| Revision as of 03:18, 27 August 2016 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,298,161 editsm Archiving 3 discussion(s) to User talk:Nomoskedasticity/Archives) (bot← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:23, 27 August 2016 edit undoCollect (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers47,160 edits →I did not "close the RfC": new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
| ::Well that is odd, unless you have actually edited the article I cant see why anyone would template you over it. You were thinking about editwarring on it, wernt you! *shrug* But yes that is an odd use of it. ] (]) 08:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC) | ::Well that is odd, unless you have actually edited the article I cant see why anyone would template you over it. You were thinking about editwarring on it, wernt you! *shrug* But yes that is an odd use of it. ] (]) 08:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC) | ||
| :::Thus my question on AE... Anyway, thanks for the comments. ] (]) 08:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC) | :::Thus my question on AE... Anyway, thanks for the comments. ] (]) 08:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC) | ||
| == I did not "close the RfC" == | |||
| But your asides and snark over the years are clear. ] (]) 21:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:23, 27 August 2016
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you.
Your warning
There is no edit war at all. Please, avoid any threats.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 11:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Discretionary Sanctions
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Misplaced Pages. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Template:Z33 D.Creish (talk) 07:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
RE Disc Sanc templates
In short, yes that is how they are supposed to work. In long: Where there is a dispute over an article subject to discretionary sanctions, the template is used to warn an editor *where you think it is likely they will continue to edit-war/continue the dispute* in order to precede sanctions. You cant be punished for something you are not 'officially' aware of, so you are required to be notified officially of the sanctions so if the problem continues, they can be pointed at and said 'Look, they were aware of them!'. I make no comment on if it was deserved or not, just that that is how they are meant to be used. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm -- "where you think it is likely they will continue to edit-war/continue the dispute" -- the rub there is that I haven't edited the article even once, so there are no grounds for thinking I might "continue" to edit-war. It seems pretty gratuitous... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- Well that is odd, unless you have actually edited the article I cant see why anyone would template you over it. You were thinking about editwarring on it, wernt you! *shrug* But yes that is an odd use of it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thus my question on AE... Anyway, thanks for the comments. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- Well that is odd, unless you have actually edited the article I cant see why anyone would template you over it. You were thinking about editwarring on it, wernt you! *shrug* But yes that is an odd use of it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I did not "close the RfC"
But your asides and snark over the years are clear. Collect (talk) 21:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)