User talk:Boneyarddog

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Boneyarddog, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

BigDunc

Happy editing! BigDunc 15:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

FYI[edit]

BigDunc 15:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that why I'm unable to edit articles? --Boneyarddog (talk) 12:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you have been blocked from editing by User:Black Kite, I would suggest that you request an unblock by using this {{unblock}} template on your page. I will raise the issue at WP:ANI. BigDunc 13:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the request.
If you wish to comment of the ANI, please add your comments on this page, I will post a message that you will be commenting here, and any comments you make can be copied over to ANI. Mjroots (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the mighty admins don't think there is anything wrong with your block so you can't edit wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit (unless an admin doesn't like you). BigDunc 15:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My advice would be to asked what you did wrong, and ask why you were blocked. --Domer48'fenian' 18:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Boneyarddog (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like to be unblocked. I have not been told why I was blocked. If I was wrong for making the edit I made tell me why and I will not do it again.--Boneyarddog (talk) 12:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Obvious meatpuppet, disruptive SPA. Moreschi (talk) 14:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Wowsers newbie. I'd of advised ya to stay away from that aticle-in-question. Even I stay clear of it. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice[edit]

Hello, Boneyarddog. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GiantSnowman 14:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked and can not see what it is. I have not been on long so why would I be part of any discussion? --Boneyarddog (talk) 12:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I you look at this discussion here. Don't let the welcome put you off, I had a bit of an off putting one myself. --Domer48'fenian' 14:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Boneyarddog (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm requesting an unblock and check-user on this account. I am not a sock-puppet of any user and as an IP have never caused any trouble. This is my first and only account on wikipedia. --Boneyarddog (talk) 12:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

After reviewing the AN/I and your unblock request I believe we cannot rule it out that you're a meatpuppet of someone. Checkuser is not really capable of proving your innocence. – Daniel Case (talk) 13:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Boneyarddog my advice would be to tell them to go shove it! Checkuser is not really capable of proving your innocence. So we assume good faith. Innocent until proven Irish. --Domer48'fenian' 18:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have no probs, if Boneyarddog is un-blocked. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the editor from adam, but I can't stand the ballsology behind the block. When sock abusing editors like this [1][2] [3] get ignored we have a problem. Using the duck test, I'd call it in your face biased POV admin abuse. --Domer48'fenian' 22:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editors who don't get indef blocked[edit]

Boneyarddog I'll post some links here of disruptive editors who don't get indef blocked despite their edits. This should help illustrate the biased nature of your block, and raise questions re: your unblock requests. --Domer48'fenian' 20:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. 174.57.26.218
  2. Addled1
  3. 86.42.198.83
  4. 142.227.190.2
  5. 64.93.212.232
  6. 188.80.35.7
  7. 87.40.22.16
  8. 92.251.255.12
  9. 95.145.51.84
  10. 89.206.144.187
  11. Hamsterboy1996
  12. 173.177.2.8
  13. 188.141.83.6
  14. 71.176.179.54
  15. 81.155.182.122
  16. 81.159.210.87
  17. 64.120.180.114
  18. 90.211.98.172
  19. 71.233.87.235
  20. 86.152.163.13
  21. 193.61.96.233
  22. 82.69.2.84
  23. 92.41.40.63
  24. Trickyjack
  25. 217.43.7.93
  26. 194.36.240.11
  27. 173.13.72.73
  28. Lexpack
  29. 216.248.239.136
  30. 173.75.37.114

Update: Fynire has been indef blocked. GoodDay (talk) 00:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case has no objections to an unblock so at least that is a step in the right direction. I'll keep posting onto the list above to illustrate the unjust nature of your block. --Domer48'fenian' 13:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have been watching this progress. I just don't see how this editor is indef blocked for making one single edit. This is sooo wrong. I just had to say that.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, the contribution history does make socking a high likelyhood. But this is a situation where a checkuser reviewer could find out whether this account has indeed made previous useful contributions as an IP.  Sandstein  20:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly at least a CU should be done, the duck test is really not enough to indef block someone considering the huge list above of editors who remain unblocked. BigDunc 20:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A CU won't be possible; it'd be a fishing expedition unless we had an idea of who any supposed sockmaster would be. -Jeremy (v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!) 20:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as a CheckUser, the answer is no. Without knowing what I'm looking for, a check would be useless, unless we're dealing with a really bad sockmaster. In which case I think we'd have an idea of who the sockmaster was. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The supposed sockmaster[s] in this case were supposed to be Dunc or myself. --Domer48'fenian' 21:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Support you Boneyarddog. This is the Edit you made. You removed this text:

" The force was almost exclusively Protestant and Unionist and as a result was viewed with great mistrust by Catholics and nationalists. [This was unsourced and you were right to remove it]

During the 1920s, it was accused of "revenge killings and reprisals" against Catholics in the 1920-22 conflict. [This is sourced but it is not balanced....One could also claim that it was praosed for saving Northern Ireland during that period....etc, its all a POV, your edit was adding balance.... [1] Unionists generally supported the USC as contributing to the defence of of Northern Ireland from subversion and outside aggression.[2] + The Ulster Special Constabulary (USC) (commonly called the "B-Specials" or "B Men") was a reserve police force in Northern Ireland viewed with great mistrust by nationalists who claimed, with some proven justification, that the force was anti-Catholic. It was welcomed by the unionist community who saw the USC as the defenders of Northern Ireland from an IRA terror campaign.[3]

- The Special Constabulary was disbanded in May 1970, after the Hunt Report, which advised re-shaping Northern Ireland's security forces in a less partisan manner. Its functions were largely taken over by the Ulster Defence Regiment [4]."

Thanks . DaliBama (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


It just keeps getting better, Boneyarddog is now accused of socking here, because of the comments above! While I consider DaliBama to be a sock, attacking Dunc and Myself would seem a little off track since they were supposed to have been a sock of either one of us. --Domer48'fenian' 22:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I remember in the ANI discussion about this block, there was one unfounded accusation that you or Dunc could be the sockmaster, but I don't believe you were ever seriously suspected by anyone else, not then and not at this moment. I do agree with you that Boneyarddog and Dalibaba are most likely unrelated.--Atlan (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Boneyard, I apologize for assuming that DaliBama's campaigning for you meant he was your sock. Also, I'd like to point out that Domer knows full well that IP addresses usually don't get indef blocked, so listing them above is misleading. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that Boneyarddog should not have registered an a account (which IP's are encouraged to do) and they would not have been blocked? Ip's do get blocked all the time and I know full well that editors usually don't get indef blocked after one edit. Please don't assume to tell me what I know and don't know, and don't try to suggest that by my highlighting clear cases of disruption and vandalism being ignored by admin's I'm being misleading. --Domer48'fenian' 19:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request put ON HOLD[edit]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

reason

Request handled by: Syrthiss (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

I'm placing this unblock request on HOLD status. I will be frank. I do not find your statement (that you are truly a new user to this area) credible.. but I'm the suspicious sort. I am however, placing this on hold to deal with the DaliBama/Redking7 situation. Then I will work with other administrators on this unblock request SirFozzie (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic discussion
I will be frank. This editor would not have been blocked if their edit had been in line with the blocking admins view but I'm the suspicious sort. However, it would be impossible to find their statement was not credible and at the same time ignore the actions and edits of the IP's and editors above who all display the same disruptive style. So while this request is on HOLD, you can work your way through the list above after all, unlike the list above, this editor did not do anything wrong. --Domer48'fenian' 09:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your list has no bearing on the block of Boneyarddog. Your opinion that the evil British admins have an agenda against all the honorable Irish nationalist editors, is well known and there's no need to repeat it every other post.--Atlan (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your attitude just about sums it up. I know a number of very good British admins and editors, pitty there not on Irish history article. This list clearly illustrates how disruptive editors are ignored despite the evidence in their edits, and how an editor who was not disruptive in any way was blocked. --Domer48'fenian' 12:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I was merely phrasing (in exaggerated terms, I have to admit) the perceived bias against Irish editors you always campaign against. You claim bias and abuse so often, I doubt people still listen. As for the list, it doesn't show anywhere that they were ignored, they merely weren't blocked. As they are separate cases unrelated to this block, and indeed unrelated to each other, it doesn't show any systematic failure to properly apply the rules, bias, or hidden admin agendas that you feel Boneyarddog is victim of.--Atlan (talk) 13:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British/Irish stuff aside, it's good that the block is being reviewed. What's important is to end any doubts, one way or the other. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always campaigning against perceived bias against Irish editors? You doubt people still listen I claim bias and abuse so often? All the articles are Irish/Ireland history related, all of the editors listed above have been editing in a disruptive manner and their actions are not been challenged. Boneyarddog did not edit disruptively, explained the reasons for their edit on the talk page, their very first edit mind and they get blocked indefinitely on suspicion. Clear vandalism and disruption ignored, a considered and reasonable edit results in a block and it doesn't show any systematic failure to properly apply the rules? All reasoned from an editor I have never dealt with and who has never edited on any of the articles I do? Curious --Domer48'fenian' 19:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, very "curious" of me. One would expect someone who is continually suspicious of bias and hidden agendas, would appreciate the opinion of someone completely uninvolved. But I guess that only counts when the opinion suits you. Since it doesn't, you twist my uninvolvement into "curious" behavior. I must now be part of the ever expanding group of Wikipedia editors biased against the Irish. Whatever. You go ahead and display the meaningless list if makes you feel better.--Atlan (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ill informed opinions, amounting to nothing more than hearsay and gossip are appreciate by no one. I don't consider you to be part of any ever expanding group of Wikipedia editors biased against the Irish, I simple consider your comments to be idiotic, nonsensical and totally illogical. I will continue to illustrate how editors who disrupt and vandalise the project are ignored, while editors who act in accordance with policy get indef blocked. Your simply best ignored! --Domer48'fenian' 22:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I say the list is meaningless, as I can just as easily compose a list of disruptive editors who do get blocked. It is neither hearsay nor gossip, just my opinion and I'm sure that of anyone else but you. Anyway, I have no problems with you, nor do I wish to have them. I realize disagreeing with you amounts to just that though. Good luck with your crusade.--Atlan (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The DaliBama/Redking7 situation has been addressed. Now it is Boneyarddog unblock request. --Domer48'fenian' 23:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to bring it up on AN now. SirFozzie (talk) 07:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, [4] is the discussion link. SirFozzie (talk) 08:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comments at WP:AN - Boneyarddog, the problem you ran into here, and which we've discussed above, is that the article you edited is one of several that are closely monitored and scrutinized by our editors. Its topic, being related to the Troubles Arbitration Decision, requires editors to limit their reverts, and to discuss potentially contentious edits on the article talk page before making them. If you're able to edit this and other articles under these restrictions, then I'd be happy to recommend an unblock (or to do it myself, if I'm about and consensus exists). Since you cannot participate at the admins noticeboard, could you comment here please? Thanks. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made one edit and explained it on the article talkpage. I have read the instructions on the articles and understand the restrictions. If I have a problem there are editors who I can ask for advice. Thank you. --Boneyarddog (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps an acceptance of being barred from Irish Troubles related articles for a designated period of time, might be agreeable with the skeptics. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boneyarddog, you should be unblocked. I checked for autoblocks and didn't find any, but I'm also not the most accomplished in finding them. If you are still blocked from editing, follow the instructions in the block message to request a release of the autoblock. Cheers. Syrthiss (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, to the land of the living (i.e. editing). GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense prevails at last! Nice one!--Domer48'fenian' 18:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About time.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advice[edit]

I really would advise you to be very careful if you decide to come back to editing here and make your self aware that there are a lot of articles covered under The Troubles banner and that they are currently subject to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case, as laid out during a previous WP:AE case that closed October 05, 2008. Just assume that it is covered under the sanctions and don't revert if you can help it and not anymore than once in a 24hr period, welcome again and happy editing. BigDunc 20:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend staying away from the Troubles-related articles, for at least the rest of this year. Let things calm down. GoodDay (talk) 01:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boneyarddog I would not let anyone put you off editing any article on wiki despite your deplorable introduction. Dunc is correct though in advising you to be careful. You experience for me showed up the blatant hypocrisy displayed by some admin's best illustrated by the list on the section above. Avoid the talk page trolls and those who use the project as a social networking cite, all of whom will become familiar to you as you find your way in the project. --Domer48'fenian' 10:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both Domer and Goodday. For differant reasons. Domer is correct that you have no restrictions on what articles that you want to edit. If the Troubles article is your passion, then go to town. But I would warn you, that not everyone was convinced that you are not a sock or a meat puppet, so caution in how you attempt to edit these articles would be advised.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Michael Hopkinson, The Irish War of Independence, p263
  2. ^ Thomas Hennessey (1997) A History of Northern Ireland 1920 - 1996, p.15. Gill & Macmillan:Dublin. ISBN 0 7171 2400 2
  3. ^ Thomas Hennessey (1997) A History of Northern Ireland 1920 - 1996, p.15. Gill & Macmillan:Dublin. ISBN 0 7171 2400 2
  4. ^ Sydney Elliott, William D. Flackes, Conflict in Northern Ireland: an encyclopedia
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boneyarddog&oldid=1143703975"