The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning PainMan
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
@In actu: I guess it depends how you define "broadly construed". As the discretionary sanction in the case says it covers Irish nationalism in general. While The Troubles definitely started in the 1960s they can't really be seen in isolation. In the 20th century alone before the Troubles there was the 1916 Easter Rising, 1919-1921 Irish War of Independence, 1939-1940 S-Plan, 1942-1944 Northern campaign (Irish Republican Army) and 1956-1962 Border campaign (Irish Republican Army), and Irish opposition to British rule didn't start in the 20th century. I wouldn't object to this being closed with a clear message to PainMan as to the extent of the topic ban, if his edits are seen as a good faith mistake. FDW777 (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by PainMan
(Given the large amount of verbiage here, I hope going past the 500 word limit is acceptable; lot of ground to cover here.)
Apparently I stumbled in to a minefield completely unintentionally. I realize now what I should have done. I shouldn't have removed Taoseach (please forgive spelling errors) or Dail Eiriann. I should have added (Prime Minister of Ireland) and (Parliament of Ireland).
What I did not realize was this: On the other hand, edits such as translating common Irish terminology could be interpreted as pushing an anti-Irish/pro-British pov. It simply never occurred to me. So I guess that's on me. I had no intention of stirring up or participating in any sectarian nonsense.
If you could see my last name, you'd see that it's an ancient Celtic name that can be traced to 5th Century Ireland. My direct paternal ancestors left Dublin in 1845. Genetically I'm Scots-Irish and Catholic Irish. I am literally the biological product of the ancient struggle.
That having been said, I had NO agenda whatsoever other than simplifying reading the article for readers not steeped in Irish history. 99.999% of English readers couldn't tell the Irish name of the Prime Minister if ya held a gun to their heads. The term is obscure outside the island itself and the occasional BBC/British media story.
So I apparently caused a minor sh#tstorm unintentionally.
I object to the Topic Ban because it's utterly unwarranted. I am a VERY long time editor here. I have never vandalized or defaced a page. I've made a strenuous attempts to avoid getting into Revert Wars or other kinds of controversy. I had some negative experiences when I first started on Wikipedia. Encountering the people I call Page Commandos; they sit on the page like Spanish Inquisitors waiting to pounce. That's not what wikipedia is about for me so I rarely involve myself in it.
I don't really want to push it any further than that. To conclude it was never my intention to start a crap storm - let alone about a subject as contentious, tendentious and fractious as The Troubles (or the last 300 years of Irish history in general)
Most harmless, and indeed useful, e.g. adding wikilinks etc.
I've made thousands of edits by now, 95% of them involved no changes in facts, but correcting typos, grammar and rewriting badly written sentences and sections. I gave several articles on Chilean history this treatment; they'd been clearly written by a non-native speaker and it showed. I was even thanked by two people for my efforts.
I love wikipedia and I want to make it as good as it can be.
I have no interest in ridiculous social media wars.
And although not relevant to the scope of the request—but for the record—it's my opinion that PainMan's repeated refusal to comment here is damned rude if nothing else.
Rudeness wasn't my intention; it was ignorance of the process. So I apologize for giving the impression of rudeness.
Since I've never been involved in the complaint/appeal process (whatever the formal name), I honestly didn't know where I was supposed to reply. One place I did so I found my contribution reverted into deletion.
I hope this entry isn't in the wrong place either.
To recap, I regret my part in causing this nonsensical affair. And I hope the heartburn doesn't linger.
Addendum
1.) Ok, waded through every entry. Some of this seems to fall under, to put politely, arcana.
when I changed the phrasing to the The Earle Erne that's because that's his proper title. He's not the Earl of Erne. To refer to him as "Earl Erne" would indicate - in Peerage Protocol - that it is a courtesy title and thus not the substantive title. I changed it and added the link to the 3rd Earl's article. Absent his connection with the land agent in question, the 3rd Earl would most likely be totally obscure. Thus printing his exact identity seemed superfluous. I am frankly baffled why this would be reverted unless it was just a case of being angry with me over the whole silly situation.
Finally - I apologize for causing a big ruckus. Was never my intention. I should have engaged with the editor who did the first reversion. Getting my back up as if it were a Face Book argument was dumb on my part. Getting in a revert was was also stupid. I avoided it for years. Don't know why I decided to do over this. None-the-less, I own my part of the dispute and following, ah, trouble.
2.) I feel that I am a positive asset to Wikipedia and I've added much of value to it. This includes three articles I authored (Ferrant Martinez and the Agri Decumates). I accept the nickname WikiGnome. It seems to fit my modus operandi.
3.) Also, please refer to me as "he/him." The utterly incorrect use of the third person plural for a singular, genderless pronoun triggers my Grammar OCD like nothing else.
4.) I have a lot of trouble with the mobile app despite uninstalling/reinstalling multiple time. I've seen exactly ONE notification from an admin. Also, routinely, despite telling me "EDIT PUBLISHED" it often doesn't not show up despite many reloadings of the page.
Wrt to the nature of the edits. Most harmless, and indeed useful, e.g. adding wikilinks etc. On the other hand, edits such as translating common Irish terminology could be interpreted as pushing an anti-Irish/pro-British pov, which is very much at the core of DS:THE TROUBLES. As we know, PainMan holds strong views on things Troubles-related (and language is very much at the forefront of the ideological struggle, on both sides). So on the one hand, they are clearly capable of making helpful and useful edits, but on the other hand allow themselves to drift close to the TBan. the former is to be encouraged, the latter of course discouraged; can the TBan be tweaked (not necessarilly expanded a great deal) to encourage the fomer and act as a deterence from the latter?Easier said than done, I know; perhaps just add Irish language to the scope?And although not relevant to the scope of the request—but for the record—it's my opinion that PainMan's repeated refusal to comment here is damned rude if nothing else. ——SN5412914:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This report was filed on Mar 19 based on four diffs. Diff #1 changed the incorrect plural "were" to the correct singular "was", in an article about a guy who died in 1848, over 100 years before The Troubles began. Diff #2, in the same article, changed the incorrect statement "The grand jury was called on to find against" to "The grand jury was called on to indict" (grand juries "indict", meaning they find there's enough grounds for a trial to proceed; grand juries do not make "findings against" the accused, so this is changing incorrect verbiage to correct verbiage). Diff #3 changed the beginning of a sentence from "1848..." to "The year 1848..." in accordance with MOS:NUMNOTES, in an article about an event in 1848. Diff #4 was piping a redirect in an article about an event that occurred in 1879–1923. These are all constructive edits, outside the TBAN topic, and for this reason, this report should have been closed as "no violation" on the day it was filed.
The "Taoiseach (prime minister)" edit (Diff #6) happened on Mar 21, after this report was filed. This edit is not the same as the edits for which PainMan was TBANed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive262#PainMan. That report was based on edits where PM was piping "[[Taoiseach]]" as "[[Taoiseach|prime minister]]", which, for the reader, changes "Taoiseach" to "prime minister". By contrast, the Mar 21 edit adds "(prime minister)" after "Taoiseach". It does not replace "Taoiseach". Also, PM did not edit war over this. The other Mar 21 edit (Diff #5) also adds an English explanation of an Irish term, but does not replace that term, and there was no edit warring. Neither of the Mar 21 edits were on articles within the scope of the TBAN. So, no violation in the Mar 21 edits, either.
There is no violation in any diffs presented in this report.
Also, there is no rule requiring an editor to participate in an AE report against them, so it wouldn't be kosher to sanction an editor for "ignoring" an AE report, especially if the report is based on diffs of constructive edits outside the TBAN topic.
Finally, does PainMan have an IDHT problem? Does he continue to make the same types of edits, in the same topic area, that led to the TBAN? NO! The editor is making different edits, which are constructive, to articles outside the Troubles. Compliance with a TBAN cannot be a violation of the TBAN!
I understand the filer's explanation that they thought those edits were within the TBAN topic, but they weren't. "The Troubles" is a 20th-century event, and PM isn't TBANed from everything Irish. As such, this report should be closed now as no violation. Levivich[dubious – discuss]19:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Girth Summit: FWIW, I searched for "Taoiseach" and checked three articles each from NYT, WaPo, WSJ, Economist, Hindu Times, Times of India, and CBC.CA, and every time they use it, they all also say "prime minister", usually in the forms "Taoiseach (prime minister)" or "Taoiseach, or prime minister" or "the prime minister, known as the Taoiseach", or something like that. I also looked at UK publications (BBC, Guardian, Independent, Irish Times) and saw that they don't do that, they just say "Taoiseach". This seems to be an inside-UK/outside-UK difference. (I searched Google News for, e.g., site:nytimes.com taoiseach and clicked on the first three results.)
Also wanted to note more generally that while there is local consensus on the MOS:IRELAND talk page, that's just local consensus, not the subject of an RFC or any other advertised discussion. Some editors commenting there didn't seem to believe that the word "Taoiseach" is not well known outside of the UK, but I think the RSes outside the UK substantiate that by explaining that Taoiseach is "prime minister" whenever they use that term. My guess is that if there were a full-blown RFC about whether we should explain in articles that Taoiseach means prime minister (or even use the term "prime minister" instead of the local-language title "Taoiseach", which is what we do for like every other country in the world), there would be support for one or the other.
Final note that I left a message on PainMan's talk page encouraging him to comment here. Because he only edits on mobile, he may not see the message for some time (note there's about a one-week delay in this editor responding to other messages in the past). Levivich[dubious – discuss]18:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Girth Summit: *inside/outside-UK-and-Ireland, my mistake :-) I hear what you're saying about this being a political dogwhistle. Can you clue a clueless American in: if I call the Taoiseach the "Prime Minister" that means (bad faith version) what, exactly? That I think Ireland should not be an independent country? Is there an article about this or something I can read? I'm definitely completely ignorant of the political ramifications of using the term. Also, do the same political ramifications apply to the change in Diff #5 (calling the Dáil Éireann "Irish parliament")? Levivich[dubious – discuss]19:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If this report is closed with a warning ... a warning from what? "Do not add '(prime minister)' after 'Taoiseach'"? "Do not correct grammar on 19th-century Irish articles"? Obviously not. So... what are we warning him about? May I suggest a WP:NOTBURO and WP:COMMONSENSE approach? PM only got TBANed last time because he didn't participate. If he had posted what he just posted on the last report, no way that would have ended in a TBAN. Editors don't normally get TBANed for first-time edit wars. So I suggest that what happens is that this report gets considered to be the continuation of the last report, and it gets closed as follows: (1) lift the TBAN from The Troubles, since that topic area isn't germane to the problems at hand; and (2) close with a warning for the actual mistakes: (a) don't edit war, engage in discussion and dispute resolution instead, and (b) remember to be civil and collegial in edit summaries and communications with colleagues. That's really how the last report should have ended, and this report should not have been brought, so let's just set everything in its right place and move forward. Levivich[dubious – discuss]04:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Sir Joseph
The only question that you have to ask is if the edits are a violation of the TBAN. It's clear that consensus is that the edits aren't. So it seems rather unfair and out of scope to now seek to expand a TBAN for edits that were never in TBAN territory. And that should be the end of this AE action. Sir Joseph(talk)21:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@QEDK:If someone is TBANNED from India and they edit Pakistan that is not a violation of their TBAN. If one would say that is, then I can argue any article on Wikipedia is a violation of a TBAN because I can guarantee you I can connect any article to any subject broadly construed. "Broadly construed" is not some sort of magic wand we should use to ban people from this encyclopedia. "The Troubles" doesn't mean any article about Ireland and the UK, especially when the edits are not disruptive. Further, I stand by my claim that we should not be using AE to expand TBANs. If anything, this is an editing or content dispute and they can use the talk page or other noticeboards, but not AE. Sir Joseph(talk)22:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just point out that RS in the English speaking world does not use the term Taoiseach but uses Prime Minister? I find it hard to sanction someone who is adding (PM) after a term that most people will most likely not be familiar with. Sir Joseph(talk)16:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Girth Summit:there are over 2 billion English speakers in the world, the majority of whom don't live in Ireland or the UK. I just did a quick Google search of several US news sources and sites and the overwhelming majority use "PM" and don't use Taoiseach. In addition, my browser, redlines the word when I type it in, so it is not part of the English language where I am. Adding XXX (PM) after the word should be encouraged, not punished if we are not putting the page at "Prime Minister of Ireland" as we do for every other country. Sir Joseph(talk)17:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Girth Summit
Just a note in response to Sir Joseph's assertion that RS in the English speaking world does not use the term Taoiseach but uses Prime Minister. I found that jarring, since my impression from listening to BBC Radio's Today program every morning is that they generally use Taoiseach. Quick bit of Googling - the BBC News website generally use Taoiseach, followed by an explanatory '(Prime Minister)'; the Guardian (left-leaning) and Telegraph (right-leaning) both seem to just use Taoiseach without explanatory parenthesis. It might be different in the US, but I don't think that assertion about the norms in the English speaking world is correct. GirthSummit (blether)16:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sir Joseph, perhaps I misunderstood you - I read your comment to mean that all RS in the English-speaking world don't use it; if you meant that some RS in the English-speaking world don't use it, then I am happy to accept that. I'm just very aware that the choice of word, in this neck of the woods at least, can be politicised - yes, adding PM could be done innocently by someone in the hopes of making it easier for the reader; I assure you that it is also the sort of thing that a certain sort of person would do to make a political point under the guise of making things easier for the reader. I am not saying that's what is happening here, I don't know enough about the history of the editors involved, but just something that people should be aware of. GirthSummit (blether)17:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich I hear what you're saying, and I want to be clear that I am not arguing for (or against) sanctions here - I'm just trying to provide a bit of context. I am entirely happy to accept that this is an inside-UK-and-Ireland/outside-UK-and-Ireland thing. However, this is a UK and Ireland issue - if someone were to be making political points around this thing, it would obviously be people within the British and Irish political spheres that they would be targeting them at - the sort of language used in that region is at least as relevant, potentially more-so, than that used elsewhere. I wholeheartedly believe that someone who knows nothing about the politics of this could come along, read the word 'taoiseach', and in good faith add an explanatory parenthesis after it. There are also people with a particular view on The Troubles who would do exactly the same thing to further an agenda, or even to troll people on the other side. Those are two extremes, and I'm sure that the majority of people, even in this part of the world, would fall between them. All I'm trying to do here is explain that the choice of which word to use, at least from a British/Irish perspective, is not politically neutral. GirthSummit (blether)19:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich OK, well I don't pretend to be super-clued-up on this myself, so I can't point you to lots of readings or RSs. So, let me put it this way - the UK and Ireland have something of a troubled history, and Ireland has made a decision to use Irish words, rather than the language of the country that ruled them for several centuries, to describe roles in their government such as the head of government, the parliament, etc. The British press have mostly picked up on the sensitivity surrounding this, and use the same language that is used in Irish sources. The British public (I count myself amongst them - I'm Scottish, of largely English descent, and can claim only a very little Irish heritage (like, three generations back)) have largely become used to this language - as evidenced by those British broadsheets using the term without feeling the need to explain it - it all feeds into the ongoing peace process. Now, if an American, or Indian, or Australian editor were to decide to add an explanatory parenthesis after the word taoiseach, I wouldn't think for a moment that there was anything more to it than that. I wouldn't necessarily be uncomfortable with an English, or Irish, or Northern Irish editor doing it - I mean, we write for a global audience, I accept that it's not OK to assume they will all be familiar with British nuance of language. But here's the rub - if a person with a decided POV on The Troubles wanted to find a way to make a point, changing language like this might achieve that end. Make no mistake - I am not looking to cast aspersions about this particular editor, I'm doing my best to explain why edits like this make some people feel uncomfortable - but issues around language are central to people's identity, and we should aim to tread as carefully here as we do around issues of gender identity and the like. GirthSummit (blether)20:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by The Big Bad Wolfowitz
This should be treated as a straightforward case with no action against PainMan being appropriate. The Arbitration Committee's ruling treated The Troubles, a late-20th dispute as a subject distinct from more general ones, even though it authorized discretionary sanctions in all three areas. The sanctions placed against PainMan expressly applied only to The Troubles. It would have been extremely simple for the admin placing the sanctions to quote the broader language found in the ArbCom ruling. Painman is entitled to rely on the unambiguous language of the sanction, to believe that the sanctioning admin meant what they said. Imposing a penalty on him for nondisruptive edits which did not violate the clear terms of the sanction placed on him would be unfair. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Buffs
Swarm and The Big Bad Wolfowitz summed it up nicely. The idea that "broadly construed" in ArbCom decisions is somehow helpful is absurd. Anyone can claim that MANY articles are "broadly construed". I was once blocked based on an admin saying that anything having to do with America that was contentious in any way was eligible for discretionary sanctions under American Politics. "Broadly construed" so grey that someone should at LEAST receive a warning prior to a block and be allowed to challenge that assessment prior to being blocked.
This is so vague that borders need to be more clearly defined. I'm not seeing any disruptive behavior here (disagreement is NOT necessarily disruption) nor a violation of the TBAN. Buffs (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Username
Result concerning PainMan
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
I realize it may be contentious whether these articles fall under "The Troubles, broadly construed" so I'll leave this for more comments, but in my opinion each of these edits is a clear violation of the topic ban and an AE block of no less than one month is warranted.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Partially struck. Not linked above AFAIK but the ban discussion is here. The pages presented as evidence of disruptive editing were Operation Flavius, Battle of the Bogside, Ulster Volunteer Force, Ulster Defence Association, Ulster Special Constabulary, and ETA (separatist group). All but the last of these fall within the scope of the ban as worded, and the last would not even if the scope were expanded. The disruptive behaviour was repeatedly changing "Taoiseach" to "Prime Minister of Ireland" (or variations) against consensus, and edit warring, across all of the articles. Since the topic ban PainMan has evidently respected it despite a series of outbursts on 9 March ([1], [2], [3]) and again yesterday ([4], [5], [6]). The pages they've edited since do not fall under that scope per other comments here, and they don't seem to be repeating the same disruptive behaviour, so I don't see the benefit of extending the topic ban and do not support it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC) (edited 19:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC))[reply]
I think this is purposeful skirting of the ban conditions by editing topics which are contentious and related to the topic area, just not directly, although one can easily say: The Troubles -> irish nationalism, hence construed. I see two options here: 1) extend the ban to the entire remedy area of TT (found in the case) which includes British and Irish nationalism (et al.), and 2) AE block. I say the edits definitely violate the spirit of the TBAN, and maybe also its letter. --qedk (t心c)13:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sir Joseph No such consensus as the one you stated has been established, it's not difficult to construe a connection to The Troubles, albeit it's a bit far. If an editor is TBANed from editing articles related to India, broadly construed and goes to edit Pakistan, would you classify that as a violation of the topic ban or not? There can be differing perspectives and this is one such case. --qedk (t愛c)22:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sir Joseph: Hence, the term "broadly construed". Pakistan was a part of the Indian empire, had Indian founders, always had a cultural and social similarity with India as well as consistently opposing views in world politics where their actions depend on the other country. It's still very much intertwined with the topic of India, you would disagree but a lot of editors wouldn't, hence my example. --qedk (t愛c)05:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To me, The Troubles started in the 1960s. So, the edits are not within the bounds of the topic ban. However, they weren't a great idea. I would extend the topic ban to all of Irish nationalism and not block --In actu (Guerillero)Parlez Moi15:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This looks to me to be clearly against the spirit of the topic ban, but not the letter of it. Accordingly I think the topic ban should be extended to match the extent of the DS authorisation (The Troubles, Irish nationalism and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed) with a warning to PainMan that any further boundary testing will result in sanctions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to our own article on the subject, The Troubles (Irish: Na Trioblóidí) were an ethno-nationalist[13][14][15][16] conflict in Northern Ireland during the late 20th century (emphasis added). I do not see these edits as violations, though I agree they're skirting rather close. Given that they were not apparently contentious or any type of misconduct, I would not extend the topic ban based upon them, but I would certainly warn PainMan that there will be no hesitation to do so if there's any trouble.SeraphimbladeTalk to me16:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The text of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles #Standard discretionary sanctions separately names three areas: "all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed." So I concede that the sanction applied on 1 March 2020, "You are indefinitely topic-banned from making edits relating to The Troubles, broadly construed" doesn't strictly cover the other areas, although that may have been the admin's intention, and certain the spirit of the restriction, as Thryduulf so clearly reasons. I agree that an explicit extension of the topic ban to "You are indefinitely topic-banned from making edits relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed" would be a reasonable response to this request. That should then solve the issue one way or another. --RexxS (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I intentionally narrowed it (agreeing with the consensus formed and my own judgement) with the implied expectation that they would cease making contentious edits in the entire topic area. Apart from this, PainMan does not seem to understand that communication is required, the last time they did not participate in the AE request, then went to edit AE archives after their sanction to add a statement (which comes to me as a lack of WP:CIR), and for some reason, went to debate the sanction on Thryduulf's TP even though I was the sanctioning administrator (again, WP:CIR). Their justification last time was that they do not get talk page message notifications on their phone, which even if makes sense, talk page message notifs are also sent to emails and you can still access your talk page if not notified, it's a general expectation to do so. The template {{Userlinks}} also notifies editors on the mobile interface (correct me if I'm wrong). And yet again, PainMan has not participated in this AE request. --qedk (t心c)10:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@QEDK: I've just tested in my sandbox, and the {{userlinks}} template does generate pings if the edit adding it is signed. Notifications on the mobile web interface work as they do on desktop. On the Android app you have to explicitly look to see if you have notifications (which can only be done when viewing the main page I believe), but when you do look you do see notifications of pings and talk page messages (I presume the iOS app works similarly but I don't have any way of testing that). Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, struck. On a technical note, the mobile advanced web interface and the mobile desktop version both show notifications by the way. --qedk (t心c)13:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've just looked at their contributions list, and it seems they only edit using the Android app so we can't be certain they've seen the notifications or talk page messages. They do not have an email set so that option isn't available, and I'm not certain what else we can do? Thryduulf (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly looking that way. I'll be generous and give them another ~8 hours but if there is no response by then I'll be closing this with the extended topic ban. Thryduulf (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've never commented in one of these things before but I think it's also worth considering these edits to Charles Boycott, another topic related to Irish nationalism, which I just reverted because I saw them as mostly detrimental. I don't want to get any further involved though ... I only have that article on my watchlist because I found his life story fascinating. Feel free to move this comment if it's in the wrong place. Graham8705:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really see these edits as disruptive? In one instance they changed "Boycott worked as a land agent for Lord Erne (John Crichton, 3rd Earl Erne), a landowner in the Lough Mask area" to "Boycott worked as a land agent for the the Earl Erne, a landowner in the Lough Mask area". The revision has an extra "the" but otherwise removing the awkward parenthetical seems like a reasonable improvement to me. You reverted stating "makes the text more stilted" but I think the reverse is true. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Graham says he saw them as "detrimental", not "disruptive". You have to remember not every English speaker shares the same idiomatic usages, and the phrase "a land agent for the Earl Erne" sounds archaic to me. Graham, who is Australian, might well find that a very odd use of a definite article. You wouldn't write "a land agent for the King George". Taking into account the overlinking, I have to agree with Graham that those edits were not an improvement to the article, and don't improve my confidence that PainMan's contributions outside of the strict range of their current topic ban are likely to be a net positive. --RexxS (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While The Troubles discretionary sanctions are authorized so that they can be expanded beyond The Troubles, the relevant sanction here was not, the edits here do not violate the ban, even "broadly construed", nor do I see them as disruptive enough (or at all) to justify expanding the scope of the ban, even though we can. There is no violation here. ~Swarm~{sting}05:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Swarm: even though they are repeating nearly the exact sort of edits that initially got them topic banned in the first place (most recent diffs) you really don't see this as at all disruptive? Thryduulf (talk) 10:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, to be honest, I don't see how the edits themselves are inherently disruptive or problematic. If they are, it's not obviously apparent to me. Can you explain what's actually wrong with them? I'm not seeing it. ~Swarm~{sting}00:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the last two diffs are enough to warrant expanding the topic ban to "The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed". These edits are identical to some which prompted the topic ban being imposed in the first place, only on different pages. There is a widespread consensus that the use of these words is OK (e.g. here) which means that continuing to make these changes without discussion is disruptive. I agree that the other diffs don't reasonably relate to the Troubles, our article describes the Troubles as starting in the 1960s and nineteenth century history doesn't count. Just as a topic ban from the American Civil War wouldn't cover the entire history of race relations in the US. Hut 8.508:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We need to do something here, in any case. So unless there are any strong objections, it seems the general (though not unanimous) consensus here is to expand the topic ban accordingly. I'll leave this open for a bit to hear any objections, but otherwise will close with that result. SeraphimbladeTalk to me15:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Woah, woah, woah. We need to do something? Why? I mean I may still be missing something, but I'm honestly not seeing what behavior warrants expanding the sanctions. The diffs were reported as violations of the existing topic ban, and it has subsequently been established that they are not in scope. The secondary consideration is then whether the edits were disruptive on their own merits. Looking at the diffs I literally can't comprehend how anyone could say they are, even in the context of the past disruption. The user was sanctioned for making a contested edit and then engaging in an extreme edit war over it, and then he did not defend himself at AE. I get that. A fairly acute violation, but I get it. But none of the diffs are continuing that behavior. In fact, he's straightforwardly avoiding repeating the edit that got him into trouble. This report literally appears to be erroneous, based on a misunderstanding of the sanctions. None of the diffs are problematic on their own merits in any way. I don't know why you're chomping at the bit to railroad this guy for apparently doing nothing wrong! Like I said, if I am missing something, please explain it to me! But my current reading of the situation is that we'd literally be sanctioning a user for nothing, basically rubber stamping an erroneous report. It doesn't make sense. Yes I get that the last two edits look similar to the edits that got him sanctioned in the first place, but they're not the same edit, nor is there inherently anything wrong with simply providing a translation in good faith. ~Swarm~{sting}06:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because he was informed that Wikipedia refers to the Taoiseach as the Taoiseach, not the Prime Minister of Ireland and continued to add the English translation. I'm most worried about the edits on the 21st. The rest of the edits weren't a great idea, but aren't alarming. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi15:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mean should he have deleted the literal English word for something because he doesn't think people know what it means and then edit war over it in an ACDS area? No. Is that the same thing as adding a simple explanation after a relatively uncommon word that some people might realistically not know the definition of? No, it's not. It's not the same offense. There's quite simply nothing inherently disruptive in trying to explain what a "Taoiseach" is in good faith. Yes his methods in the past did become disruptive, by way of edit warring and not communicating, and he was correctly sanctioned for that. However he's not in violation of those sanctions, broadly construed, which means he's allowed to make bold, good faith changes to articles. No, he's not allowed to do so disruptively, but I have yet to see anyone actually allege that he did anything disruptive or in bad faith. Without wading into the actual content dispute of whether those edits should be made, they are not inherently disruptive. It's a content disagreement. ~Swarm~{sting}16:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My primary concern is making very similar edits (and yes, as is apparent, calling the Taoiseach the "prime minister" is apparently contentious, as we clearly see here), in an area pretty well adjacent to one in which he's gotten sanctioned for making such edits. If he didn't know that would raise objections and be contentious, I believe he should have—but I suspect he rather did, especially after last time. That's the conduct issue. I don't really have any opinion on what the article ultimately should say, but I think it should have been clear to a reasonable person that those edits weren't a good idea. SeraphimbladeTalk to me16:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the term Taoiseach in favor of a "translation" when "Taoiseach" is the correct English word is understandably contentious from a content perspective, though it was primarily a problem because it was accompanied by edit warring and a failure to communicate, not because it's some inherently "bad" edit or part of some malicious POV-pushing campaign or whatever you're implying. As I said, the previous incident does not, by any stretch of the imagination, translate into some bizarre notion that calling the Taoiseach a "prime minister" in any way in any article is some sort of inherently disruptive edit. The Taoiseach is a prime minister, there's no beating around the bush, and just because "Taoiseach" is the technically correct term to use doesn't mean that it's not a relatively uncommon term and that everyone will magically know what it means and that any good faith efforts to explain that it is the prime minister are some horrible offense. That's not contentious. We don't need to be using AE to railroad some guy for making literally harmless attempts at improving a reader's understanding. ~Swarm~{sting}14:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
His statement linked above is basically just saying that he's a WikiGnome who's not trying to cause any trouble nor get bogged down by disputes over his attempts at minor improvements, nor does he even want to remain engaged with the reporting editor in any sort of way. There's no indication that anything he's doing is in bad faith or anything other than trying to make uncontentious improvements to an article. The worst thing he's done is get into an edit war, which apparently was somehow reframed as some sort of malicious intent in the topic area, and it's being further reframed as such now, in spite of the uncontentious nature of his edits. If anything, the filer, and this board, need to be less reactionary and more cognizant of WP:AGF. ~Swarm~{sting}16:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the other side of the coin is that PainMan was only at AE six weeks ago, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive262 #PainMan, for doing exactly the same sort of edits that this complaint reiterates. They seem to have learned nothing and they insist that they are right that non-Gaelic speakers don't understand the word "Taoiseach". They are going to go about their gnoming, regardless of what anyone else says, even if it means edit-warring on 1RR AC/DS pages. Look at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles #Use of Taoiseach and contrast that with PainMan's talk page. I really don't want to see a long-term editor and valuable Wiki-gnome sanctioned, but they can't keep on doing things their way when nobody else agrees. What's the minimum needed to bring them round? --RexxS (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mean I don't know how much more thoroughly I can argue that there's nothing inherently wrong with trying to explain what a Taoiseach is. His mistake was edit warring over it, and not engaging in discussion, but the edits themselves are not that big of a deal. It's not like anyone is alleging that he's some sort of POV-pusher, or is doing anything malicious or in bad faith. Taoiseach is not actually common word in English that we can necessarily expect the average reader to be familiar with, and the motivation for explaining it as being a "prime minister" is perfectly obvious as a reasonable, good faith attempt at improvement. Now, should we do so? That's a matter for a petty content dispute, nothing more, but the answer is not that we must not. ~Swarm~{sting}17:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can question the malintent of the edits, but to what purpose? PainMan has a 100% WP:IDHT approach in this area, for context see User talk:Johnuniq#PainMan situation. Their response to the initial TBAN and consequently, the entire affair is subpar and shows no understanding of why the initial TBAN was placed and why this AE request was also filed, if they had displayed a modicum of understanding with "I get why my edits were disruptive and I can see why my recent edits were questionable w.r.t the TBAN", I would be more willing to align with your perspective, I dislike sanctioning editors as-is. I'm questioning PainMan's competence given that 1) this already occurred once, 2) multiple editors have engaged with them since (as they also have), 3) they still don't accept or understand why they were (and are) being sanctioned. As such, I'm much less willing to believe that no preventive measures will be the correct way to deal with this. --qedk (t愛c)18:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're still invoking the disruption of a past incident, in which the user edit warred and failed to communicate, an incident which was formally reported, actioned and closed. It is always worthwhile to examine past context when there is current disruption. However, in this current report, there is not any current disruption. There is only uncontentious editing in good faith, none of which is in violation of any policy, sanction, or conduct expectation in a DS area, and as such is quite simply not actionable. No one is alleging that there is any existing problem tied to the subject area. Even the "similar" edits to the past incident, which some people are falsely claiming is some sort of offense, are obviously not contentious on their own merits, they were not even reverted over any major point of contention but merely because they are "not necessary", which the user has stated that they are fine with accepting and moving on without any fuss. There are quite simply no violations to be actioned here. If you feel that there is a larger competence problem, that's fine, I encourage you to pursue that in an appropriate way, but the alleged "violations" we are considering in this particular report are not reflective of any behavioral problem in the subject area in need of sanction. There's simply no violations. ~Swarm~{sting}22:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's best that an uninvolved administrator close this, it's been a while and there's no point keeping this open longer than necessary. I doubt PainMan will give us reponses other than via proxy and I don't think that'll change, and there's no point keeping this languishing around for more than two weeks. --qedk (t愛c)16:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That seems appropriate, although the warning should make it clear that repeating the kinds of edits mentioned in this request would be very inadvisable. Johnuniq (talk) 03:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again, "the kinds of edits" you're referring to are in themselves harmless and not disruptive. The notion that they are is a complete fabrication based on the fact that they were associated with disruptive conduct in the past. That does not make the edits themselves problematic. ~Swarm~{sting}03:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have made your objections well known, but that doesn't change the fact that 8 other AE admins find the edits problematic. I would be okay with a warning --Guerillero | Parlez Moi12:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do find the edits problematic, in the sense of skirting around the edges of the spirit of the topic ban, but having seen PainMan's reply, I no longer think any further topic ban extension would be necessary or appropriate – quite the opposite, and I would support any future appeal against the current topic ban because it is creating more drama than it prevents. I would certainly agree to a simple warning in order to get this closed, although I think the message has already been driven home. --RexxS (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
