| Revision as of 19:56, 2 June 2009 editSarekOfVulcan (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators51,716 edits You have been blocked. using TW← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:04, 2 June 2009 edit undoDomer48 (talk | contribs)16,098 edits →June 2009: rpNext edit → | ||
| (11 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 125: | Line 125: | ||
| == June 2009 == | == June 2009 == | ||
| <div class="user-block"> ] {{#if:1 week|You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''1 week'''|You have been temporarily ''']''' from editing}} in accordance with ] for {{#if:refusing to acknowledge that ArbCom has set down the conditions for determining the names of the Ireland articles, as per |'''refusing to acknowledge that ArbCom has set down the conditions for determining the names of the Ireland articles, as per '''|repeated ]}}. You are welcome to ] after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here}} below. {{#if:true|] (]) 19:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-block2 --> | <div class="user-block"> ] {{#if:1 week|You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''1 week'''|You have been temporarily ''']''' from editing}} in accordance with ] for {{#if:refusing to acknowledge that ArbCom has set down the conditions for determining the names of the Ireland articles, as per |'''refusing to acknowledge that ArbCom has set down the conditions for determining the names of the Ireland articles, as per '''|repeated ]}}. You are welcome to ] after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here}} below. {{#if:true|] (]) 19:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-block2 --> | ||
| :That's a cheap move from you! You were asked to provide links for these directives, you can't so you block. What's next, Sandstein to come along and endorse it? --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 20:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's a fucking lie, and you know it! I gave an undertaking above, and I have not broken it. You are lying through your fucking teeth, in all your posts. --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 20:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *SarekOfVulcan, this is a bit of a joke and way OTT. You are an involved admin and are in dispute with Domer and shouldnt be handing out a spurious block like this. Its pretty embarrassing to say the least.--] (]) 20:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Vin, read , and they say there not involved. As the fucker were is the directive from ArbCom preventing talk page discussions. --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 20:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I said . This process before the ArbCom even agreed to here the case. So were is the structure for determining the names of the disputed articles set up by ArbCom? That's disruptive? Check out the section titled , and check out on this? I said there is on article talk pages. If there is such a directive, provide a diff. Is that disruptive, were is the link? This is just typical of POV warriors riding rough shod over editors who dare challange them. I know Sandstein is going to come along now and back this fucker up. They are just as bad if not worse. There last block was just as bad as this one, again lying. --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 20:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Issue with this block has been raised ]. <font color="green">]</font>] 20:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :What did I tell you, . Never thought for one minute they would be pulled to account for their actions. The fucking arrogance, to drop a block and have not provided the editor with it before they were blocked. They would not even respond on that they had to go make up a rational, because editors and Admin's would see what a fucking joke they were. --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 20:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Language, please. I can guarantee that you won't get unblocked the way you're going, so please stop before you say something you'll regret. <font color="green">]</font>] 20:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I agree don't give them a way out Domer this is a piss poor block for asking a qusetion typical. <strong>]</strong>] | |||
| I'll take on board the advice, I've had two bad blocks in two days! Sandstein putting my block log up as some sort of mitigation, is there not a rule about using an editors block log. How do you think I should feel? They are a joke! --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 20:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : We all know the great wiki lie about blocks being preventitive and not punitive this is prime example to prove that lie. <strong>]</strong>] 21:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Hang on here a minute, this is not it's an excuse! Were are not interested in a history lesson, were is the rational for this BS block! I was not being disruptive. I want answers to the questions I posed! They are running to catch a bus, they are alright. They are running to get a bigger shovel for the hole they are digging. --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 21:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:04, 2 June 2009
 | Domer48 is busy and is going to be on Misplaced Pages in off-and-on doses, and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
- Pádraig, Rest In Peace a chara - sorely missed - not to be forgotten.
|
 Archives |
|---|
Useful links
Irish Manual of Style~
Policy ~
Assume good faith ~
Citing sources ~
Warning templates ~
Sources of articles ~
Civility ~
Consensus ~
Dispute resolution ~
Etiquette ~
No original research ~
What Misplaced Pages is not ~
No personal attacks ~
Neutral point of view ~
POINT ~
Reliable sources ~
Verifiability ~
WP:Attribution ~
WP:Synthesis ~
WP:Avoid peacock terms ~ Misplaced Pages:Avoid weasel terms
Useful Noticeboard
3RR~ WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard ~ Third opinion Noticeboard ~ Misplaced Pages:No original research/noticeboard ~
Newboy
Cheers for the info Domer! Dribblingscribe (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
March 2009
Domer48, I have removed () your duplicate WP:AE request (). Please do not disrupt the noticeboard by adding redundant requests. Sandstein 23:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Per AE, it was a different request on a different article. I agree the request is now redundant as a result of your actions. --Domer48'fenian' 23:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, OK, that was not apparent from the request as it appeared on-screen. For the next time you want to request enforcement, please review my advice for how to compose proper AE requests at . Sandstein 23:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Will do, and thanks for the advice. --Domer48'fenian' 00:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Arbcom case:The Troubles
You've breached 1RR at Northern Ireland. Ought you be reported to AE? Mooretwin (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- What for 1 revert? Have IQ's dropped? --Domer48'fenian' 17:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- No, 2. Should I report you? Mooretwin (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Well lets see the diff's then? --Domer48'fenian' 20:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- 1, 2- shall I report you? Mooretwin (talk) 10:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Like I said, nonsence! --Domer48'fenian' 08:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- The word is "nonsense". Mooretwin (talk) 10:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
You'd think you'd know what a breech of 1RR was at this stage! Go ahead and report, it will just add to your list of time wasting activities here on Wiki. Spelling mistakes! More "nonsense".--Domer48'fenian' 17:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. Mooretwin (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement
You have been reported to Arbitration Enforcement for knowingly violating the Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#No moves pending discussion ruling.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have? Were? What page did I move? --Domer48'fenian' 16:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- You've also breached 1RR on Troubles-related articles, and this has been noted to Arbcom. Mooretwin (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
1RR is out the window! So I did not breached 1RR on Troubles-related articles. --Domer48'fenian' 16:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- When was it thrown out of the window? Mooretwin (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Awhile back, check SirFozzie's talk page about it. --Domer48'fenian' 17:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Funny, this doesn't look much like "out the window" to me, looks more like Arbcom blessing it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree, looks more like Arbcom blessing it, but they haven't yet. I wish they would. --Domer48'fenian' 17:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Block
With your edit , you performed what amounted to a cut-and-paste move of Republic of Ireland to Ireland, in violation of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#No moves pending discussion which forbids such moves. Since you appears intent on repeating this violation of an arbitral decision, I have blocked you for a week. I will lift the block, and I consent to another administrator lifting it, as soon as you give credible assurances that you will not repeat such moves, whether by means of the "move" function or by cut and paste. You may appeal this block as described at WP:GAB. Sandstein 20:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- This is an unfair block Sandstein I am not sure that Domer even thought that they were breaching any Sanctions, what about Conduct and decorum which has not been enforced with an editor on the talk twice being asked to cut out the personal attacks, are you not running to block them? A stern warning if needed was all that should have been used here not a week block. BigDunc 20:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have not moved any page, I removed text that was misleading on the Republic of Ireland article, after a good deal of discussion on the article talk page. The text I placed on the Republic of Ireland is accurate, subject pacific and covers the subject based on verifiable sources and according to our policy of neutral point of view two corner stones of wiki. The text I removed, I placed on the Ireland article. I did on the talk page discussion suggest leaving the text on the article, and was meet with a wall of silence. It was far from a cut and past job and involved a good deal of editing. I have not edited in violation of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#No moves pending discussion of this ongoing discussion and I have not violated any of our policies. There is nothing in the above discussion which suggests that our policies can be violated, and no decision is going to suggest it either. Now I agree not to add any more content onto the Ireland and the Republic of Ireland is page protected for two weeks. --Domer48'fenian' 20:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- To make this clear, do you agree not to attempt to change the subject of the article Ireland from the island to the country until the conditions specified in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#No moves pending discussion are met? Sandstein 20:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
YES! Clear enough? --Domer48'fenian' 20:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. You are unblocked. Please do not disobey arbitral decisions again, or you may be made subject to more substantial sanctions without further warning. Sandstein 20:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Well hit the unblock button, because I still can't edit. --Domer48'fenian' 21:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- There was an active IP autoblock that I just undid -- can you edit now? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Still blocked. --Domer48'fenian' 21:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, missed a step. Now?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
June 2009
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- That's a cheap move from you! You were asked to provide links for these directives, you can't so you block. What's next, Sandstein to come along and endorse it? --Domer48'fenian' 20:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- That's a fucking lie, and you know it! I gave an undertaking above, and I have not broken it. You are lying through your fucking teeth, in all your posts. --Domer48'fenian' 20:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- SarekOfVulcan, this is a bit of a joke and way OTT. You are an involved admin and are in dispute with Domer and shouldnt be handing out a spurious block like this. Its pretty embarrassing to say the least.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Vin, read this discussion, and they say there not involved. As the fucker were is the directive from ArbCom preventing talk page discussions. --Domer48'fenian' 20:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- I said the Arbitration Committee has not put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed articles. This process here before the ArbCom even agreed to here the case. So were is the structure for determining the names of the disputed articles set up by ArbCom? That's disruptive? Check out the section titled Time table, and check out Back-up on this? I said there is no directive by ArbCom preventing discussion on article talk pages. If there is such a directive, provide a diff. Is that disruptive, were is the link? This is just typical of POV warriors riding rough shod over editors who dare challange them. I know Sandstein is going to come along now and back this fucker up. They are just as bad if not worse. There last block was just as bad as this one, again lying. --Domer48'fenian' 20:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Issue with this block has been raised here. lifebaka++ 20:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- What did I tell you, does not even have a rational. Never thought for one minute they would be pulled to account for their actions. The fucking arrogance, to drop a block and have not provided the editor with it before they were blocked. They would not even respond on ANI that they had to go make up a rational, because editors and Admin's would see what a fucking joke they were. --Domer48'fenian' 20:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Language, please. I can guarantee that you won't get unblocked the way you're going, so please stop before you say something you'll regret. lifebaka++ 20:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree don't give them a way out Domer this is a piss poor block for asking a qusetion typical. BigDunc
- Language, please. I can guarantee that you won't get unblocked the way you're going, so please stop before you say something you'll regret. lifebaka++ 20:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll take on board the advice, I've had two bad blocks in two days! Sandstein putting my block log up as some sort of mitigation, is there not a rule about using an editors block log. How do you think I should feel? They are a joke! --Domer48'fenian' 20:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- We all know the great wiki lie about blocks being preventitive and not punitive this is prime example to prove that lie. BigDunc 21:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Hang on here a minute, this is not a rational it's an excuse! Were are not interested in a history lesson, were is the rational for this BS block! I was not being disruptive. I want answers to the questions I posed! They are running to catch a bus, they are alright. They are running to get a bigger shovel for the hole they are digging. --Domer48'fenian' 21:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)