User talk:Domer48

• Pádraig, Rest In Peace a chara - sorely missed - not to be forgotten.

Today is 26 December 2024

Archives
Archive 1 - February 2007 to December 2007 Archive 2 - Jan 2008 to December 2008 Archive 3 - Jan 2009 to December 2009 Archive 4

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 Wikipedia is not ~ No personal attacks ~ Neutral point of view ~ POINT ~ Reliable sources ~ Verifiability ~ WP:Attribution ~ WP:Synthesis ~

WP:Avoid peacock terms ~ Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms

Useful Noticeboard

3RR~ WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard ~ Third opinion Noticeboard ~ Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard ~

Misuse of tools

If you think I've misused my tools, you know where to go. I urge you to make your case there rather than complaining about it on the collaboration page. Rockpocket 18:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You know you missued your tools you edit warred and when the page was blocked you then unblocked it to continue edit warring, and the reblocked it. As for ANI, yeah right what is going to happen there either admins will circle the wagons or they will sit on their hands, how many bad blocks have been discussed on it and admins have adnitteed bad blocks but did fuck all and ignored it. Domer I would give it a wide berth if I was you. Collaboration page don't fool yourself into believing it is anything of the sort a mediator who IMO justs pops in every now and again without reading what is going on as can be seen with their request that you should have told editors about the process you started, a farce.BigDunc^Talk 20:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You obviously don't understand how page protection works. If you did, you would realize your description of what happened is incorrect. But again, don't let reality get in the way of a good conspiracy theory. I've lost count how many times thats been the case with you recently, Dunc. Rockpocket 04:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Well explain how it work for an admin, if I go to edit a page that is PP it is impossible as all I can see is a Source tab, is it different when your an admin? And could you explain your comment, I've lost count how many times thats been the case with you recently BigDunc^Talk 10:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no technical barrier to stop admins editing protected pages, we can edit them like any other page. Therefore your accusations are completely incorrect, I didn't "unblock it to continue edit warring, and then reblock it." As I already said, in this case I only realized the page had been protected after I made the edit. I already explained this and yet, based on nothing but bad faith and a predetermined assumption that I set out to abuse my tools, you made this accusation. You did the same thing a few weeks ago. Rockpocket 17:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

No matter way you try to twist it, you used your tools as an Admin in an abusive way. You used them to get round a block to continue an edit war. You went as far as saying "even if I had known it was protected I would have still made the edit" so drop it. So it's not just an accusation it's a fact and is not "based on nothing but bad faith and a predetermined assumption that I set out to abuse my tools" please stop digging. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

So you lost count, can you not count higher than 1? And to the diff you supplied yes you gave the editor credence with your edits after the page was created. As an admin you can edit pages us mere plebs can't edit so therefore you missused your tool and your comment provided in the diff above by Domer proves that you intended to. BigDunc^Talk 18:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said, if that is what you believe you should make a complaint and - I predict - you will learn that you are mistaken. You clearly are not in possession of all the facts (why would you be, you are not an admin and therefore you can't know protection works when in possession of those tools). Thus I put to you that misplaced confidence is the bearing of a fool confidence in ignorance begets foolishness. Besides, whining about it is utterly nonconstructive; either put up or shut up. Rockpocket 18:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, there, Rockpocket -- WP:CIVILITY, please. "Bearing of a fool" ain't terribly civil. --20:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not doubting your sincerity Sarek but I think the talk page of the offending admin would be a correct place to notify them and not here. As to put up or shut up from RP where? amongst your mates at ANI, would you catch yourself, admins are basically free to do what they want with only a very few having the balls to stand up to mistakes by other admins the rest sit on their hands and do fuck all. So knowing you edited a page that was under PP why didn't you then do the honourable thing and revert yourself, was it because you didn't care and you were putting your point across no matter what? BigDunc^Talk 20:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

No, this is appropriate enough -- I'm sure that Rockpocket is watching this page by now, so he gets the notice, and everyone else knows it's been done so they don't have to go to rp's talk to find out.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan I'll only say this once, and should not have to say it again. Don't post on my talk page anymore. I want to have nothing to do with you at all. Now take your comments over to Rocks page. Ok. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

objections to a poll

That's one of my objections to a poll, the pov is oozing already, and it didn't even start yet. Tfz 18:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Already their out to disrupt the propoal I trying to put together. I might just put in a new section titled "I Don't Like it".--Domer48_'fenian' 18:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

They hardly know what they are doing down at the Collaboration page. The poll is going to end up very flawed, and few will ever accept the result. They are already trying to do a "poll before the poll", or is it consensus they are after. If they can do consensus now, why not consensus last week, or consensus next week. CJH had a word for it. Tfz 00:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

All the carry on, and I'm not the only one to remove off topic comments. --Domer48_'fenian' 11:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Most of that 'freaking out' is just pure and simple "posturing". One of the last bastions of a shakey argument. Tfz 12:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The nail on the head I tells yeh, the nail on the head. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Brian Keenan

Keep an eye on this please mo chara, details are here. Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Will do! --Domer48_'fenian' 11:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice one. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The diffs you keep asking about

Here they are:

[1][2][3][4][5]

On behalf of DrKiernan

Domer, DrKiernan posted this recently: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Domer48. DrKiernan (talk) 13:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Regrettabe, but inevitable, it seems. -- Evertype·✆ 14:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

RUC

Hi, If you want to reinsert uncited material like you did here [6] please provide a proper cite. You probably reverted me in good faith, but did you actually check out the link? didn't think so... Blaggards22 (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Sarekofvulcan

There is currently an Arbitration going on regarding matters that Sarek is involved with and well I'm gonna do my damn best to try and guarantee that it leads to this user losing his access to the admin tools but the thing is that I've been sorta busy lately so I was wondering if you would care to help out a little bit? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#DreamHost Thanks.