Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Astrotrain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 22:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 16:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

User Astrotrain has been engaged in disruptive editing towards articles about Irish Republicanism and harassment of editors who create and edit such articles. He pushes an anti-Irish POV, he does not assume good faith, he abuses the speedy deletion and AfD processes, he fails to perform even basic research before proposing an article for deletion, and spends time unnecessarily disrupting articles preventing both him and other editors from improving the encyclopedia.

[edit] Desired outcome

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

I would like Astrotrain to stop his campaign of disruption against Irish Republicanism articles and members of the Irish Republicanism wikiproject, as he has made it clear that he does not believe such articles have a place at all on Wikipedia. I would welcome with open arms any constructive attempts by him to improve articles by the addition of content and/or sources or other improvements. For example Colombia Three looked like this when I first saw it, and with some help from Weggie it is now substantially better, any contributions of a similar nature from Astrotrain would not be a problem.

[edit] Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

Astrotrain does not believe articles about IRA members (or members of other Republican organisations) have a place on Wikipedia, and has repeatedly tried to delete articles about them. When proposing articles for deletion he does no research first, resulting in a number of controversial nominations. His nominations are clearly as a result of an anti-IRA bias, and he has repeatedly ignored notability guidelines. In contrast, he has made comments in AfDs for reality television stars !voting to keep with comments of "probably more famous than some of the other contestants. he is also fairly attractive" and "I had heard of her more than some of the other contestants who have their own page. Plus she only has one arm", as well as several other comments which have no relevance with regard to guidelines and policies. This was pointed out to him by an administator, and his reply was dismissive.

He has repeatedly tried to speedy delete articles, and in doing so falsely claimed an editor cannot remove the tags from articles they did not create. He performed no research before adding speedy delete tags, on one occasion he said an article could not be verified when a Google search returned a reliable source for all the information as the very first hit. Bernadette Sands McKevitt was one of his targets, and she is a very notable figure in the history of The Troubles. The article does need expanding, but some basic checking would have provided several sources which could be used to expand the article.

To the best of my knowledge only one IRA related article he has proposed for deletion has actually been deleted, with the exception of Bernadette Sands McKevitt which was speedy deleted then subsequently restored by the deleting admin. Obviously I do not know if any articles have been deleted by prod or speedy, but the overwhelming majority of articles he sent to AfD were not deleted.

He has also repeatedly redirected pages without discussion, on one occasion redirecting a page four times.

After being an informed by more than one administrator his attempts to delete articles about IRA members was disruptive, he took a step back for a while, although this may have been more to do with him being blocked at the time. Since then he has started disrupting numerous articles, applying policies and guidelines in an incorrect and disruptive way.

He described The Secret History of the IRA by Ed Moloney as an "IRA book", and cast doubt on its reliability. The book in question is not an IRA book as such, but a book about the IRA. Ed Moloney is a respected and unbiased author and journalist, and is described by Boston College as "a most trusted professional in the eyes of many of the more militant nationalists and unionists alike", and is therefore clearly a reliable source. The book is in print and all necessary information needed to obtain a copy was provided, yet he declined to obtain a copy and did not assume good faith that the book was being quoted properly. I feel that if he is unwilling to obtain a copy to check the information for himself he should assume good faith, as there is absolutely no requirement that the text of the book should be available online.

He removed information from Sean Murray (Irish republican) claiming WP:BLP as a reference link was dead. The reference was actually to a newspaper and included a publication date, so could be checked offline. Astrotrain does not understand that offline sources are perfectly reliable sources, as shown above. When it was pointed out to him that a source does not have to online to be a reliable source, he then changed tactics and claimed the source wasn't reliable to begin with.

Another example of his WP:BLP overzealousness was when he removed some information from Michael Dickson. This is a reasonably short article, yet has ten reference links. The information he removed could be sourced by one of the references provided. I feel that an editor should make an effort to source information before removing it, especially given the number of possible sources which were already linked to. Also his application of WP:BLP is highly selective, he !voted in an AfD for an article titled List of bankrupts which was entirely unsourced to keep it. Also his !voting means he had looked at the article, yet he failed to remove any information from it.

His use of policies and guidelines is inconsistent, the same level of zeal is not applied to other articles as it is to IRA related articles. I have yet to see a single edit on any other terrorist or paramilitary groups, be they Loyalist, Islamic, Neo-Nazi or any other ideology. It is clear by his many comments he is anti-IRA, and incapable of maintaining a neutral point of view. His ongoing disrption of IRA related articles and harassment of editors is not constructive, he even repeatedly tried to get my preparation page for this RfC deleted claiming it was an attack page, despite multiple administrators saying it was in no breach of guideline or policy.


[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

  1. [1] [2] [3] Repeatedly archives active talk page without replying.
  2. [4] [5] [6] [7] Incivil and/or inappropriate comments.
  3. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12][13][14]Claims the presence of the word "deletionist" on a project sub-page few people know exists or have reason to look at is a personal attack or incivil. [15] Even goes so far as to place a POV tag on the page.
  4. [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] !votes in AfDs with little or no regard for guidelines.
  5. [23] !voted to keep an unsourced list of people who had been declared bankrupt, this is at odds with his WP:BLP crackdown on Irish Republican articles.
  6. [24] [25] Removes a sourced quote claiming WP:BLP. The quote didn't really belong in there editorially, but claiming WP:BLP is false as it was fully sourced. [26] [27] Then repeatedly removes the amended version administrator Mel Etitis had created.
  7. [28] [29] Does not assume good faith about whether a book is being correctly used as a source.
  8. [30] Removes information claiming WP:BLP. The article had 10 sources, and a quick check of one of those easily provided the citation needed.[31]
  9. [32] [33] Adds unnecessary note about WP:BLP to a project page, the nature of which clearly indicates "I'm watching you".
  10. [34] Claims a reliable source was not neutral and could not be verified. The source in question was a book written by an unbiased journalist and author, that was cited properly including page number, author and ISBN number.
  11. [35] Removes information claiming WP:BLP as the link was dead, even though the citation was for a newspaper and included a publication date. [36] When it is pointed out the source is available offline changes tactics and claims the source wasn't reliable in the first place.
  12. [37] Removed Irish name of Thomas Murphy.
  13. [38] Claims a book written by an unbiased journalist is an "IRA book" and a quote from it cannot be verified.
  14. [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] Repeatedly tried to get my RfC preparation page deleted by claiming it was an attack page.
  15. [45] [46] [47] [48] Redirects page without discussion 4 times to 1981 Irish hunger strike.
  16. [49] [50] Redirects page without discussion twice to Shankill Road bombing.
  17. [51] Tries to speedy delete article, claiming "non notable IRA terrorist, none of the information can be verified". Google search returns a reliable source as the very first hit.
  18. [52] [53] Edit wars over the speedy deletion tag on the above article, falsely claiming Vintagekits can't remove it even though he didn't create the page.
  19. [54] After the above article has been expanded, adds the speedy deletion tag again to the page which clearly isn't a speedy candidate.
  20. [55] Sends the above article to AfD, not one !vote to delete apart from his nomination.
  21. [56] Tries to speedy delete stating "speedy delete- nn IRA terrorist- article is mainly about a bugging incident on Gerry Adams and very little info on him provided".
  22. [57] Tries (and initially succeeds) to speedy delete stating "speedy delete- nn sister of an IRA terrorist".
  23. [58] Tries to speedy delete stating "speedy delete- nn IRA terrorist-". [59] Then incorrectly states Vintagekits can't remove the tag.
  24. [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] Canvassing for AfD !votes for Diarmuid O'Neill.
  25. [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] Canvassing for AfD !votes for Raymond Gilmour.
  26. [72] Tries to speedy delete stating "speedy delete- nn IRA terrorist".
  27. [73] Sends above article to AfD. [74] Result was no consensus to delete.
  28. [75] Tries to speedy delete stating "speedy delete- nn IRA terrorist".
  29. [76] Sends above article to AfD. [77] Result was no consensus to delete.
  30. [78] Sends article to AfD stating "Another non notable alleged IRA terorist. Fails WP:BIO". Comments from Argyriou and Tyrenius show it is a bad faith nomination with no research done first. [79] Reply from Astrotrain clearly shows his motives.
  31. [80] Sends a fully sourced article to AfD. [81] States "Non notable criminal gang- no real evidence of existence. So called acts include assualt and armed robery, though no cites or referneces given to back this up. Basic criminal activity is not enough to become a notable terrorist organisation", despite the fact the sources were provided, which proved the group did exist. [82] Article was kept as speedy keep, due to a disruptive nomination.
  32. [83] Tried prodding article stating "propose deleteion- non notable and non verifiable- unlikely to ever become a proper article", current version of article is clearly sourced and verifiable and expanded.
  33. [84] Sent article to AfD. [85] Result was no consensus to delete.
  34. [86] !votes to delete Catriona Grant (non Irish article for the record). [87] Every other person to comment thought she was notable.
  35. [88] !votes to delete the new Wikiproject Irish Republican Army (which has since been renamed to just Irish Republicanism per this discussion) stating "An outlawed terrorist organisation should not be promoted on Wikipedia".
  36. [89] [90] [91] [92] Comments of "but Wikipedia is not a memorial site for terrorists", "add yet more IRA propoganda", "namely that Wikipedia is not the place to idol worship fallen IRA members" and "yet another non notable IRA member- Wikipedia is not an IRA memorial site" clearly show his motives.

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. WP:POINT
  2. WP:RS
  3. WP:BLP
  4. WP:DP
  5. WP:AGF
  6. WP:CANVAS
  7. WP:N
  8. WP:CIVIL
  9. WP:CSD
  10. WP:NPOV

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. [93]
  2. [94]
  3. [95]
  4. [96]
  5. [97]
  6. [98]
  7. [99]
  8. [100]
  9. [101]
  10. [102]
  11. [103]
  12. [104]
  13. [105]
  14. [106]
  15. [107]
  16. [108]
  17. [109]
  18. [110]
  19. [111]
  20. [112]
  21. [113]
  22. [114]
  23. [115]
  24. [116]
  25. [117]
  26. [118]
  27. [119]

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. One Night In Hackney303 22:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. --Vintagekits 23:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. The description of the dispute above seems fair. Astrotrain is indeed being disruptive, which is not incompatible with assuming good faith. Astrotrain should calm down and approach these things in a more measured and collegiate fashion. Guy (Help!) 23:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. I haven't been following this dispute for a while, but the behavior reported is consistent with what I saw when I got involved in a bunch of IRA AfDs. While Vintagekits has been perhaps overly enthusiastic in his belief in the notability of some minor IRA figures, and the reliability of partisan IRA sources, he's been far more willing to listen to neutral outsiders, and generally much more civil (in my experience) than Astrotrain or Astrotrain's supporters have been. Astrotrain has worn out my ability to assume good faith, based on his actions. Αργυριου (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment: your previous contribution to one of these debates has been to refer to User:Kittybrewster as a sockpuppet (in breach of WP:CIVIL). --Major Bonkers 11:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I admit I was wrong. Kittybrewster, and yourself, were acting as meatpuppets, not sockpuppets, in the tendentitious AfDs which Astrotrain started. Αργυριου (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
On the basis that you were wrong before, then, who is to say that you are right now? Is everyone who disagrees with you, even when you admit that you are wrong, a meatpuppet (I think you'll find that that is an incorrect use of the term), or perhaps the fault is that you do not understand how to behave properly?--Major Bonkers (talk) 10:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

This is just a bad faith RFC aimed at me after:

  1. I reported him to the Admin noticeboard for adding IRA to his signature. This acronym refers to a terrorist organisation that is banned in the United Kingdom, and most English speaking people would recognise it as such. Note that ONH refused to remove it after I contacted him on his talk page.[120]- he said on another page that would not change it just because I had asked him [121]. He then changed his signature to include 1916- presumably referring to the Easter Rising; and now uses 303- which I am led to believe refers to a rifle. The consensus on the noticeboard was overwhelming for ONH to remove the IRA addition from his signature. Many other users also object to the 1916 and 303 additions. Why would someone add these things to their signature? What does it tell you about their POV?
  2. WP:BLP violations were posted about Baroness Thatcher. I removed the derogatory text from Margaret Thatcher and Ivor Bell. Support was gained for this via the MT talk page [122] and the Admin noticeboard (reported here as ONH kept re-inseting it to Ivor Bell)[123]. ONH responded on the MT talk page with POV comments about the Baroness as if that justified derogatory remarks [124]. Why would someone continue to add derogatory remarks to Wikipedia when more than one editor expresses their view that it is a violation of WP:BLP?
  3. Objections to improvements to Wikipedia:WikiProject Irish Republican Army/Preparation. This is a project page where members of the IRA Wikiproject can add articles they are creating before transfer to the mainspace. It initially contained provocative and uncivil text referring to "deletionists. ONH consistently reverted my attempts at giving a more neutral description. He then moaned to Tyrenius on his talk page- although Tyrenius broadly agreed with my edits. ONH then revert warred when I expanded the new text to include WP:BLP. ONH belives I do not have a right to even look at this page. [125]. Why would someone reject a simple request to remove or alter text they believe to be offensive or uncivil? Why would someone not want BLP mentioned on this page when there has been so many BLP violations on Irish Republican articles?

Other comments

  1. I did not say Secret History of the IRA was an unreliable source- I said the text it was being referenced to was contradictory - ONH refused to discuss my concerns on the talk page (Talk:Ivor Bell). ONH has since removed maintenance tags from Ivor Bell added by another user who also felt that parts were confusing.
  2. IRA book- ie a book about the IRA- an accurate description of the said source.
  3. WP:BLP requires editors to remove unsafe information as in the Sean Murray (Irish republican) case- particularly if other editors wish to attribute criminal activity to him. Another editor agreed with this.
  4. BLP is an important policy for all biographies- but particularly when alleging criminal or terrorist activity. Note the case of Gerard Montgomery- where the article, talk page and AFD were blanked for containing libellous information added by a certain editor. See [126]. In this case, the article referenced sources that didn't even mention the man.
  5. Bernadette Sands McKevitt was speedily deleted by an admin after I tagged it- they obviously agreed that the if the only claim to notability is that she is sister of a terrorist fails to meet WP:BIO.
  6. The bulk of the articles nominated for AFD were "no consensus"- hardly a ringing endorsement for keeping them. I didn't even nominate most of them.
  7. The early closing of Óglaigh na hÉireann (CIRA splinter group) was disputed by several editors. Indeed I see it now has merge tags (it would probably have been merged if the AFD was kept open)
  8. AFD comments- sometimes a little humour is needed.

Overall, articles on Irish Republicans are to be welcomed- provided they meet WP:BIO and WP:BLP. However, too many of them are poorly written, use unreliable sources, or display an anti-British POV. Remember that the IRA is a banned terrorist organisation that has killed thousands of people. People are offended if a pro-IRA POV is displayed on such an important site as Wikipedia. It is not appropriate for Wikipedia to glorify members of terrorist organisations, and many of the IRA articles unfortunately do this. Some examples of offensive behaviour include: [127]- claiming the Omagh bombing where 29 civilians were killed was "not a terrorist attack"; and [128]- claiming a bomb attack on a bus full of women and children was not a terrorist attack.

I would advise ONH and his cronies to focus their energies on improving these articles to become reliably sourced, NPOV and non-contradictory. Astrotrain 20:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Astrotrain 20:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kittybrewster 21:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Fraslet 22:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Bastun 16:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

[edit] Outside view by User:Kittybrewster

I understand that ONiH thinks what and as he does but he and User:Vintagekits seem to me to have been stalking Astrotrain and not assuming good faith on Astrotrain's part. I understand that they have different views regarding notability - which is just fine. Recently ONiH has provocatively changed his signature, first to include the letters IRA after it [129], and later to put 1916 after it (in breach of POINT CIVIL and NPOV); he is now using 303 (presumably being something to do with rifling). I think he should lighten up a lot. Vintagekits has also threatened Astrotrain (and others) with being banned/ reported/ etc which is in itself in breach of WikiGuidelines. They are very much acting in consort/ concert (?) with each other. - Kittybrewster 23:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. This looks entirely like trying to silence someone so that they can push through their desired POV. There has certainly been much in the way of conspiring. Having said that I think everyone needs to calm down. Fraslet 00:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Having also been 'stalked' by User:Vintagekits who has a clear agenda of promoting the IRA and harassing anyone who disagrees with his POV this certainly has the look and feel of a conspiracy against Astrotrain who seems to be a fair and reasonable editor. --Gibnews 09:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Quite agree witht he above. Certain users, User:Vintagekits seems to be one, are intent on showing the IRA in a positive light, and proceeding to report anyone who gets in their way.--Counter-revolutionary 14:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Agreed and endorsed. I've noticed Astrotrain suffering from communications breakdowns in various talk pages, but I've also noticed that when approached in good faith, with arguments based on the facts rather than on personality, he is a reasonable and friendly editor. – Kieran T (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Bastun 16:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by User:jackyd101

I have to say I agree with a lot of what ONiH says above, Astrotrain has deliberately and systematically pushed a POV in a very crude and disruptive manner, as the log of edits above shows. However I do have add a qualification that this is a very contentious issue and Astrotrain is not the only user guilty of such behaviour (although he is the most prolific offender). Many of the articles he put up for Afs contained very little information at all at the time they were nominated, giving the impression of a lack of notability (although he should have been more cautious and less rude in nominating them) and this problem has been rectified with the establishment of a construction procedure at Wikiproject:Irish Republicanism to prevent this problem occurring again. I suggest he needs to be a bit more mature in his edits as his current behaviour is not condusive to a good atmosphere.--Jackyd101 02:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Endorse. One Night In Hackney303 17:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Endorse. --Barry entretien 22:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Endorse. --Panchurret 22:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Endorse.--Vintagekits 23:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by User:Setanta747

It seems to me that some of the accusations levelled at this user could be levelled also at the nominator and the second editor who to endorsed the request.

For example, it is claimed that Astrotrain pushes an "anti-Irish" POV. As a matter of fact, given that both the nominator and the second user who endorsed this request are members of a project that aims to promote information relating to Irish Republicanism — and specifically the Irish Republican Army — it might be just as easily suggested that those editors are engaged in pushing an "anti-Irish" POV, considering the many hundreds of Irish people that organisation has killed, and the thousands of Irish people that organisation has injured.

I could also point to one of the users having a penchant for adding his own anti-Irish, specifically anti-unionist, POV to several articles, and his co-ordinated campaign to disrupt Wikipedia by targetting areas of controversy and stirring up argument, along with another editor who has yet to appear here, which merely serves to detract editors from improving articles.

If it is true that the nominator has been signing his name with the addition of "IRA" etc as per Kittybrewster above, then this would obviously indicate support for that terrorist organisation, and therefore also both and anti-Irish POV and an anti-British POV.

Having said all that, I don't have any real experience of Astrotrain: I had seen one of his deletion nominations and I was about to vote against it until I saw the unanimous list of keep votes. I'm not generally a deletionist on Wikipedia. If some of the allegations made here against Astrotrain are true, then certainly something should be formally stated to him, in my opinion.

In closing, I would like to point out that just because Astrotrain may be anti-IRA, it doesn't follow that he's necessarily automatically anti-Irish, as the Statement of the dispute above appears to imply. -- Mal 12:14, 4 March 2007

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. I endorse that too, The IRA and its political arm Sinn Fein do not represent the opinion of the majority of Irish people otherwise they would be in Government. --Gibnews 15:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Endorsed. - Kittybrewster 19:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Endorsed. - Fraslet 19:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Endorsed. --Mais oui! 21:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Endorsed. Although I have noticed Astrotrain's political persuasions make him act unfairly in the past. He should try to be a bit more open to dialogue.--Burgas00 16:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Bastun 16:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Weggie 00:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by User:MrDarcy

I had visions of writing a longer view here, but real life got in the way, so I'll be brief. I apologize in advance that I can't be more thorough.

I believe that Astrotrain is a well-intentioned editor who can be a real asset to the project. He puts a lot of time into Wikipedia, has shown a willingness to find appropriate sources for his content, and is passionate about the subjects he edits. Unfortunately, that passion seems to spill over too often into behavior that doesn't fit with the way the project works.

I do believe that Astrotrain edits from too strong a POV, one that is at least anti-IRA and that is arguably anti-Ireland/pro-England. Regardless of how we characterize it, editing from any strong POV is problematic, as the project's NPOV policy is quite firm. Astrotrain's POV has led him astray when he's tried to use policies and procedures, notably Articles for deletion, to push that particular POV. In a series of regrettable AfD nominations, Astrotrain tried to delete articles on IRA members, using patently incorrect definitions of notability to call them "non notable," referring to their status as terrorists as a reason for deletion, and then canvassing to try to stack the votes. This last bit has led to some block-voting on a series of AfDs related to Ireland/England, which I think reduces the legitimacy of those votes.

Furthermore, Astrotrain has had issues with keeping his tone civil, especially when dealing with Vintagekits. When any of these violations are pointed out to him, he claims he's done nothing wrong and either tries to hide behind the assume good faith guideline or claims admin abuse or bias. When multiple admins tell you that what you're doing is inappropriate, it's time to reevaluate your own behavior, not to make personal attacks against them.

I don't think any resolution is required beyond a pledge from Astrotrain to try to moderate his tone in future dealings with other editors, and perhaps a promise to refrain from using deletion processes to push any particular POV. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Agreed. IrishGuy talk 02:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Astrotrain is a prolific editor (9000 edits) and I'm only aware of problems in the last few weeks. Tyrenius 03:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Astrotrain is an editor of robust views and frank opinions, with whom I have disagreed in the past, and will probably disagree in the future. As Tyrenius says, Astrotrain has done much for the project. The resolution Mr Darcy proposes is nothing exceptional; the same is expected of every editor. Seems fair enough then. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Major Bonkers

This squabbling arises not (as is alleged in the complaint) out of articles about Irish Republicanism but, more specifically, articles about members of the Provisional Irish Republican Army, a terrorist organisation. A large number of articles have been created giving rise to suspicions (which I share) of an attempt to list and memorialise such individuals: see, for example, this discussion. Further, these articles generally cite POV (Republican) sources (there is a discussion, currently left hanging, about the desirability of quoting such sources). It is these articles that One Night In Hackney and Vintagekits are actually referring to in their complaint.

In short, therefore: there are a number of linked articles, all of IRA members, citing POV sources. At their worst, these articles also include unsubstantiated claims, such as of extra-judicial killing: see here and here.

Astrotrain was the first editor to draw attention to the low quality of these articles, in terms of objectivity, POV citation, and lack of notability. In doing so, he stepped on the toes of those claiming ownership of the articles concerned and who were themselves POV editing. Astrotrain could, perhaps, have been a bit more diplomatic, but he is as much sinned against as sinning. With luck, the new Irish Republicanism wikiproject will serve both to improve the quality of these articles and reduce the scope for further conflict.

Admins MrDarcy (currently on wikibreak) and Tyrenius are aware of the nature of this dispute and its history.

Finally, I am surprised at the involvement of Vintagekits in seconding this RfC. He has previously attacked Astrotrain in January and was warned then to stop his attacks, and has also been found guilty in the past of using sockpuppets (but not, apparently, here). --Major Bonkers 15:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Yup, seems all very well put. There are plenty of useful ongoing debates about the issues involved here, as this summary draws to our attention. It will be productive for Wikipedia when we can all attend to them and move on from debating the editors. – Kieran T (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. 100%. - Kittybrewster (talk) 12:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. David Lauder 13:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Weggie 00:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Bill Reid | Talk 10:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.