or you'll be blocked for your disruptive behavior. Last warning. --

I came out swinging only after certain users accused me of all sorts, including being threated with a block for adding facts to the article. If this is the consensus I will indeed desist, but will do so a very disillusioned and cynical man. I will continue to contribute to wikipedia but have learned one thing for certain - never challenge the authority. The hive mentality comes to mind. NewIreland2009 (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am very perplexed as to why this editor has carried on they way they have, they asked about sources and I answered yet I recieve a torrent of abuse from them and then I get reported here. Whoever the friend they are talking about on their user page has obviously coached them in the wrong manner. BigDunc^Talk 23:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not given you a torrent of abuse, I've pleaded with you to answer the question you claim you've answered (Which is a very perplexing assertion by yourself) I've responded on your talk page. NewIreland2009 (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have just blocked NewIreland2009 24 hours for continuing his personal attacks, on his user page and on my talk page, after the final warning above. I have no clue about how The Troubles ArbCom Enforcement sanctions work (I didn't block under any sanctions, but under plain vanilla WP:NPA), so if someone who knows how that works could log this wherever it's supposed to be logged (if, indeed, it needs to be) I would be grateful. --
  barneca (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I wish to make a complaint about

I admit that I have personally been in edit wars and personal conflict with this editor on many occasions on many articles over many months, and have been sanctioned for this (as has Domer48, although he has removed the notices from his talk page). I have also been the subject of complaints by Domer48, who has also left messages on my talk page, e.g. here, here, here and here, which generally I choose to ignore. I consider these to be a form of harassment. I have not posted such "warnings" on his user page, despite having equally valid reasons so to do.

The cumulation of these edit-wars, personal conflict and reporting has, on some occasions, caused me great frustration and I have considered leaving Wikipedia as a result. Up until now, I have not had the patience to attempt to put together a case against this user, which is a dfficult task, given his adeptness at staying within (just about) the letter, if not the spirit, of the law.

• I don’t have the time to provide evidence of all the edit wars which Domer48 has been involved in, but rather I will draw attention to one particular article – Sinn Féin – in respect of which I was banned for edit-warring, yet Domer48 was not. This article is a good example, as I think it encapsulates many of the disruptive characteristics of this editor:
  • POV – as you will see from this editor’s user page and political slogan on his talk page, he has strong political views in support of Irish republicanism. You can see from his edit history that much of his time is spent editing articles which are relevant to Irish republicanism. One of these articles is Sinn Féin, in which his behaviour indicates that he feels he has ownership of the article.
  • A content dispute arose in this article – before my involvement, and including several editors – in which many editors believed that the content of the article was skewed towards a “Provisional” SF (i.e. that part of SF which split in 1970 and which is now known simply as “Sinn Féin”) POV, by including pre-1970 history of SF, thus giving the impression that the current SF party was the sole legitimate inheritor of the pre-1970 history of the party: something which is disputed and which most of the editors believed should be rectified by removing the pre-1970 material to
    History of Sinn Fein
    .
  • Domer48 was opposed to the proposed changes.
  • Thus far, there has been failure to make any changes due to the persistent opposition of Domer48. Most other editors have given up attempting to change it, presumably through frustration or boredom.
  • This wider dispute also included a dispute about the actual term “Provisional”, which Domer48 resisted being included in the article. You can see the discussion about this particular dispute, which began on 29 September 2008 – here, and you will note that – true to the spirit of Wikipedia – consensus was achieved on 7 October 2008.
  • However, at 21:21 on 7 December, User:Gailimh reverted the consensus text, which was then restored at 21:32 by User:Valenciano.
  • At 21:47 on the same day, Domer48 – having previously agreed to the consensus text – now reverted it. This appears to demonstrate that Domer48’s commitment to consensus was merely expedient, and that once he detected an allied editor, he preferred instead to edit-war in order to restore the previously-disputed text.
  • There followed an edit-war, including myself, User:Gailimh and User:Big Dunc (a regular ally of Domer48) on 8 and 9 December, when each of my two attempts to restore the consensus text were reverted.
  • At 20:06 on 11 December, I restored the consensus text again, and a one-on-one edit-war resulted with Domer48, who “won” the war after three reverts at 10:37 on 16 December, after which I gave up.
  • During this time – Domer48 refused to engage properly in discussion – he simply accepted and then defended the Gailimh without acknowledging that the previous text was the result of consensus-building – see here.
  • This appears to me to be a case of edit-warring in order to impose a particular POV on the article. I was punished for my part in the edit-war, but Domer48 was not.
  • You will note that Domer48 has most recently been involved in an edit war in relation to the translation of Sinn Féin.

• I see from here that “disruptive editing is a pattern of edits, which may extend over a considerable period of time or number of articles, that has the effect of disrupting progress towards improving an article, or effects that are contrary to the fundamental project of building an encyclopedia” – I also think Domer48’s behaviour on Sinn Féin is caught by this definition.

• Other articles/tag-teaming/other editors/bullying
• I have come across Domer48’s edit wars on other articles, but, not being able to muster the patience, have not become involved in particularly nasty ones at Ulster Special Constabulary and Ulster Defence Regiment – note that these are articles relevant to the POV noted on his user page, and have also involved User:Big Dunc. He engaged – along with erstwhile ally User:Big Dunc in a long series of edit wars with User:The Thunderer, which frustrated the latter user so much that he was eventually driven off Wikipedia – see here. The Thunderer had put in a lot of work and made significant contributions to these articles – and is a major loss. You will see from the edit histories that, having driven the Thunderer away, Domer48 has proceeded to set about editing the article freely, with no other editors having the patience to intervene. A mediation case was also closed when the Thunderer left. I don’t have the time to go into the actual content disputes on these article, but you can see from the edit history that, now that the Thunderer has left, Domer48 has been free to edit the article as he pleases, with no opposition from other editors. Personally, I lack the patience even to get involved in either of those articles.
• Behaviour with Big Dunc on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Olympic_Council_of_Ireland#RfC:_Olympic_Council_of_Ireland looks a bit like tag-teaming.

• User:The Thunderer felt that he was the subject of bullying on these articles.

Some of this editor's behaviour appears to fit in with the descriptions on the Wikipedia guidelines about disruptive editing:

• tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.
• Does not engage in consensus building (As can be seen from Sinn Féin, once an allied editor appears on the scene, he is quick to ditch previous consensus
• Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act in spite of policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility,Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.

Signs that may point to tag-teaming include:

• Working together to circumvent the three revert rule
• Consensus-blocking, continually challenging outside opinions, and acting as if they own an article.

Note that I was unfamiliar about how AN, etc., worked, and originally made this complaint on AN, was told to put it on AE, then back to AN, and it was dismissed without even being investigated. I am not forum-shopping - I simply want this to be investigated and I hope this is the right place. Mooretwin (talk) 00:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not this stuff again. This is like the fifth time (on AN, AE back and forth) you've brought the same complaint, Mooretwin. This smacks of retribution after Domer reported your comments. I'm thinking about proposing a topic ban on you covering the Troubles AND BigDunc and Domer. This is getting ridiculous. SirFozzie (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case someone I didn't think I was serious: [16], [17], [18], [19], so this is attempt #5. At some point, Mooretwin, you're going to be labeled a

vexatious litigant. Especially considering his comments mentioned above where he basically incited another editor to edit war.. this is enough. SirFozzie (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Please read my explanation in bold above! I was misdirected to the wrong pages with this complaint and then - encouraged by Sir Fozzie, an admin with a personal history of conflict with me - the complaint was eventually dismissed without investigation. All I ask that it is investigated, and I hope this is the right place. I respectfully request that Sir Fozzie does not intervene here and that an uninvolved admin can look at this objectively and without prejudice. Mooretwin (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I consider your accusation that I "basically incited another editor to edit war" to be a

WP:Personal attack (not for the first time). I absolutely did no such thing. Indeed, I cautioned the editor about getting into conflict with the editor in question and warned him to be careful. I also intervened on Michael Collins to end an edit war by providing the citation being requested. This personal attack is a reason why Sir Fozzie cannot be involved here. All I ask is that the complaint is honestly investigated and not ignored. It is a genuine complaint. Mooretwin (talk) 01:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

 Doing...--Tznkai (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' Not all the way through, but a lot of this is old news - old bad laundry and what boils down to accusations of bad faith editing. That Domer48 is a pain in the ass is not news or controversial - I'm fairly certain he would agree himself - but accusing him of bad faith is something else entirely. Sifting through the complaint, Mooretwin has very much mixed up the conduct and content issues (an endemic problem in this area) - and I'm trying to find the substance that doesn't devolve into "Domer48 is a jerk and this is why."--Tznkai (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I have  Declined to take any action - I am however going to conduct a survey of Domer48's recent edits to see if there is anything sticks out, as a mater of propriety.--Tznkai (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm disappointed, but I appreciate the fact that you actually investigated the complaint instead of dismissing it out of hand. Thanks for that. I'm surprised that you can't detect a breach of

WP:Ownership on Sinn Féin. I doubt that you will find anything "illegal" in any of his recent edits as we all know that he is careful to keep within the letter of the law. I do feel, however, that, even despite this, his behaviour amounts to obstruction as he prevents constructive editing on articles such as Sinn Féin by his ultra-vigilence, which drives other editors away through boredom or frustration (or - in the case of the Thunderer - perceived harassment). On many articles I am the only editor willing to challenge him, but when he teams up with BigDunc then I am outnumbered. I don't think this state of affairs is healthy for WP. His constant running to Admin, and even acting like an Admin by posting his template complaints on people's talk pages, also causes annoyance and frustration to other editors. Regards, anyway. Mooretwin (talk) 08:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

While I can understand the frustration that SirFozzie may be experiencing, one I obviously share, on calm reflection they may review each of the sections above based on the merits of each individually and proffer an opinion. Their experience however will obviously prompt them to link this section and the one above. While obvious, and would be correct I’d much rather they be treated separately. The first section on Dunc has been addressed, unfortunately it dose not seem to have had the desired effect, and the Admin who dealt with the issue, giving a final warning, had to remove some edits from the Users page. The second section, I’ve asked to be returned to ANI, and explained my reasons above, and prompted this post here. This section has been more or less been dealt with by Tznkai and a number of other Admins as SirFozzie has already linked to above, lets hope that is the end of it. That SirFozzie appears to be considered as being one of the sympathetic administrators contained in this accusation, one I can contest I might add, they may wish to comment on that discussion. After all, if I could decide which admins dealt with issues I’m involved in, Tznkai and SirFozzie would come just behind the last editors I would want around, no offence intended. However, if I want decidedly impartial advice I’d go to them because no one could accuse them of being biased towards me. Mooretwin, you can not dictate who can and cannot comment on your conduct, no more than I can. The only advice I would offer on the Admins above is, when you mess with a bull, you should look out for the horns. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]