![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Welcome!
Hello, Throwaway85, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on
my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
Falcon8765 (
talk)
06:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --
SineBot (
talk)
21:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
It's obvious from your contribution history (and your username perhaps as well) that you have been on Wikipedia before using this account. For transparency purposes, and to avoid the possibility of WP:SOCK issues, please clarify how you contributed previously. Thanks. Rd232 talk 20:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Nice work on the PIRA lede rewriting. Lot 49a talk 22:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
You're approaching dangerous territory at Cromwellian Trollquest's page. I'd advise staying FAR away from his ethnicity, or anything he could use to put together a WP:OUTING complaint. Otherwise, whatever. Someone has to beat them back under the bridge, right? -- King Öomie 02:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep up the good work chaps. btw I'm of mixed race (English / Jamaican) although I was born in England, and am 100% Loyal - but nice assumptions anyway. As for this bit "I would assume he is white, and a fairly classless sort, thus probably prone to racism" - you should be ashamed of yourself.
My sole intention of coming onto Wiki was to get a discussion going on deaths/injuries caused by the PIRA, which I've done with some success. The fact that i've managed to wind up a bunch of PIRA supporting scumbags, and a couple of middle class tossers like you two just makes the job a bit more enjoyable. Have fun Cromwellian Conquest ( talk) 11:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I just thought I should mention that the phrase you used on the PIRA article discussion page -"to call a spade a spade" - is probably best avoided as these days it can be construed as an ethnic slur, especially when used in a discussion with a person of color. I accept you meant no ethnic or racial slur, I just think you need to be more sensitive. Irvine22 ( talk) 00:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_call_a_spade_a_spade Irvine22 ( talk) 00:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Er, unfortunate timing - just after I temporarily blocked and topic banned him [1]. Rd232 talk 09:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Saved for posterity:
There has been a long-standing issue with Irvine22, primarily on the PIRA page, but also on others. Irvine22 has been confirmed as a puppetmaster for the purposes of block evasion, refused to acknowledge or apologize for the incident, and then began to implement a series of disruptive, POV edits without discussing the matter on the talk page. His edits have been almost universally reverted, and yet he continues to make them, after being told many times by many editors as well as one admin to raise issues on the talk page first. He shows no sign of ceasing this behaviour, nor will he acknowledge, much less address, any criticism of it. The page's resident admin, User:Rd232, suggested that I raise the matter on the ANI page if it continued, so that is what I am doing now.
Following is a small sampling of Irvine22's more recent edits. Note that I have only selected edits for which there was no consensus, that were later reverted. These also all occurred after his block and subsequent sockpuppetry. They also occurred after he was repeatedly told not to edit the article without first seeking consensus, or at the very least providing an adequate source.
The edits:
[2] This edit was reverted, and a new section started on the talk page. Instead of trying to reach a consensus, he restored the edit with the explanation "per discussion". It was not.
[4] This POV edit was reverted. Irvine22 restored it. It was reverted again. So he restored it again. It was reverted again and he was told to bring the matter up on the talk page. So he restored it again. And again. And again. Actually a quick glance at the page's history will show you the behaviour he regularly partakes in. I really wish I could link to more, but I simply don't have the time. Rest assured, there are dozens.
Talk page disruption begins
here
Irvine22 has also been dismissive of advice and instructions to change his editing habits, as can be seen here, and especially on the PIRA talk page, beginning here.
Note Irvine22's polite yet dismissive tone throughout all of this. He is almost pathologically incapable of acknowledging any wrongdoing on his part, or criticism of his actions. I am not sure if this is a deliberate attempt to game, or the result of some actual personality disorder for which he cannot be fully faulted.
I haven't the time to go digging through his edit history. I really wish I did. I will, however, link to this page on the PIRA talk page and invite further comments from the editors there.
Thank you for your time.
P.S. I apologize if this request is not in the correct category. It crosses several, and I didn't want to pigeonhole it as a 3rr issue, as the problem extends far beyond simple edit warring.
I have blocked you indefinitely for
this edit. Please feel free to submit an {{
unblock}}
request with an explanation of such.
Black Kite
22:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Throwaway85 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Seriously? I responded in a joking manner to an editor who had been blocked and was writing on my talk page. I highly doubt that there is any legitimate reason for an indefinite block. This seems pretty ridiculous to me. Especially seeing as it was a joke. On my own talk page. Seriously now, that's just silly. Throwaway85 ( talk) 00:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
In view of your comment below, "He makes retards look bad", I doubt that you understand the reason for this block. Continued disruption on this page may cause it to be protected from editing. Sandstein 07:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
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.
I have no idea what this unblock request form thing is. I'm going to take this to an admin I'm more familiar with. Throwaway85 ( talk) 00:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Can I also take the opportunity to point out the blatant gaming that's going on here? Irvine22, in his complaint, stated that he had informed me that he was a person of colour. At no point did he do so. Please, people. This guy is an idiot and a detrimental influence upon Wikipedia. For crying out loud, stop listening to him. He makes retards look bad. Yes, I said retard. Sue me. Throwaway85 ( talk) 05:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
If any other reviewing admin would like to remove or reduce this block, then please feel free to do so without contacting me. I am not going to do this myself, though, as the editor is clearly not being straight here - he was informed of the racist nature of the word in a conversation over a week ago which you can read above ( User_talk:Throwaway85#Sensitivity) where he clearly points out that he doesn't care if people are offended by his use of it. Black Kite 07:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I sincerely apologize to anyone who was upset by my use of the term 'spade'. Anyone, that is, except for Irvine22. I did not use it as a racial epithet; I used it as a general insult to get Irvine22 to go away. Once again, sorry to anyone who was offended. Won't do it again. More importantly, I will not acknowledge any supposed offense Irvine22 took to my statement. Put simply, he's lying. He is attempting, and so far succeeding, to game the system. That is all. Throwaway85 ( talk) 09:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
A user of this IP address was blocked by Black Kite for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Throwaway85". The reason given for Throwaway85's block is: "Personal attacks or harassment: [ http://en.wiki
This block has been set to expire: 09:31, 5 October 2009.
If people are honestly getting offended, shouldn't we honestly try not to cause them offense? Irvine22 (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
WHAT PEOPLE? Throwaway85 (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
The ones King Oomie mentioned, who may be honestly getting offended. Irvine22 (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Don't care. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
You would think that if he were black, or were himself offended, that he would have said "I, for one." He didn't though. He referred to some likely nonexistent people who would view the phrase "to call a spade a spade" to be a racial slur. I think it's equally obvious from that exchange that my "Don't care" comment was not a statement of not caring about people being offended, but rather about me not caring about imaginary people who would be offended by the phrase "to call a spade a spade". Seriously, this need not be anywhere near as big a deal as people are making it out to be. Throwaway85 ( talk) 21:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey, dude. Snowded has suggested at the ANI discussion that I might benefit from having a Wikipedia mentor. I tend to agree, and I wondered if you might agree to be my mentor? You have the experience, you're knowledgable in the areas I wish to edit, and I think it would be a true Wikipedian move to put these late personal issues behind us and work together. Also, I really don't disagree at all with your latest comment on the PIRA talk page. How about a test run to see whether we can work together on the narrow issue of PIRA activity since 2005? Sincerely. I don't need an answer right away. Think about it. Maybe sleep on it. Irvine22 ( talk) 18:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I have reblocked you, but for two weeks. You were informed that "spade" is a racist term. Your response was that you did not care. This is unacceptable. You may not know every racist term in every part of the world. So what? That is not the issue here. The issue is that another user educated you about a specific term, and you didn't care, and used it anyway. Here is some time off to learn your lesson. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|I believe that the blocking administrator acted in haste and without due consideration. I have already apologized for the incident and pledged not to repeat it. I have also stated quite clearly that no offense was intended. Furthermore, the editor who brought the issue to ANI did so, likely out of revenge for an earlier ANI request I made. Of all of the people who have edited alongside both myself and Irvine22, only BritishWatcher, with whom I have ongoing content disputes, believes that the comment was meant in a derogatory fashion. Everyone else has seen and identified it for the offhand, obscure comment that it was, and has pointed out repeatedly the gaming tendencies of Irvine22. Please read fully my talk page before adjudicating. Rd232, the administrator who has been working alongside Irvine22 and I, already reviewed the case and found there to be no racist intent. He would also be a good person to talk to for more background on the conflict in general.}}
{{
unblock|Per discussion at ANI, no racist intent, matter already dealt with there.}}
-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what I can say that hasn't already been said elsewhere on my talk page, but I will summarize as follows:
1. I have already apologized for and redacted the comment that I made, and have pledged to show more consideration in the future.
2. The comment was not intended as a racial epithet, but rather as a way of calling Irvine22 a troll and a disruptive editor. See both cases of my prior usage of the phrase "to call a spade a spade", and note that "spade", in both cases, was referring to a troll and disruptive editor.
3. I did not take Irvine22's assertion that the phrase was offensive seriously, as very little that Irvine22 says deserves to be taken seriously. He has a history of gaming, which this sordid affair is merely the latest chapter of. I took his comments as simply one more instance of him being obtuse and needlessly argumentative. I was happy when he was finally blocked, and dismayed when he turned up on my talk page. That is all there was behind the incident.
4. I highly doubt Irvine22 is even black. He certainly never claimed to be so, and his response to my asking who would be offended by the phrase "to call a spade a spade" was not "me", but some hypothetical person who might read it and get offended at the inclusion of a word that, in totally different contexts, used to be a racial slur. Hence my response of "Don't care": I was not saying that I didn't care about offending anyone, I was saying that I didn't care about his assertion that some hypothetical person might find an ordinary and commonplace saying offensive. Once again, I'm reasonably certain that this entire thing is just an attempt by Irvine22 to game the system and retaliate for the AN/I thread that I made concerning him earlier. This is an analysis that is shared by other editors and admins.
5. My interpretation of WP:WHEEL is that, once my block was overturned, it should not have been reinstated. Hence it currently stands in violation of Wikipedia policy.
6. As for my previous "racist remarks", there was nothing racist whatsoever about my tongue-in-cheek portrayal of Cromwellian Conquest, another banned troll. At no time did I use a slur or insinuate that there was anything wrong with being black or Pakistani. I was simply trying to rile up Cromwellian Conquest, who deserved every bit of it given his vitriolic edits. I have taken the feedback I've received to heart, and will now attempt to ignore trolls and deal with them through the proper channels.
7. I think it's quite telling that of all of the editors I have worked beside lately, including one admin, only BritishWatcher thinks that my remark was intended to be racist. Everyone else, who are far more familiar with the situation than the admin who blocked me or any of the others commenting on the AN/I thread, saw the comment as the flippant remark that it was. BritishWatcher and I have been on opposing sides of an ongoing content debate for some time, a dispute which has at times been heated. I bare him no ill will, however, as I believe he does think his complaints to be legitimate.
8. Note Irvine22's blatant attempts to game the system, clearly identified by Rd232. It is clear that he lied about telling me he was black, and I have a strong suspicion that he lying about that as well.
So far, both times that I have been blocked have been by administrators working from an incomplete picture of what happened. I have still not been able to address the AN/I report, or many of the misrepresentations therein. I do, however, have faith that reason will prevail here as the involved admins gain a fuller understanding of the issue.
Thank you, Throwaway85 ( talk) 00:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Hope somebody's monitoring this. As I was about to point out on AN/I before I was reblocked, I want to take the opportunity to apologize to rd232 for dragging him into this mess. I was simply confused as to why I was indef-blocked, and asked him to look at it because he's the only admin I know, and I hadn't been in this position before. I hardly see how contacting an admin and asking him to review the case constitutes block evasion. Certainly not the kind of block evasion that Irvine22 himself partook in. I want to make this very clear: While everyone's fussing over me, Irvine22, a confirmed disruptive editor, sockpuppeteer, and gamer, is succeeding in making everyone think he's a poor little victim. You simply can't take anything he says at face value, as he continues to demonstrate. I just want to make sure that anyone who reads something he says actually looks into it before believing him. Otherwise, I'm more than happy to let you guys hash things out. Throwaway85 ( talk) 01:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
"Hold on, I'm not sure that this matter is closed - I think the unblock was done under a misunderstanding of how the term spade was applied. I have been carefully reviewing the discussion at Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army and have determined that Throwaway85 had been interacting only with Irvine22 and BritishWatcher regarding the disputed addition to the article lead, and exclusively with Irvine22 when he made the "spade is a spade" comment. So when Irvine22 came to Throwaway85's talkpage and noted how the terminology might be misconstrued, the obvious inference was that he was speaking about himself or BritishWatcher and most likely about himself. I would also comment that Throwaway85's interactions with Irvine22 in that discussion had been aggressive and confrontational, refusing to discuss the premis of the dispute but instead focussing on Irvine22's sockpuppetry, and purported trolling and POV warring. Other persons in that talkpage discussion did engage over the dispute and bring it to an understanding, but Throwaway85 contributions were only adversarial comments toward Irvine22; it is therefore clear the only party Irvine22 was referring to was himself. Under the circumstances for Throwaway85 to then use the term "spade" (preceded by the adjective "fracking") in an aggressively dismissive comment directed to Irvine22 was to use it in a manner to hurt the sensitivities of the recipient. It remains the gratitious use of a racist epithet to insult another editor. I am disappointed that Throwaway85 was unblocked, over a technical "misunderstanding" fostered by the blocked editor of how the term spade was applied. I do not believe that Throwaway85 used the term in the manner he subsequently claimed he did. I invite others to consider whether in fact that the indef block should be re-applied until such time Throwaway85 apologises to Irvine22 for using a term regarding after being told by that same editor that it is considered racist. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 19:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)" Irvine22 ( talk) 01:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I would like to take the opportunity to respond, as best I can, to Slrubenstein's latest comments on the AN/I report. Numerous sins against the English language aside (Firefox has a built-in spellchecker. Seriously.), I still feel that his comments are based, not upon a full understanding of the issue and all discussions associated therewith, but rather upon a cursory examination of the AN/I page, which I was unable to contribute to. I simply cannot reconcile many of his statements with the discussion that has occurred on this page. Of course I recognize that using the word "spade" as a racial epithet is inexcusable. The same holds true for the term "bonobo". Is it a recognized slur? No. If it were used in that manner, would it be acceptable? Of course not. Anyone who had taken the time to come here, however, would realize that that was not how I used the term. Similarly, I both understand and have apologized for the offense that Irvine22 took to my comment. That too, is readily apparent from reading this page. I find it distressing that I was blocked by an administrator who apparently took no time to actually investigate the incident in question. My experiences with administrators regarding this issue have been varied, to say the least. Thankfully, there are those who prefer to take an even-handed, well thought-out approach. Throwaway85 ( talk) 09:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I've been using my involuntary staycation to do a little reading, and have been perusing the wikipedia policy pages. I recognize some undesirable behaviours listed there that I have been guilty of, and for that I am sorry. I recognize that my calling out of Irvine22 may not have been the most productive way of dealing with his behaviour, and will endeavor to be more civil in the future. Nonetheless, I find myself unsure as to what a better way of dealing with Irvine22 would have been. His behaviour was/is clearly unacceptable, and yet I don't know of a way in which I might have pointed that out without labeling him a disruptive editor. Troll might be a bit too strong, although he has displayed behaviours indicative of a master troll--this current saga being but the latest. Furthermore, he has proven incredibly intransigent in his editing behaviour. I honestly don't know of a better way to have dealt with him, and I'm open to other opinions. In the meantime, Irvine22, I do apologize for my incivility. Recognize, however, that this does not constitute acceptance of your behaviour or acquiescence to this current tribunal, which I still feel to be far more about trying to get revenge than about any supposed offense taken to my comment. I simply want to clear my own conscience and endeavor to improve myself as an editor. Throwaway85 ( talk) 03:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I greatly appreciate your contributions in this matter. However, I feel that I must request that you refrain from further comment. There have been some veiled insinuations of favouritism, and I would hate to see them gain traction. I know how these accusations can follow an administrator, and you don't deserve that drama. You put in a lot of hard work on the PIRA page, and gained a well-deserved reputation for rationality and impartiality. I would hate to see that jeopardized on my account. Some progress has been made in regards to the AN/I report, and I feel capable of handling it from here. Furthermore, if some issue were to arise in the future, I would be dismayed to find that any prior dealings we had would jeopardize its fair and rational resolution. So, for these reasons, I humbly ask that you refrain from further comment on this case. You are too good an administrator to have your impartiality prejudiced by these goings-on. Throwaway85 ( talk) 08:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I see that you are involved in a conflict with another user that has you very frustrated. This happens to al of us and I wish I could give you effective advice about ho to deal with that situation, but I can't, really. I want to make it clear that my blocking you had nothing to do with that conflict per se. I can even be sympathetic about mild personl attacks when things get frustrated (a voluntary cool-down period is usually a good idea at that point, but like i said, I do not mean to invlove myself in the specifics of anhy conflict you have with another user). The only reason I blocked you was (1) you directed a racist term to someone and (2) I read a lot of excuses, none in my book acceptable, to try to justify or rationalize using the term. Not knowing that the word is racist is a valid explanation (except, it is a little hard for me to understand why someone would call another person a spade if they did not know that it isa racist term ... if would be like my calling someone a marmoset, it sounds uttely arbitrary). My reading of the discusion is that you did not know, were then informed, and then nevertheless directed the word against someone. The only objective of my block is to give you time to reflect on this. My issue is not with the personal attack. It is with the use of a racist term. You may end up in other edit conflicts or conflicts with editors you consider obstinate or even disruptive, and you may then loose your cool, and make a personal attack. Okay, that is wrong, but most people do it sooner or later, and it may happen to you again. I just do not ant you (or anyone) to use racist terms. No matter how much we loose our cool, there is no excuse for racism. If you understand that, then I do not object to an unblock.
This is why: a racist term is not just an attack against one user, it is an attack against all members of that race as well as a disgusting display to anyone - regardless of race - who opposes racism. I really am asking you to separate this issue from your conflict with the other editor. I am asking you to consider this isue apart from the simple matter of personal attacks (i.e. an attack against one person). When one uses a racial epithet, one may believe one is hurting one specific individual, but the injury is actually against all other people of that race. I appreciate a lot of the above discussion. I need to read through it again more closely. I know you are sincerely trying to move beyond your dispute with one single editor, but I am alking about racism, not a dispute with one person. And I am not looking for a lengthy mea culpa. If you undefrstand that, upon being informed that a tem is racist, you won't use it at Wikipedia, that is enough for me. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I've unblocked you, for the following reasons:
1. Blocks are not to be punitive. 2. I strongly feel that the reblocking admin should not have blocked you without seeking consultation from the community and consensus, per WP:WW. It was precisely to avoid being accused of violating that policy that I undid my initial unblock and went to pains to seek community input, which unfortunately led to little fresh perspectives. 3. I see no likelihood that the situation will recur with this editor, regardless of the connotations of what he said. Thus, there is no harm to the community by allowing the unblock, and the editor is an established and valued contributor.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 11:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. I was wondering why the previous unblocks didn't work. Throwaway85 ( talk) 20:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I blocked you because of this, which came after you were informed that "spade" (just spade, not the phrase, "calling a spade a spade) is (emphasis on is) a racial slur. I found your response to Kuru defensive. "Spade" as a racial epithet is neither anachronistic nor obscure. I grant that anyone might not know that it is a racial slur which is why it is appropriate to inform one that it is before taking offense, and that is exactly what happened in your case - you used it after being informed. You can call ita joke, but it is not a joking matter. You can say it is on "your" talk page, but it is still wikispace. I have no intention of re-blocking you, but I am still disturbed by your defensive responde to Kuru which to me signlas a lack of either seriousness or understanding. An appropriate response was "I was attempting to make a joke but realize now that was wrong. I regret it, and appreciate your (Kuru) explanation." Had it ended there, with no defensive excuses, I would not have reblocked you. The fact is, for many, many people, including many wikipedians, readers of Wikipedia, and people we would wish to recruit as editors, "spade" (calling someone a spade, not using the phrase a spade is a spade) is an offence against an entire race. Ignorance is a valid excuse once. Now you know. I jus hope you do not use it again, and while your motives are your business, I hope it is because you sincerely do not wish to slur an entire race. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Welcome!
Hello, Throwaway85, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on
my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
Falcon8765 (
talk)
06:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --
SineBot (
talk)
21:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
It's obvious from your contribution history (and your username perhaps as well) that you have been on Wikipedia before using this account. For transparency purposes, and to avoid the possibility of WP:SOCK issues, please clarify how you contributed previously. Thanks. Rd232 talk 20:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Nice work on the PIRA lede rewriting. Lot 49a talk 22:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
You're approaching dangerous territory at Cromwellian Trollquest's page. I'd advise staying FAR away from his ethnicity, or anything he could use to put together a WP:OUTING complaint. Otherwise, whatever. Someone has to beat them back under the bridge, right? -- King Öomie 02:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep up the good work chaps. btw I'm of mixed race (English / Jamaican) although I was born in England, and am 100% Loyal - but nice assumptions anyway. As for this bit "I would assume he is white, and a fairly classless sort, thus probably prone to racism" - you should be ashamed of yourself.
My sole intention of coming onto Wiki was to get a discussion going on deaths/injuries caused by the PIRA, which I've done with some success. The fact that i've managed to wind up a bunch of PIRA supporting scumbags, and a couple of middle class tossers like you two just makes the job a bit more enjoyable. Have fun Cromwellian Conquest ( talk) 11:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I just thought I should mention that the phrase you used on the PIRA article discussion page -"to call a spade a spade" - is probably best avoided as these days it can be construed as an ethnic slur, especially when used in a discussion with a person of color. I accept you meant no ethnic or racial slur, I just think you need to be more sensitive. Irvine22 ( talk) 00:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_call_a_spade_a_spade Irvine22 ( talk) 00:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Er, unfortunate timing - just after I temporarily blocked and topic banned him [1]. Rd232 talk 09:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Saved for posterity:
There has been a long-standing issue with Irvine22, primarily on the PIRA page, but also on others. Irvine22 has been confirmed as a puppetmaster for the purposes of block evasion, refused to acknowledge or apologize for the incident, and then began to implement a series of disruptive, POV edits without discussing the matter on the talk page. His edits have been almost universally reverted, and yet he continues to make them, after being told many times by many editors as well as one admin to raise issues on the talk page first. He shows no sign of ceasing this behaviour, nor will he acknowledge, much less address, any criticism of it. The page's resident admin, User:Rd232, suggested that I raise the matter on the ANI page if it continued, so that is what I am doing now.
Following is a small sampling of Irvine22's more recent edits. Note that I have only selected edits for which there was no consensus, that were later reverted. These also all occurred after his block and subsequent sockpuppetry. They also occurred after he was repeatedly told not to edit the article without first seeking consensus, or at the very least providing an adequate source.
The edits:
[2] This edit was reverted, and a new section started on the talk page. Instead of trying to reach a consensus, he restored the edit with the explanation "per discussion". It was not.
[4] This POV edit was reverted. Irvine22 restored it. It was reverted again. So he restored it again. It was reverted again and he was told to bring the matter up on the talk page. So he restored it again. And again. And again. Actually a quick glance at the page's history will show you the behaviour he regularly partakes in. I really wish I could link to more, but I simply don't have the time. Rest assured, there are dozens.
Talk page disruption begins
here
Irvine22 has also been dismissive of advice and instructions to change his editing habits, as can be seen here, and especially on the PIRA talk page, beginning here.
Note Irvine22's polite yet dismissive tone throughout all of this. He is almost pathologically incapable of acknowledging any wrongdoing on his part, or criticism of his actions. I am not sure if this is a deliberate attempt to game, or the result of some actual personality disorder for which he cannot be fully faulted.
I haven't the time to go digging through his edit history. I really wish I did. I will, however, link to this page on the PIRA talk page and invite further comments from the editors there.
Thank you for your time.
P.S. I apologize if this request is not in the correct category. It crosses several, and I didn't want to pigeonhole it as a 3rr issue, as the problem extends far beyond simple edit warring.
I have blocked you indefinitely for
this edit. Please feel free to submit an {{
unblock}}
request with an explanation of such.
Black Kite
22:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Throwaway85 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Seriously? I responded in a joking manner to an editor who had been blocked and was writing on my talk page. I highly doubt that there is any legitimate reason for an indefinite block. This seems pretty ridiculous to me. Especially seeing as it was a joke. On my own talk page. Seriously now, that's just silly. Throwaway85 ( talk) 00:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
In view of your comment below, "He makes retards look bad", I doubt that you understand the reason for this block. Continued disruption on this page may cause it to be protected from editing. Sandstein 07:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
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.
I have no idea what this unblock request form thing is. I'm going to take this to an admin I'm more familiar with. Throwaway85 ( talk) 00:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Can I also take the opportunity to point out the blatant gaming that's going on here? Irvine22, in his complaint, stated that he had informed me that he was a person of colour. At no point did he do so. Please, people. This guy is an idiot and a detrimental influence upon Wikipedia. For crying out loud, stop listening to him. He makes retards look bad. Yes, I said retard. Sue me. Throwaway85 ( talk) 05:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
If any other reviewing admin would like to remove or reduce this block, then please feel free to do so without contacting me. I am not going to do this myself, though, as the editor is clearly not being straight here - he was informed of the racist nature of the word in a conversation over a week ago which you can read above ( User_talk:Throwaway85#Sensitivity) where he clearly points out that he doesn't care if people are offended by his use of it. Black Kite 07:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I sincerely apologize to anyone who was upset by my use of the term 'spade'. Anyone, that is, except for Irvine22. I did not use it as a racial epithet; I used it as a general insult to get Irvine22 to go away. Once again, sorry to anyone who was offended. Won't do it again. More importantly, I will not acknowledge any supposed offense Irvine22 took to my statement. Put simply, he's lying. He is attempting, and so far succeeding, to game the system. That is all. Throwaway85 ( talk) 09:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
A user of this IP address was blocked by Black Kite for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Throwaway85". The reason given for Throwaway85's block is: "Personal attacks or harassment: [ http://en.wiki
This block has been set to expire: 09:31, 5 October 2009.
If people are honestly getting offended, shouldn't we honestly try not to cause them offense? Irvine22 (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
WHAT PEOPLE? Throwaway85 (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
The ones King Oomie mentioned, who may be honestly getting offended. Irvine22 (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Don't care. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
You would think that if he were black, or were himself offended, that he would have said "I, for one." He didn't though. He referred to some likely nonexistent people who would view the phrase "to call a spade a spade" to be a racial slur. I think it's equally obvious from that exchange that my "Don't care" comment was not a statement of not caring about people being offended, but rather about me not caring about imaginary people who would be offended by the phrase "to call a spade a spade". Seriously, this need not be anywhere near as big a deal as people are making it out to be. Throwaway85 ( talk) 21:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey, dude. Snowded has suggested at the ANI discussion that I might benefit from having a Wikipedia mentor. I tend to agree, and I wondered if you might agree to be my mentor? You have the experience, you're knowledgable in the areas I wish to edit, and I think it would be a true Wikipedian move to put these late personal issues behind us and work together. Also, I really don't disagree at all with your latest comment on the PIRA talk page. How about a test run to see whether we can work together on the narrow issue of PIRA activity since 2005? Sincerely. I don't need an answer right away. Think about it. Maybe sleep on it. Irvine22 ( talk) 18:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I have reblocked you, but for two weeks. You were informed that "spade" is a racist term. Your response was that you did not care. This is unacceptable. You may not know every racist term in every part of the world. So what? That is not the issue here. The issue is that another user educated you about a specific term, and you didn't care, and used it anyway. Here is some time off to learn your lesson. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|I believe that the blocking administrator acted in haste and without due consideration. I have already apologized for the incident and pledged not to repeat it. I have also stated quite clearly that no offense was intended. Furthermore, the editor who brought the issue to ANI did so, likely out of revenge for an earlier ANI request I made. Of all of the people who have edited alongside both myself and Irvine22, only BritishWatcher, with whom I have ongoing content disputes, believes that the comment was meant in a derogatory fashion. Everyone else has seen and identified it for the offhand, obscure comment that it was, and has pointed out repeatedly the gaming tendencies of Irvine22. Please read fully my talk page before adjudicating. Rd232, the administrator who has been working alongside Irvine22 and I, already reviewed the case and found there to be no racist intent. He would also be a good person to talk to for more background on the conflict in general.}}
{{
unblock|Per discussion at ANI, no racist intent, matter already dealt with there.}}
-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what I can say that hasn't already been said elsewhere on my talk page, but I will summarize as follows:
1. I have already apologized for and redacted the comment that I made, and have pledged to show more consideration in the future.
2. The comment was not intended as a racial epithet, but rather as a way of calling Irvine22 a troll and a disruptive editor. See both cases of my prior usage of the phrase "to call a spade a spade", and note that "spade", in both cases, was referring to a troll and disruptive editor.
3. I did not take Irvine22's assertion that the phrase was offensive seriously, as very little that Irvine22 says deserves to be taken seriously. He has a history of gaming, which this sordid affair is merely the latest chapter of. I took his comments as simply one more instance of him being obtuse and needlessly argumentative. I was happy when he was finally blocked, and dismayed when he turned up on my talk page. That is all there was behind the incident.
4. I highly doubt Irvine22 is even black. He certainly never claimed to be so, and his response to my asking who would be offended by the phrase "to call a spade a spade" was not "me", but some hypothetical person who might read it and get offended at the inclusion of a word that, in totally different contexts, used to be a racial slur. Hence my response of "Don't care": I was not saying that I didn't care about offending anyone, I was saying that I didn't care about his assertion that some hypothetical person might find an ordinary and commonplace saying offensive. Once again, I'm reasonably certain that this entire thing is just an attempt by Irvine22 to game the system and retaliate for the AN/I thread that I made concerning him earlier. This is an analysis that is shared by other editors and admins.
5. My interpretation of WP:WHEEL is that, once my block was overturned, it should not have been reinstated. Hence it currently stands in violation of Wikipedia policy.
6. As for my previous "racist remarks", there was nothing racist whatsoever about my tongue-in-cheek portrayal of Cromwellian Conquest, another banned troll. At no time did I use a slur or insinuate that there was anything wrong with being black or Pakistani. I was simply trying to rile up Cromwellian Conquest, who deserved every bit of it given his vitriolic edits. I have taken the feedback I've received to heart, and will now attempt to ignore trolls and deal with them through the proper channels.
7. I think it's quite telling that of all of the editors I have worked beside lately, including one admin, only BritishWatcher thinks that my remark was intended to be racist. Everyone else, who are far more familiar with the situation than the admin who blocked me or any of the others commenting on the AN/I thread, saw the comment as the flippant remark that it was. BritishWatcher and I have been on opposing sides of an ongoing content debate for some time, a dispute which has at times been heated. I bare him no ill will, however, as I believe he does think his complaints to be legitimate.
8. Note Irvine22's blatant attempts to game the system, clearly identified by Rd232. It is clear that he lied about telling me he was black, and I have a strong suspicion that he lying about that as well.
So far, both times that I have been blocked have been by administrators working from an incomplete picture of what happened. I have still not been able to address the AN/I report, or many of the misrepresentations therein. I do, however, have faith that reason will prevail here as the involved admins gain a fuller understanding of the issue.
Thank you, Throwaway85 ( talk) 00:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Hope somebody's monitoring this. As I was about to point out on AN/I before I was reblocked, I want to take the opportunity to apologize to rd232 for dragging him into this mess. I was simply confused as to why I was indef-blocked, and asked him to look at it because he's the only admin I know, and I hadn't been in this position before. I hardly see how contacting an admin and asking him to review the case constitutes block evasion. Certainly not the kind of block evasion that Irvine22 himself partook in. I want to make this very clear: While everyone's fussing over me, Irvine22, a confirmed disruptive editor, sockpuppeteer, and gamer, is succeeding in making everyone think he's a poor little victim. You simply can't take anything he says at face value, as he continues to demonstrate. I just want to make sure that anyone who reads something he says actually looks into it before believing him. Otherwise, I'm more than happy to let you guys hash things out. Throwaway85 ( talk) 01:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
"Hold on, I'm not sure that this matter is closed - I think the unblock was done under a misunderstanding of how the term spade was applied. I have been carefully reviewing the discussion at Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army and have determined that Throwaway85 had been interacting only with Irvine22 and BritishWatcher regarding the disputed addition to the article lead, and exclusively with Irvine22 when he made the "spade is a spade" comment. So when Irvine22 came to Throwaway85's talkpage and noted how the terminology might be misconstrued, the obvious inference was that he was speaking about himself or BritishWatcher and most likely about himself. I would also comment that Throwaway85's interactions with Irvine22 in that discussion had been aggressive and confrontational, refusing to discuss the premis of the dispute but instead focussing on Irvine22's sockpuppetry, and purported trolling and POV warring. Other persons in that talkpage discussion did engage over the dispute and bring it to an understanding, but Throwaway85 contributions were only adversarial comments toward Irvine22; it is therefore clear the only party Irvine22 was referring to was himself. Under the circumstances for Throwaway85 to then use the term "spade" (preceded by the adjective "fracking") in an aggressively dismissive comment directed to Irvine22 was to use it in a manner to hurt the sensitivities of the recipient. It remains the gratitious use of a racist epithet to insult another editor. I am disappointed that Throwaway85 was unblocked, over a technical "misunderstanding" fostered by the blocked editor of how the term spade was applied. I do not believe that Throwaway85 used the term in the manner he subsequently claimed he did. I invite others to consider whether in fact that the indef block should be re-applied until such time Throwaway85 apologises to Irvine22 for using a term regarding after being told by that same editor that it is considered racist. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 19:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)" Irvine22 ( talk) 01:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I would like to take the opportunity to respond, as best I can, to Slrubenstein's latest comments on the AN/I report. Numerous sins against the English language aside (Firefox has a built-in spellchecker. Seriously.), I still feel that his comments are based, not upon a full understanding of the issue and all discussions associated therewith, but rather upon a cursory examination of the AN/I page, which I was unable to contribute to. I simply cannot reconcile many of his statements with the discussion that has occurred on this page. Of course I recognize that using the word "spade" as a racial epithet is inexcusable. The same holds true for the term "bonobo". Is it a recognized slur? No. If it were used in that manner, would it be acceptable? Of course not. Anyone who had taken the time to come here, however, would realize that that was not how I used the term. Similarly, I both understand and have apologized for the offense that Irvine22 took to my comment. That too, is readily apparent from reading this page. I find it distressing that I was blocked by an administrator who apparently took no time to actually investigate the incident in question. My experiences with administrators regarding this issue have been varied, to say the least. Thankfully, there are those who prefer to take an even-handed, well thought-out approach. Throwaway85 ( talk) 09:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I've been using my involuntary staycation to do a little reading, and have been perusing the wikipedia policy pages. I recognize some undesirable behaviours listed there that I have been guilty of, and for that I am sorry. I recognize that my calling out of Irvine22 may not have been the most productive way of dealing with his behaviour, and will endeavor to be more civil in the future. Nonetheless, I find myself unsure as to what a better way of dealing with Irvine22 would have been. His behaviour was/is clearly unacceptable, and yet I don't know of a way in which I might have pointed that out without labeling him a disruptive editor. Troll might be a bit too strong, although he has displayed behaviours indicative of a master troll--this current saga being but the latest. Furthermore, he has proven incredibly intransigent in his editing behaviour. I honestly don't know of a better way to have dealt with him, and I'm open to other opinions. In the meantime, Irvine22, I do apologize for my incivility. Recognize, however, that this does not constitute acceptance of your behaviour or acquiescence to this current tribunal, which I still feel to be far more about trying to get revenge than about any supposed offense taken to my comment. I simply want to clear my own conscience and endeavor to improve myself as an editor. Throwaway85 ( talk) 03:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I greatly appreciate your contributions in this matter. However, I feel that I must request that you refrain from further comment. There have been some veiled insinuations of favouritism, and I would hate to see them gain traction. I know how these accusations can follow an administrator, and you don't deserve that drama. You put in a lot of hard work on the PIRA page, and gained a well-deserved reputation for rationality and impartiality. I would hate to see that jeopardized on my account. Some progress has been made in regards to the AN/I report, and I feel capable of handling it from here. Furthermore, if some issue were to arise in the future, I would be dismayed to find that any prior dealings we had would jeopardize its fair and rational resolution. So, for these reasons, I humbly ask that you refrain from further comment on this case. You are too good an administrator to have your impartiality prejudiced by these goings-on. Throwaway85 ( talk) 08:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I see that you are involved in a conflict with another user that has you very frustrated. This happens to al of us and I wish I could give you effective advice about ho to deal with that situation, but I can't, really. I want to make it clear that my blocking you had nothing to do with that conflict per se. I can even be sympathetic about mild personl attacks when things get frustrated (a voluntary cool-down period is usually a good idea at that point, but like i said, I do not mean to invlove myself in the specifics of anhy conflict you have with another user). The only reason I blocked you was (1) you directed a racist term to someone and (2) I read a lot of excuses, none in my book acceptable, to try to justify or rationalize using the term. Not knowing that the word is racist is a valid explanation (except, it is a little hard for me to understand why someone would call another person a spade if they did not know that it isa racist term ... if would be like my calling someone a marmoset, it sounds uttely arbitrary). My reading of the discusion is that you did not know, were then informed, and then nevertheless directed the word against someone. The only objective of my block is to give you time to reflect on this. My issue is not with the personal attack. It is with the use of a racist term. You may end up in other edit conflicts or conflicts with editors you consider obstinate or even disruptive, and you may then loose your cool, and make a personal attack. Okay, that is wrong, but most people do it sooner or later, and it may happen to you again. I just do not ant you (or anyone) to use racist terms. No matter how much we loose our cool, there is no excuse for racism. If you understand that, then I do not object to an unblock.
This is why: a racist term is not just an attack against one user, it is an attack against all members of that race as well as a disgusting display to anyone - regardless of race - who opposes racism. I really am asking you to separate this issue from your conflict with the other editor. I am asking you to consider this isue apart from the simple matter of personal attacks (i.e. an attack against one person). When one uses a racial epithet, one may believe one is hurting one specific individual, but the injury is actually against all other people of that race. I appreciate a lot of the above discussion. I need to read through it again more closely. I know you are sincerely trying to move beyond your dispute with one single editor, but I am alking about racism, not a dispute with one person. And I am not looking for a lengthy mea culpa. If you undefrstand that, upon being informed that a tem is racist, you won't use it at Wikipedia, that is enough for me. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I've unblocked you, for the following reasons:
1. Blocks are not to be punitive. 2. I strongly feel that the reblocking admin should not have blocked you without seeking consultation from the community and consensus, per WP:WW. It was precisely to avoid being accused of violating that policy that I undid my initial unblock and went to pains to seek community input, which unfortunately led to little fresh perspectives. 3. I see no likelihood that the situation will recur with this editor, regardless of the connotations of what he said. Thus, there is no harm to the community by allowing the unblock, and the editor is an established and valued contributor.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 11:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. I was wondering why the previous unblocks didn't work. Throwaway85 ( talk) 20:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I blocked you because of this, which came after you were informed that "spade" (just spade, not the phrase, "calling a spade a spade) is (emphasis on is) a racial slur. I found your response to Kuru defensive. "Spade" as a racial epithet is neither anachronistic nor obscure. I grant that anyone might not know that it is a racial slur which is why it is appropriate to inform one that it is before taking offense, and that is exactly what happened in your case - you used it after being informed. You can call ita joke, but it is not a joking matter. You can say it is on "your" talk page, but it is still wikispace. I have no intention of re-blocking you, but I am still disturbed by your defensive responde to Kuru which to me signlas a lack of either seriousness or understanding. An appropriate response was "I was attempting to make a joke but realize now that was wrong. I regret it, and appreciate your (Kuru) explanation." Had it ended there, with no defensive excuses, I would not have reblocked you. The fact is, for many, many people, including many wikipedians, readers of Wikipedia, and people we would wish to recruit as editors, "spade" (calling someone a spade, not using the phrase a spade is a spade) is an offence against an entire race. Ignorance is a valid excuse once. Now you know. I jus hope you do not use it again, and while your motives are your business, I hope it is because you sincerely do not wish to slur an entire race. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)