Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:28, 24 August 2013 editSomeone not using his real name (talk \| contribs)11,896 edits →Statement by Someone not using his real name ← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:42, 24 August 2013 edit undoOne Night In Hackney (talk \| contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers32,879 edits →Arbitration enforcement action appeal by SonofSetanta: comicalNext edit →
Line 322:		Line 322:
	===Statement by Lukeno94===		===Statement by Lukeno94===
	*I see numerous issues with SonofSetanta's immediate appeal of the AE enforcement. The most obvious one is a clear inability to grasp that their editing has indeed been problematic. I object to the idea that SonofSetanta should get to choose when they can return to editing these articles, and their issue with these articles goes well beyond the "one mistake" they tout in their request (the POV-pushing I have observed has been on a separate article to the one that was initially mentioned in the original AE thread.) The ] allegations aren't based on any factual evidence, but on apparent paranoia; allegations of ] ''may'' have more basis, but are clearly not for a WP:AE thread, and, devoid of any evidence, are further detrimental to SoS' case. The irony of ] being named in their case is fairly amusing. SoS has shown an incredibly poor grasp of various policies, including the ] and ] policies, throughout their edits when related to the troubles (I have been frivolously accused of "tag teaming", having objected to a clear POV-pushing and policy-misrepresenting revert on a single occasion.) I think this should be closed as a frivolous/disruptive request, and possibly some kind of sanction levied - at the very least, closed with a "you cannot appeal for six months" statement. ] ] 17:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)		*I see numerous issues with SonofSetanta's immediate appeal of the AE enforcement. The most obvious one is a clear inability to grasp that their editing has indeed been problematic. I object to the idea that SonofSetanta should get to choose when they can return to editing these articles, and their issue with these articles goes well beyond the "one mistake" they tout in their request (the POV-pushing I have observed has been on a separate article to the one that was initially mentioned in the original AE thread.) The ] allegations aren't based on any factual evidence, but on apparent paranoia; allegations of ] ''may'' have more basis, but are clearly not for a WP:AE thread, and, devoid of any evidence, are further detrimental to SoS' case. The irony of ] being named in their case is fairly amusing. SoS has shown an incredibly poor grasp of various policies, including the ] and ] policies, throughout their edits when related to the troubles (I have been frivolously accused of "tag teaming", having objected to a clear POV-pushing and policy-misrepresenting revert on a single occasion.) I think this should be closed as a frivolous/disruptive request, and possibly some kind of sanction levied - at the very least, closed with a "you cannot appeal for six months" statement. ] ] 17:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

			===Statement by One Night In Hackney===
			Comical. The idea that has to prove his innocence from a frivolous allegation is turning things backwards. If SoS thinks he's a sock of me, go ahead and file an SPI. I would say more on this subject, but it's probably more amusing to see how this plays out. <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 18:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

	===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by SonofSetanta ===		===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by SonofSetanta ===

Revision as of 18:42, 24 August 2013

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the automated editing program, see Misplaced Pages:AutoEd.

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important informationShortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344	345	346

SonofSetanta

SonofSetanta is indefinitely topic-banned from everything related to The Troubles. Sandstein 07:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
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 SonofSetanta User who is submitting this request for enforcement Psychonaut (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested SonofSetanta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy to be enforced Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Standard discretionary sanctions Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it Violation of WP:1RR: 12:41, 20 August 2013 tagged Shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland for speedy deletion 13:25, 20 August 2013 tagged Shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland for speedy deletion 13:53, 20 August 2013 tagged Shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland for speedy deletion 14:09, 20 August 2013 tagged Shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland for speedy deletion Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) No prior warnings are required for this sanction. However, while engaged in this edit warring he was warned numerous times (including by two administrators) that the speedy deletion tags were inappropriate, and that he should desist from repeatedly adding them . He is also already aware that the article is subject to 1RR . Additional comments by editor filing complaint (Addendum: Regarding Sandstein's comments below, I may have conflated the discretionary sanctions, which do require a prior warning, with the 1RR rule, which does not. In any case, SonofSetanta has received prior warnings for both types of sanctions, and thus there is a basis for applying either or both.) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Discussion concerning SonofSetanta 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 SonofSetanta This is frivolous. I want to nominate Shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland for deletion. The first tag I posted was for speedy deletion and carried the instruction that it should not be deleted but rather that editors should join the discussion. I reverted its removal once as vandalism and placed the 1RR tag on the talk page and warned the editor who removed it by placing a {subst:uw-afd1\|Article} notice here . (I didn't think he was an admin at first). I could not understand why it was deleted a second time so I made an enquiry of the second editor here (not realising he too was an admin). I changed the tag I was using for the third attempt and reverted User:Mo aimn because I believed his removal of the tag to be vandalism. Meanwhile I requested assistance from a sysop here . In the interim a discussion had taken place at Talk:Shoot-to-kill_policy_in_Northern_Ireland#Tags, a section I had started when I first tagged the article for deletion. At that discussion the second editor replied and User:MelanieN gave instructions for how to nominate the page for deletion. I went to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 20 and followed instructions but appear to have made a mistake as the nomination appears in red, not blue, so I left a further message for . In the meantime I read a little more on the process for nominating a page for deletion and it seemed to be that I needed to place this tag {subst:prod\|reason goes here} on the page for deletion, so I did. It has now been removed by Mo aimn. This is the first time I have nominated a page for deletion and it's obvious I have made mistakes which I have tried to sort out. There's nothing deliberately disruptive about what I've been doing and I apologise if I have caused any upset, but I'm still none the wiser about nominating the page for deletion. User:Psychonaut has not been involved in any of the discussions which have taken place which leads me to believe, as he's not a sysop or a mentor, that he is following my editing history with the intention of disrupting my enjoyment of editing by filing frivolous complaints at every opportunity, this is the second in a week. Being on the receiving end of WP:WIKIHOUNDING like this is less than funny. If Psychonaut had wanted to help he could have sent me a message at any time rather than waiting until the time was ripe for a complaint. I had considered coming to this board to find a sysop to help me but I was afraid of WP:BOOMERANG which happened last time I asked for help here just a few days ago. I was hoping to keep my name off the board for a while longer. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC) There are no sanctions on the page above the 1RR which applies to all articles concerning The Troubles. It was missing but I put it on the talk page. I don't think that should affect your forwarding the article to AfD as per my request. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC) I've made a mistake is all. I thought the first tag I used was appropriate. Obviously I should have looked closer. It carried a warning however that it shouldn't be removed and that all parties should discuss the potential for deletion at the talk page, which is why I used it. It was actually me who posted the 1RR warning on the talk page but I thought undoing vandalism was exempt and when the tag was removed I reverted it as vandalism. I've not failed to discuss the matter so I would have thought it was obvious I wasn't edit warring. I've also followed the instructions I've been given but admittedly still haven't got it right. All of this has happened so fast I've hardly had time to think. Misplaced Pages:Don't come down like a ton of bricks applies to all of us when we enter new territory and I ask you to cut me a bit of slack here for making a mistake on something I've never done before and for thinking I was correcting vandalism. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Thank you for the opportunity to explain. 1. I went through all the "nomination for deletion" tags and thought it was the most appropriate because I thought the article was nonsense and maybe that's why no-one had gone near it for five years since the maintenance tags were placed there by someone else. 2. After I placed the tag it appeared on the page with a warning that no-one was to delete it but instead they were to challenge it on the talk page if they felt the article shouldn't be deleted. When other editors quickly deleted it I restored it and left messages on their talk pages because I couldn't figure out why they didn't heed the warning on the template. I made a request here for some help last week on a new article I had written which Psychonaut had blanked. It was another new experience for me and I didn't get what was going on so I requested admin assistance which turned into an attempt by Psychonaut to have me banned for incompetence. If you give me a few minutes I'll find the case in the archive and draw your attention to it. I believe the article needs to be deleted because it contains POV, has very few inline refs or sources and appears to contain large segments of plagiarised material. I firmly believe it would function better as a section in the article The Troubles which I've been contributing to with others and under discussion. Sorry if I'm a little slow in reacting. I'm not able bodied. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC) @Sandstein. It is very inappropriate of Mo aimn to drag up the histories of my other identities as it was he under the identity of User:BigDunc, along with a cabal, who caused most of the disruptive editing I got dragged into as a novice and led to me being banned. Unlike Mo aimn I have placed links from my user page so that sysops can see my previous editing history. My block log looks like that of an infant compared to his. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC) @Sandstein, Psychonaut's complaint from last week is here . I've got to finish up now for today because I'm tired. confused and more than a little upset. I hope you don't ban me while I am away. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Fresh Statement by Son of Setanta With a clear head I am making this fresh statement. I got very confused and upset yesterday evening and wasn't thinking straight. This complaint is not about edit warring on a troubles article. The fact that it is on a troubles related article is coincidental. This complaint is about me learning a new process which should have been enjoyable, leading to productive discussion because that's what the info said would happen. I would nominate the page and then discussion would take place. I'd never asked for an article to be deleted before. When I first tagged the article as {db-nonsense} I did so after reading the choices open to me, believing it was the correct one. I also opened a discussion on the talk page of the article as that was the thing to do according to the instructions. Just afterwards at at 14.26hrs I transferred the headers for {sanctions} and {Troubles restriction} to the talk page of the article as they were missing. I had no doubt I was working on a 1RR article, something I am very familiar with. When Peridon reverted me so quickly I took it as vandalism and responded as such, reverting him and leaving this warning message for him. That was my first revert. While I was doing that Shirt58 reverted me again. I did not revert him. I messaged him here and asked him what the problem was. It was Peridon who answered on the talk page of the article and at my own talk page, pointing out I had used the wrong tag. So I found a different one and used it instead. I didn't realise at that point that Peridon and Shirt58 were admins from AfD as I had never been involved there before so I left a message for Cailil here asking for advice on the subject of nominating pages for deletion. While I was doing so Mo ainm reverted me on Shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland. I immediately reverted him as I saw this as disruptive vandalism. That was my second revert. I didn't believe Mo aimn had any right to delete the tag and felt he should have joined the discussion if he had any points to make, the page wasn't going to be deleted immediately. I noted at this point that Mo aimn had also followed me to Cailil's page and posted a disparaging message . I then checked the discussion on the article talkpage and noted that MelanieN had left advice about how to properly nominate the page for deletion at AfD. I went to AfD after first deleting the message on Cailil's talk page with the summary "removed my comments - another editor has solved my problem" as per here . I filled in the deletion request at AfD Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion but made a mistake and the text of my entry showed red instead of the blue the others were in. After reading a bit more I decided to use the tag {subst:prod\|reason for deletion} in the hope that it would register my request on the AfD page - it didn't. While I was reading further instructions Mo aimn deleted the {subst:prod\|reason for deletion} tag. After which Psychonaut advised me on my talk page that he was reporting me here for breaking 3RR, something which Mo aimn had already threatened to do here. In summary: I only made two reverts in total.* I knew I was working under 1RR but felt that undoing vandalism was exempt. I didn't find out until later that Peridon, Shirt 58 and MelanieN were AfD admins but Mo's revert was definitely both provocative and vandalism. My third tag I felt was entirely justified as a result of instructions received from AfD admins and I believed myself to be safe in using it. I am very firmly of the opinion that, had Mo aimn not intervened with his vandalism I would only have had one revert and the issues I had nominating the page for deletion would have been resolved under the guidance of the AfD admins who turned out to be a very friendly trio. The situation was under control and I was following instructions. Ok, I was getting them wrong but I would have got it right eventually. It appears that Mo has me on his watchlist however which is why he followed me to that page and to Cailil's. The same must be said of Psychonaut. He wasn't involved in any of the discussion regarding my attempts to tag the page for deletion. He must simply have me on his watchlist and chose his moment to open this malicious complaint which, as I have pointed out and others have noted, is his second attempt in a week to get me in trouble - see here. I am requesting of sysops Don't come down like a ton of bricks on me. I've done nothing wrong. Ultimately all I did was to make errors in my first attempt to nominate a page for deletion. If I'd been left in peace to make my own mistakes and get corrected and guided by AfD we wouldn't be here now. I took part in civil discussions with admins from here downwards, here, here, from here downwards, and here, as well as leaving my request for Cailil's assistance which I later deleted as per here . @Cailil. I note your comments and ask you to read mine. I haven't engaged in any disputes with anyone. For the first time since I started editing Misplaced Pages I am settling in as a member of the community without being abused by editors who want a WP:BATTLE and as a result I am trying new things, like copyright, creating articles, nominating images for deletion and now nominating pages for deletion. The mistakes I have made when trying these things haven't always gone down well and that's why I'm in your eyeline so much. Not everyone on Misplaced Pages is helpful. I would be grateful too if you'd note that I heeded your advice and connected all of my accounts together which is why Mo aimn is able to illustrate my block record from the previous two. Should I still be held to account for these when my behaviour has improved so dramatically? SonofSetanta (talk) 07:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC) This is the sort of civility and help I get from Mo aimn User_talk:Mo_ainm#20th_August_2013. SonofSetanta (talk) 07:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC) @Sandstein. I've just noted your assertion that I am using this identity to avoid scrutiny of my old block logs. You are incorrect. If you examine my userpage you will see quite clearly on the right hand side there is a group of two small infoboxes with the heading "In my salad days, when I was green in judgement" The two infoboxes clearly detail my old accounts and if you follow the links to those old accounts you will see they both clearly link back to the account I am now using. The same cannot be said of Mo aimn although he has made some progress towards it when he changed his userpage yesterday at 15.40hrs in preparation for making his accusations against me. SonofSetanta (talk) 08:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC) Last plea @Sandstein. I have several more comments based on your latest entry below but first I wish to correct another error. Yesterday you said I had failed to provide diffs for the previous attempt Psychonaut made to have me banned. As I explained to you in my fresh statement I did. I have highlighted the entry above in bold type but for the absolute avoidance of doubt I repeat it here again. It was from the ANI board and the reason I took so long to find it yesterday was because I though this was the ANI board when replying. I wasted 20 minutes searching for an entry which wasn't here. The new comments: I have been frank and honest throughout this dialogue and have remained civil, as always. I've taken the time to e-mail you regarding private matters - thank you for acknowledging. I'm not seeking any special treatment and I'm quite happy to abide by the rules of Misplaced Pages editing. I see six editors or admins (I'm not sure which) posting in support of what I've written here, including the three admins from AfD. What is it you still think I have done wrong, other than making a complete ass of myself over a process I had never used before? What similar disruptive conduct do you think will occur? I put it to you in all sincerity that, while I may make mistakes, which everyone is entitled to do, I learn from them and do not repeat them. Take for example the issue of copyright: I felt aggrieved at the way it was handled by the copyright patrol people. How so many of the images I had uploaded were wrongly tagged for deletion. I saved those by reading up on copyright, listening to what I'd been told and by interfacing directly with OTRS. I've continued to upload images every week since then and although I made further mistakes was able to sort them out in a collegiate manner - no disruption. I learned from the mistakes I made. I started a new article last week, Wolfe Tone Societies. Psychonaut went overboard in his treatment of it in my opinion (shared by others, including sysops) and when I asked for help at the ANI board I was treated to a display of WP:BOOMERANG and an attempt by Psychonaut to have me banned for incompetence when all I wanted was for the article to be restored so I could fix what he was complaining about. No disruption on my part and no repetition of the error. Now we have this complaint, again by Psychonaut, even though he wasn't involved in any of it - why? The AfD admins and I were on the verge of sorting it out, only thwarted by Mo aimn. He wasn't involved either until he decided to step in at the very end - what was his purpose in doing so? Why did he delete a tag which would have been removed by me anyway once I had been advised by the AfD admins? Was it just to provoke me into reverting him? I saw it as deliberate vandalism/disruption and that entitled me to revert him without penalty. I'm no wikilawyer but I can find so much in the various advice pages and essays which suggest that anyone who makes a genuine mistake shouldn't be jumped on from a great height, which appears to be what you have in mind for me. I need to ask you why? The edits I make on the wiki are productive and all the edit warring of 2010 is gone, primarily because the originators of those incidents are no longer posting, except for Mo aimn. The recent issues with copyright are gone. What is left? A bit of out of character incompetence on my part from yesterday afternoon which could have been sorted without Psychonaut wasting everybody's time and effort here. You say my explanation isn't credible. Why is that? Why am I not allowed to make a mistake on a new procedure? Do you think I am lying to you? If so what possible motive could I have for that? I would do anything to keep my name off this board and the ANI board at the moment, so why would I take such a stupid risk? What are the "many things" I have done wrong? All I did was make mistakes trying to tag an article for deletion and I apologise for that, sincerely. What advice are you going to give to stop me making a mistake in the future when I encounter something new, for this is where my recent difficulties arose - new procedures? How would a topic ban or block prevent me from making similar mistakes? I think it's very unfair of you to say that I've been posting since 2008 and should know all the basics. I was editing for two months in 2008 as User:GDD1000 before being hounded off the wiki. I had one block. I lasted for four months in 2008 as User:The Thunderer and did my best to fight my way through it - it didn't work, they got the better of me every time and that's when I picked up my bad track record. I have only posted for several months per year in this identity since October 2010 for exactly the same reasons. It's only been since 12th March that I started regular posting, making approx 2750 edits since then out of a total of 3776 in this identity, my longest period ever, with only one block for the stupidest of mistakes in that period. So where's the five years I've had to learn the basics? I make it 12 months in total I've been actively editing over 5 years. I'm going to ask you again to throw this complaint out. All this about me being a disruptive editor is the biggest load of codswallop I've ever heard. Advise me by all means, I'd welcome that, even slap me on the wrist, but please don't remove my editing privileges for the area where I am most productive and most useful. For once please let everyone see that sysops on this board can't be hoodwinked by the weasel words of experienced gamers. Let me settle into the wiki community the way I've been doing since 12th March. The results have been excellent and very noticeable. BTW - Mabuska is correct. Mo aimn/Big Dunc was blocked for 1RR breach at Irish Bulletin - diff here . SonofSetanta (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC) Voluntary withdrawal I have spoken to several other editors and admins today to inform them that I am voluntarily withdrawing from all articles which concern the Irish Troubles. One admin has recommended that I announce this here. I have realised that, despite all the good work I've done since May on certain articles, I've become tired and apt to make too many mistakes. I am considering WP:WIKIBREAK but at the moment haven't decided for sure. I have informed one admin that I intend to start work at Queen's Royal Irish Hussars and will probably do so straight away to see if I can get absorbed enough to do a good job. I ask one thing from sysops here. Is it possible, from a military history perspective, to occasionally work on the UDR articles where I have a real passion, without arousing suspicion that I am straying into Troubles articles again? SonofSetanta (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Statement by Mo ainm In fact Sandstein if you check SoS has had sanctions imposed on him in The Troubles area since 2008 with his previous accounts Blocklog for "GDD1000" and Blocklog for "The Thunderer" Mo ainm~Talk 16:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC) @ HighKing, SoS pinged Cailil after he had received a 3RR warning on an article he knew was under 1RR. Mo ainm~Talk 16:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC) @ Cailil in response to your talk page, where have I called for sanctions to be imposed on any editor? And as I said knock yourself out with your punitive block if thats what you feel will enhance the project. Mo ainm~Talk 18:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC) @ Mabuska seeing as you're adding you 2 cents why not go look for that diff that Sandstein is talking about below. Mo ainm~Talk 21:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC) @ Mabuska, No you will find that what Sandstein has linked to states "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to the decision authorizing sanctions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines." Also I was never blocked for edit warring on an article. Mo ainm~Talk 22:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC) @ SonofSetanta, It's never your fault, every single time you have received a block it was because of another editor. Mo ainm~Talk 07:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC) @ Mabuska I have no blocks for edit warring that weren't overturned by blocking admin within minutes. Mo ainm~Talk 07:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC) As it appears SoS can't read what was in the diff he used to show that I was blocked for 1RR this is what it also says after the block "Block lifted, as there was confusion about the definition of 1RR (per day or per week)" as the blocking admin made a mistake thinking it was 1 revert per week and undid her block of me. Mo ainm~Talk 10:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Statement by User:MelanieN I happened across this situation, where it appeared that SonofSetanta was trying to get an article deleted but not going about it the right way. I tried to help him by explaining the three deletion processes, and I offered to post it to AfD for him as a neutral third party, without making a recommendation myself. However, I was not aware that there were any sanctions that would apply to the article. Should I withdraw my offer to forward the article to AfD? There are no sanctions on the page above the 1RR which applies to all articles concerning The Troubles. It was missing but I put it on the talk page. I don't think that should affect your forwarding the article to AfD as per my request. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC) I will await the outcome of this discussion, and further advice, before taking any action. --MelanieN (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Statement by User:Peridon I think SonofSetanta didn't understand the 'nonsense' criterion and he wouldn't be the first by a long way. He also seemed to be confusing the non-removal instructions on the AfD template with the 'you may remove if...' instructions on the CSD tag. I've tried to explain all this to him now, and I hope he does a bit of studying in the deletion processes. He may have a point about the article having faults, or this might be PoV or misunderstanding too. There is a discussion on the article talk page at present (and I'm leaving it those who know or think they know - I know I don't know enough about the subject to contribute in any other way than procedural guidance). Peridon (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC) It was me that moved the 'sanctions' post by SonofSetanta - I thought I displaced it when I posted. I've never been in this region of Misplaced Pages before, mainly sticking to the deletion zone where I usually do know what I'm doing... Peridon (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC) @Sandstein - I agree with HighKing. I was the first tag remover, and I really think that SoS was confused. If you don't work with the deletion processes, they can be confusing (just as I find this place confusing compared with Afd, SPI and AN). As I was the recipient of an AfD removal warning for removing a CSD tag, I am sure that SoS was confused. I hope that Melanie and I have managed to explain things now so there shouldn't be confusion in future. As to the content of the article, I say nothing. Not one of my areas of knowledge. Peridon (talk) 16:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Statement by User:HighKing I don't agree that an indefinite Topic Ban is an appropriate restriction for this occasion. The Troubles is a difficult topic at the best of times, and we should try as hard as possible to encourage editors to edit within the bounds of the rules. There's a difference between editors that show no signs of learning, at all, and editors like SonOfSetanta that are active, engaging, slip up now and then, but appear to be learning. For the most part, this particular issue had already been dealt with (and accepted by SoS) before this report was filed by Psyconaut. I don't think there'll be a repeat of this behaviour, so I'm not sure what a Topic Ban will achieve, other than to lose an active editor who appears to be contributing well to articles. --HighKing (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC) In response to Sandstein below - you say that you don't find Sos's explanation as credible....that's a bald bold statement, but I can't understand how you can reach that conclusion. Frankly, I don't agree. Sure, we can admonish the behaviour with "should have been more careful", but I can't for the life of me think of any reason or gain to SoS for lying. Again, before this report was filed, he had pinged Cailil for advice on how to proceed. --HighKing (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Statement by Michaelzeng7 MelanieN, I doubt a neutral deletion nomination would provide any benefit to this situation. This topic was placed under a ton of scrutiny in the past, and the fact that the article is still here means something. You did well in your explanation of the deletion processes, however. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC) I do not think a topic ban here is appropriate. From what I can see, SoS has a misunderstanding of Misplaced Pages's deletion policies and guidelines, and he is learning, albeit slowly. I agree largely with what HighKing has stated. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Clarification: I think that SoS's tagging of the article for patent nonsense was based off of a misunderstanding of Misplaced Pages deletion guidelines. No ban should be imposed because they used an improper speedy tag or incorrectly nominated the article at AFD. I am not familiar with the Troubles or the history of this editor, but if SoS's intentions for deleting the article are found to be in line with a history of disruptive editing in this topic area, then I have no objections. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Statement by Cartoon Buffoon Removed; user has been indef-blocked by Cailil. Sandstein 19:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Statement by Psychonaut I agree with HighKing and others that SonofSetanta was confused, at least initially, about the deletion process. However, he continued to add deletion tags after being instructed not to five times in three different places (in edit summaries of the article, on the article talk page, and on his user page). I saw no other explanation for this than intention to edit-war. Cailil is mistaken in his statement that I've been repeatedly involved in threads aimed at banning SonofSetanta. I work mostly in copyright cleanup, and arising from this work I initiated one prior WP:ANI thread suggesting that SonofSetanta be blocked for persistent copyright violations and associated edit warring over the course of a month . Cailil may be thinking of the previous ban proposal on WP:ANI, in which I did not participate. User:Kim Dent-Brown's "back off" quote has also been removed from its context: I suggest that critics of SoS back off, and give him/her more time to allow evidence to accrue. … If the evidence is of further problems, let's have a proper report here with recent diffs and a link back to this closing statement. Well, I've identified further problems and have posted a proper report with diffs, though in this case it seems WP:AE rather than WP:ANI is the correct venue. It seemed to be an open-and-shut case to me. Had I known the WP:1RR threshold here was so high I wouldn't have bothered… I have no personal dispute with SonofSetanta—I don't edit any of the same articles he does, nor have I edited any Troubles-related articles (to my recollection). In my capacity as a WP:CP volunteer I have occasionally checked his contribution history here and on Commons to fix obvious copyright violations (of which there have been many), which is how I came to notice the edit warring. This sort of monitoring is routine, and indeed expressly sanctioned by Misplaced Pages:Harassment#Wikihounding, with which I am well acquainted. For some reason people seem keen on imputing malicious intent where none exists, so I don't plan on participating in any further administrative threads about this user, though will continue to tag unambiguous copyvios if and as they arise. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Statement by Mabuska Some editors get it quicker than others. Others need more of a helping hand. Hounding in the way Psychonaut is doing it isn't helping. Psychonaut seems to employ as little diplomacy directly with SoS and just seems to like slapping tags and filing reports - Psychonaut's first action in regards to this issue is this AE and subsequent notification for SoS. Surely to avoid the chance of being labelled a stalker, Psychonaut should maybe have asked an admin to check it out and see if was worthy of AE first of all? Mabuska 21:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Mo ainm is well acquainted with the 1RR as they have notified many editors of it previously, so do they need a warning recent or past when they know so well of it? For Mo ainm himself warned SoS of 1RR at the bottom of this version of SoS's talk page. Mabuska 21:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Then again Mo ainm's previous account BigDunc was blocked for 1RR and that was in 2009. Mabuska 21:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC) @Mo ainm - ~~Sandstein I'm assuming is looking for evidence that you know about 1RR.~~ Just because you may or may not have been issued a warning yourself as you have until recently always depended on other editors to help you out with bypassing 1RR/3RR, you are fully aware with it as your previous account shows with its block for violating it and your current account knows of with your warnings to other users about it. You can't say you didn't know about the 1RR in regards to Troubles articles. ~~That is what I believe Sandstein is looking evidence for.~~ That alone I believe equates to a warning for yourself as a warning is also a way to notify editors of the restriction. Mabuska 22:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC) In fact, as your previous account as already stated has been blocked for 1RR meaning they had to have been warned, you thus already have been previously warned about it. New account or not - you where warned and blocked. Mabuska 22:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC) In response to SonofSetanta's plea, I would have to say that it should be able for him to make non-Troubles related edits to that article as most of it appears to be non-Troubles related. Mabuska 21:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC) @Someone not using his real name: "and might be explained by Mabuska's own partisanship in matters related to Northern Ireland" - really? I will request evidence for your claim at your talk page to substantiate this claim from an editor that as far as I aware I have never even spoken too before and has only been active for a few months, a period I have been largely inactive for. Mabuska 22:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Statement by Someone not using his real name SonofSetanta has been editing Misplaced Pages for at least five years using multiple accounts, but he still seems to struggle with the basics, including copyright, edit warring, etc. I would support a WP:CIR block even if his actions in the latest incident were in good faith, but it's pretty hard to keep assuming that at every faux pas he makes. I don't see any hounding by Psychonaut; the accusations leveled against Psychonaut by Mabuska reek of bad faith and might be explained by Mabuska's own partisanship in matters related to Northern Ireland. Furthermore, seeing the combined insistence by Mabuska and SonofSetanta (and of the sock Cartoon Buffoon) to nail Mo ainm on clearly pretty frivolous charges, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that SonofSetanta is simply playing stupid. The posts by SonofSetanta on the article's talk page show a clear if rather pathetic attempt at wikilawering in order to delete that article by any means. This is simply tendentious editing by SonofSetanta under the guise of playing stupid when he is infringing the rules, but at the same time he is demanding that others be sanctioned for lesser misdeeds. SonofSetanta is an agent provocateur if there ever was one. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning SonofSetanta This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Contrary to what the request suggests, the discretionary sanctions remedy does require a prior warning in a specific form, see WP:AC/DS#Warnings. However, such a warning was previously provided at . SonofSetanta's conduct here, edit-warring to add a "nonsense" speedy deletion tag ("a page that is patent nonsense, consisting purely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history") to an article that obviously does not meet that definition of nonsense (Shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland) is manifestly disruptive. The sanctions log indicates that they have been previously been the subject of four separate sanctions for topic-related disruption going back to 2010. If no other uninvolved administrator disagrees, I'll impose an indefinite topic ban with respect to everything related to The Troubles. Sandstein 15:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC) SonofSetanta, thank you for your statement. Can you please explain: what led you to believe that the speedy deletion reason WP:CSD#G1 applies to that article? why you thought that your repeated reinstatement of the deletion tag (in spite of correct warnings to the contrary) was not edit-warring? what evidence (in the form of diffs) you have for your allegation that Psychonaut has been repeatedly hounding you with frivolous complaints? MelanieN, you are free to submit the article to AfD if you think there is a reason it should be deleted, but I recommend not making nominations for others if no reason for deletion is put forward. Sandstein 16:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC) I still think an indefinite topic ban is appropriate. SonofSetanta's explanation that they made a honest mistake does not appear credible. As a user who has been editing since 2008 (under other accounts, per Mo ainm), they should be acquainted with our most basic procedures (as they were warned to do), and as somebody who has been sanctioned a dozen or so times (including the other accounts) for edit-warring, they should have known that only reverting "edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language" are excepted from revert restrictions per WP:3RRNO, which clearly does not apply to an administrator correctly declining frivolous speedy deletion requests. Finally, they provide no diff-based evidence for their (disruptive, if unproven) allegation of hounding by others. Tons of bricks have been explicitly authorized for this topic area, and it would have been SonofSetanta's duty to conduct themselves such as to avoid them. Sandstein 16:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Sigh, I'm not surprised that this has ended up here. SOS has for the last 7 or 8 weeks entered into persistent (almost dogged) disputes with groups of editors including Psychonaut and Moanim in the WP:Troubles area. SOS has complained of other editor's battleground mentality while not being able to recognize his own. All this after being blocked by me for violating 1RR in early July. There is no excuse for SOS's breaking 1RR and so I must agree that sanctions in this area are appropriate. SOS has for all this brouhaha been making progress, it's my considered opinion that SOS would benefit from time editing other articles outside the WP:TROUBLES area in order to learn and gain sufficient competence with WP's policies to continue editing in an area under probation. Thus I would suggest a ban of definite duration (3-4 months). If problems recur after this we can go to indef then. All that said SOS is not alone in breaching 1RR. Mo anim has broken that here . Given that Moanim is to the best of my knowledge a clean start account and has been editing in the WP:TROUBLES area significantly for a number of years I consider constructively warned. But I wont quibble if consensus is that they should only be warned officially for WP:TROUBLES at this point. It should also be noted that Psychonaut has at this point been involved in two administrative treads with the specific aim of indef blocking/banning SOS in disputes where he is not involved. This is a big red flag, especially as he (along with others) was asked by another uninvolved admin to "back off". I'm inclined to consider this request valid but also to be an attempt to use AE to "win an argument". I'm inclined to consider warning Psychonaut (not to use administrative threads/procedures to attempt to win personal battles) to be enough in this instance, but it has to stop--Cailil 17:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Another sigh. Cartoon Buffon is a scrutiny evading sock and has been blocked per WP:DUCK. (NO edits other than the two to this thread)--Cailil 18:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Agree with the block. A time-limited topic ban of SonofSetanta is possible, but considering their longterm history of disruption under multiple accounts (to evade scrutiny?) I'd prefer indefinite. I don't think Psychonaut's conduct here is objectionable; the present request clearly has merit. As to Mo ainm, I am of the view that the 1R rule in this topic area is not enforceable via AE because it is not the subject of a remedy voted on by the Arbitration Committee: It's not clear who, if anybody, decided or authorized WP:TROUBLES#Final remedies for AE case. So Id' take no action in that regard. Sandstein 19:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC) WP:TROUBLES#Guide to enforcement. Seems to be the consensus. --Joy (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks. Enforceable, then. On that basis, no objection to a block or restriction of Mo ainm as deemed appropriate, if they have in fact been warned as per WP:AC/DS#Warnings, of which we'd need a diff for the record. Sandstein 20:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC) I'm especially concerned by the fact that SoS clearly indicated knowledge that the article was under 1RR , but then proceeded to edit war back in both a speedy tag (after an administrator declined the deletion) and a prod tag (which should never be reinserted anyway, any editor can challenge and stop a prod for any or even no reason). SoS then proceeded to refer to the disputes to his deletion request as "vandalism", which they clearly were not. I would tend toward an indefinite ban. Indefinite doesn't mean forever, but it would mean we'd need to see some measured improvement in behavior before we'd consider lifting the ban on such a contentious area. I think this is a better option than a ban which will expire regardless of any improvement. Seraphimblade 21:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC) This is just to note that I have received an e-mail by SonofSetanta in which they make various claims about their private situation. In my view, thîs private information has no relevance to this request and I am not changing my views expressed above. Editors are required to follow our policies and guidelines without regard to their private situation. The additional statement by SonofSetanta also does not change my view. Based on their assertion that "I've done nothing wrong" when in fact they have done very many things wrong, I must assume that similar disruptive conduct will continue if a topic ban is not imposed. Because sanctions are preventative rather than punitive, it does not matter whether the disruptive conduct that is to be prevented is the result of malice, incompetence, bad judgment, disability, or a combination of such factors. Sandstein 09:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC) The discussion so far has confirmed my initial assessment that an indefinite topic ban is appropriate. As Seraphimblade said, it does not have to be indefinite and can be reviewed after several months of unproblematic productive editing in other topics. So closed. Sandstein 06:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

SonofSetanta is indefinitely topic-banned from everything related to The Troubles. Sandstein 07:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

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 SonofSetanta

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Psychonaut (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: SonofSetanta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Standard discretionary sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

Violation of WP:1RR:

12:41, 20 August 2013 tagged Shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland for speedy deletion
13:25, 20 August 2013 tagged Shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland for speedy deletion
13:53, 20 August 2013 tagged Shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland for speedy deletion
14:09, 20 August 2013 tagged Shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland for speedy deletion

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

No prior warnings are required for this sanction. However, while engaged in this edit warring he was warned numerous times (including by two administrators) that the speedy deletion tags were inappropriate, and that he should desist from repeatedly adding them . He is also already aware that the article is subject to 1RR .

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: (Addendum: Regarding Sandstein's comments below, I may have conflated the discretionary sanctions, which do require a prior warning, with the 1RR rule, which does not. In any case, SonofSetanta has received prior warnings for both types of sanctions, and thus there is a basis for applying either or both.)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning SonofSetanta

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 SonofSetanta

This is frivolous. I want to nominate Shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland for deletion. The first tag I posted was for speedy deletion and carried the instruction that it should not be deleted but rather that editors should join the discussion. I reverted its removal once as vandalism and placed the 1RR tag on the talk page and warned the editor who removed it by placing a {subst:uw-afd1|Article} notice here . (I didn't think he was an admin at first). I could not understand why it was deleted a second time so I made an enquiry of the second editor here (not realising he too was an admin). I changed the tag I was using for the third attempt and reverted User:Mo aimn because I believed his removal of the tag to be vandalism. Meanwhile I requested assistance from a sysop here . In the interim a discussion had taken place at Talk:Shoot-to-kill_policy_in_Northern_Ireland#Tags, a section I had started when I first tagged the article for deletion. At that discussion the second editor replied and User:MelanieN gave instructions for how to nominate the page for deletion. I went to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 20 and followed instructions but appear to have made a mistake as the nomination appears in red, not blue, so I left a further message for . In the meantime I read a little more on the process for nominating a page for deletion and it seemed to be that I needed to place this tag {subst:prod|reason goes here} on the page for deletion, so I did. It has now been removed by Mo aimn.

This is the first time I have nominated a page for deletion and it's obvious I have made mistakes which I have tried to sort out. There's nothing deliberately disruptive about what I've been doing and I apologise if I have caused any upset, but I'm still none the wiser about nominating the page for deletion.

User:Psychonaut has not been involved in any of the discussions which have taken place which leads me to believe, as he's not a sysop or a mentor, that he is following my editing history with the intention of disrupting my enjoyment of editing by filing frivolous complaints at every opportunity, this is the second in a week. Being on the receiving end of WP:WIKIHOUNDING like this is less than funny. If Psychonaut had wanted to help he could have sent me a message at any time rather than waiting until the time was ripe for a complaint. I had considered coming to this board to find a sysop to help me but I was afraid of WP:BOOMERANG which happened last time I asked for help here just a few days ago. I was hoping to keep my name off the board for a while longer. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

There are no sanctions on the page above the 1RR which applies to all articles concerning The Troubles. It was missing but I put it on the talk page. I don't think that should affect your forwarding the article to AfD as per my request. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I've made a mistake is all. I thought the first tag I used was appropriate. Obviously I should have looked closer. It carried a warning however that it shouldn't be removed and that all parties should discuss the potential for deletion at the talk page, which is why I used it. It was actually me who posted the 1RR warning on the talk page but I thought undoing vandalism was exempt and when the tag was removed I reverted it as vandalism. I've not failed to discuss the matter so I would have thought it was obvious I wasn't edit warring. I've also followed the instructions I've been given but admittedly still haven't got it right. All of this has happened so fast I've hardly had time to think. Misplaced Pages:Don't come down like a ton of bricks applies to all of us when we enter new territory and I ask you to cut me a bit of slack here for making a mistake on something I've never done before and for thinking I was correcting vandalism. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the opportunity to explain.

1. I went through all the "nomination for deletion" tags and thought it was the most appropriate because I thought the article was nonsense and maybe that's why no-one had gone near it for five years since the maintenance tags were placed there by someone else.

2. After I placed the tag it appeared on the page with a warning that no-one was to delete it but instead they were to challenge it on the talk page if they felt the article shouldn't be deleted. When other editors quickly deleted it I restored it and left messages on their talk pages because I couldn't figure out why they didn't heed the warning on the template.

I made a request here for some help last week on a new article I had written which Psychonaut had blanked. It was another new experience for me and I didn't get what was going on so I requested admin assistance which turned into an attempt by Psychonaut to have me banned for incompetence. If you give me a few minutes I'll find the case in the archive and draw your attention to it.

I believe the article needs to be deleted because it contains POV, has very few inline refs or sources and appears to contain large segments of plagiarised material. I firmly believe it would function better as a section in the article The Troubles which I've been contributing to with others and under discussion.

Sorry if I'm a little slow in reacting. I'm not able bodied. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

@Sandstein. It is very inappropriate of Mo aimn to drag up the histories of my other identities as it was he under the identity of User:BigDunc, along with a cabal, who caused most of the disruptive editing I got dragged into as a novice and led to me being banned. Unlike Mo aimn I have placed links from my user page so that sysops can see my previous editing history. My block log looks like that of an infant compared to his. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

*@Sandstein, Psychonaut's complaint from last week is here . I've got to finish up now for today because I'm tired. confused and more than a little upset. I hope you don't ban me while I am away. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Fresh Statement by Son of Setanta

With a clear head I am making this fresh statement. I got very confused and upset yesterday evening and wasn't thinking straight.

This complaint is not about edit warring on a troubles article. The fact that it is on a troubles related article is coincidental. This complaint is about me learning a new process which should have been enjoyable, leading to productive discussion because that's what the info said would happen. I would nominate the page and then discussion would take place. I'd never asked for an article to be deleted before. When I first tagged the article as {db-nonsense} I did so after reading the choices open to me, believing it was the correct one. I also opened a discussion on the talk page of the article as that was the thing to do according to the instructions. Just afterwards at at 14.26hrs I transferred the headers for {sanctions} and {Troubles restriction} to the talk page of the article as they were missing. I had no doubt I was working on a 1RR article, something I am very familiar with. When Peridon reverted me so quickly I took it as vandalism and responded as such, reverting him and leaving this warning message for him. That was my first revert. While I was doing that Shirt58 reverted me again. I did not revert him. I messaged him here and asked him what the problem was. It was Peridon who answered on the talk page of the article and at my own talk page, pointing out I had used the wrong tag. So I found a different one and used it instead. I didn't realise at that point that Peridon and Shirt58 were admins from AfD as I had never been involved there before so I left a message for Cailil here asking for advice on the subject of nominating pages for deletion. While I was doing so Mo ainm reverted me on Shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland. I immediately reverted him as I saw this as disruptive vandalism. That was my second revert. I didn't believe Mo aimn had any right to delete the tag and felt he should have joined the discussion if he had any points to make, the page wasn't going to be deleted immediately. I noted at this point that Mo aimn had also followed me to Cailil's page and posted a disparaging message . I then checked the discussion on the article talkpage and noted that MelanieN had left advice about how to properly nominate the page for deletion at AfD. I went to AfD after first deleting the message on Cailil's talk page with the summary "removed my comments - another editor has solved my problem" as per here . I filled in the deletion request at AfD Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion but made a mistake and the text of my entry showed red instead of the blue the others were in. After reading a bit more I decided to use the tag {subst:prod|reason for deletion} in the hope that it would register my request on the AfD page - it didn't. While I was reading further instructions Mo aimn deleted the {subst:prod|reason for deletion} tag. After which Psychonaut advised me on my talk page that he was reporting me here for breaking 3RR, something which Mo aimn had already threatened to do here.

In summary: I only made two reverts in total. I knew I was working under 1RR but felt that undoing vandalism was exempt. I didn't find out until later that Peridon, Shirt 58 and MelanieN were AfD admins but Mo's revert was definitely both provocative and vandalism. My third tag I felt was entirely justified as a result of instructions received from AfD admins and I believed myself to be safe in using it.

I am very firmly of the opinion that, had Mo aimn not intervened with his vandalism I would only have had one revert and the issues I had nominating the page for deletion would have been resolved under the guidance of the AfD admins who turned out to be a very friendly trio. The situation was under control and I was following instructions. Ok, I was getting them wrong but I would have got it right eventually. It appears that Mo has me on his watchlist however which is why he followed me to that page and to Cailil's. The same must be said of Psychonaut. He wasn't involved in any of the discussion regarding my attempts to tag the page for deletion. He must simply have me on his watchlist and chose his moment to open this malicious complaint which, as I have pointed out and others have noted, is his second attempt in a week to get me in trouble - see here.

I am requesting of sysops Don't come down like a ton of bricks on me. I've done nothing wrong. Ultimately all I did was to make errors in my first attempt to nominate a page for deletion. If I'd been left in peace to make my own mistakes and get corrected and guided by AfD we wouldn't be here now.

I took part in civil discussions with admins from here downwards, here, here, from here downwards, and here, as well as leaving my request for Cailil's assistance which I later deleted as per here .

@Cailil. I note your comments and ask you to read mine. I haven't engaged in any disputes with anyone. For the first time since I started editing Misplaced Pages I am settling in as a member of the community without being abused by editors who want a WP:BATTLE and as a result I am trying new things, like copyright, creating articles, nominating images for deletion and now nominating pages for deletion. The mistakes I have made when trying these things haven't always gone down well and that's why I'm in your eyeline so much. Not everyone on Misplaced Pages is helpful. I would be grateful too if you'd note that I heeded your advice and connected all of my accounts together which is why Mo aimn is able to illustrate my block record from the previous two. Should I still be held to account for these when my behaviour has improved so dramatically? SonofSetanta (talk) 07:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

This is the sort of civility and help I get from Mo aimn User_talk:Mo_ainm#20th_August_2013. SonofSetanta (talk) 07:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

@Sandstein. I've just noted your assertion that I am using this identity to avoid scrutiny of my old block logs. You are incorrect. If you examine my userpage you will see quite clearly on the right hand side there is a group of two small infoboxes with the heading "In my salad days, when I was green in judgement" The two infoboxes clearly detail my old accounts and if you follow the links to those old accounts you will see they both clearly link back to the account I am now using. The same cannot be said of Mo aimn although he has made some progress towards it when he changed his userpage yesterday at 15.40hrs in preparation for making his accusations against me. SonofSetanta (talk) 08:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Last plea

@Sandstein. I have several more comments based on your latest entry below but first I wish to correct another error. Yesterday you said I had failed to provide diffs for the previous attempt Psychonaut made to have me banned. As I explained to you in my fresh statement I did. I have highlighted the entry above in bold type but for the absolute avoidance of doubt I repeat it here again. It was from the ANI board and the reason I took so long to find it yesterday was because I though this was the ANI board when replying. I wasted 20 minutes searching for an entry which wasn't here.

The new comments: I have been frank and honest throughout this dialogue and have remained civil, as always. I've taken the time to e-mail you regarding private matters - thank you for acknowledging. I'm not seeking any special treatment and I'm quite happy to abide by the rules of Misplaced Pages editing.

I see six editors or admins (I'm not sure which) posting in support of what I've written here, including the three admins from AfD. What is it you still think I have done wrong, other than making a complete ass of myself over a process I had never used before? What similar disruptive conduct do you think will occur? I put it to you in all sincerity that, while I may make mistakes, which everyone is entitled to do, I learn from them and do not repeat them. Take for example the issue of copyright: I felt aggrieved at the way it was handled by the copyright patrol people. How so many of the images I had uploaded were wrongly tagged for deletion. I saved those by reading up on copyright, listening to what I'd been told and by interfacing directly with OTRS. I've continued to upload images every week since then and although I made further mistakes was able to sort them out in a collegiate manner - no disruption. I learned from the mistakes I made.

I started a new article last week, Wolfe Tone Societies. Psychonaut went overboard in his treatment of it in my opinion (shared by others, including sysops) and when I asked for help at the ANI board I was treated to a display of WP:BOOMERANG and an attempt by Psychonaut to have me banned for incompetence when all I wanted was for the article to be restored so I could fix what he was complaining about. No disruption on my part and no repetition of the error.

Now we have this complaint, again by Psychonaut, even though he wasn't involved in any of it - why? The AfD admins and I were on the verge of sorting it out, only thwarted by Mo aimn. He wasn't involved either until he decided to step in at the very end - what was his purpose in doing so? Why did he delete a tag which would have been removed by me anyway once I had been advised by the AfD admins? Was it just to provoke me into reverting him? I saw it as deliberate vandalism/disruption and that entitled me to revert him without penalty.

I'm no wikilawyer but I can find so much in the various advice pages and essays which suggest that anyone who makes a genuine mistake shouldn't be jumped on from a great height, which appears to be what you have in mind for me. I need to ask you why? The edits I make on the wiki are productive and all the edit warring of 2010 is gone, primarily because the originators of those incidents are no longer posting, except for Mo aimn. The recent issues with copyright are gone. What is left? A bit of out of character incompetence on my part from yesterday afternoon which could have been sorted without Psychonaut wasting everybody's time and effort here.

You say my explanation isn't credible. Why is that? Why am I not allowed to make a mistake on a new procedure? Do you think I am lying to you? If so what possible motive could I have for that? I would do anything to keep my name off this board and the ANI board at the moment, so why would I take such a stupid risk? What are the "many things" I have done wrong? All I did was make mistakes trying to tag an article for deletion and I apologise for that, sincerely.

What advice are you going to give to stop me making a mistake in the future when I encounter something new, for this is where my recent difficulties arose - new procedures? How would a topic ban or block prevent me from making similar mistakes?

I think it's very unfair of you to say that I've been posting since 2008 and should know all the basics. I was editing for two months in 2008 as User:GDD1000 before being hounded off the wiki. I had one block. I lasted for four months in 2008 as User:The Thunderer and did my best to fight my way through it - it didn't work, they got the better of me every time and that's when I picked up my bad track record. I have only posted for several months per year in this identity since October 2010 for exactly the same reasons. It's only been since 12th March that I started regular posting, making approx 2750 edits since then out of a total of 3776 in this identity, my longest period ever, with only one block for the stupidest of mistakes in that period. So where's the five years I've had to learn the basics? I make it 12 months in total I've been actively editing over 5 years.

I'm going to ask you again to throw this complaint out. All this about me being a disruptive editor is the biggest load of codswallop I've ever heard. Advise me by all means, I'd welcome that, even slap me on the wrist, but please don't remove my editing privileges for the area where I am most productive and most useful. For once please let everyone see that sysops on this board can't be hoodwinked by the weasel words of experienced gamers. Let me settle into the wiki community the way I've been doing since 12th March. The results have been excellent and very noticeable.

BTW - Mabuska is correct. Mo aimn/Big Dunc was blocked for 1RR breach at Irish Bulletin - diff here . SonofSetanta (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Voluntary withdrawal

I have spoken to several other editors and admins today to inform them that I am voluntarily withdrawing from all articles which concern the Irish Troubles. One admin has recommended that I announce this here. I have realised that, despite all the good work I've done since May on certain articles, I've become tired and apt to make too many mistakes. I am considering WP:WIKIBREAK but at the moment haven't decided for sure. I have informed one admin that I intend to start work at Queen's Royal Irish Hussars and will probably do so straight away to see if I can get absorbed enough to do a good job. I ask one thing from sysops here. Is it possible, from a military history perspective, to occasionally work on the UDR articles where I have a real passion, without arousing suspicion that I am straying into Troubles articles again? SonofSetanta (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Mo ainm

In fact Sandstein if you check SoS has had sanctions imposed on him in The Troubles area since 2008 with his previous accounts Blocklog for "GDD1000" and Blocklog for "The Thunderer" Mo ainm~Talk 16:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

@ HighKing, SoS pinged Cailil after he had received a 3RR warning on an article he knew was under 1RR. Mo ainm~Talk 16:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

@ Cailil in response to your talk page, where have I called for sanctions to be imposed on any editor? And as I said knock yourself out with your punitive block if thats what you feel will enhance the project. Mo ainm~Talk 18:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

@ Mabuska seeing as you're adding you 2 cents why not go look for that diff that Sandstein is talking about below. Mo ainm~Talk 21:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

@ Mabuska, No you will find that what Sandstein has linked to states "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to the decision authorizing sanctions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines." Also I was never blocked for edit warring on an article. Mo ainm~Talk 22:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

@ SonofSetanta, It's never your fault, every single time you have received a block it was because of another editor. Mo ainm~Talk 07:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

@ Mabuska I have no blocks for edit warring that weren't overturned by blocking admin within minutes. Mo ainm~Talk 07:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

As it appears SoS can't read what was in the diff he used to show that I was blocked for 1RR this is what it also says after the block "Block lifted, as there was confusion about the definition of 1RR (per day or per week)" as the blocking admin made a mistake thinking it was 1 revert per week and undid her block of me. Mo ainm~Talk 10:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Statement by User:MelanieN

I happened across this situation, where it appeared that SonofSetanta was trying to get an article deleted but not going about it the right way. I tried to help him by explaining the three deletion processes, and I offered to post it to AfD for him as a neutral third party, without making a recommendation myself. However, I was not aware that there were any sanctions that would apply to the article. Should I withdraw my offer to forward the article to AfD?

I will await the outcome of this discussion, and further advice, before taking any action. --MelanieN (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Statement by User:Peridon

I think SonofSetanta didn't understand the 'nonsense' criterion and he wouldn't be the first by a long way. He also seemed to be confusing the non-removal instructions on the AfD template with the 'you may remove if...' instructions on the CSD tag. I've tried to explain all this to him now, and I hope he does a bit of studying in the deletion processes. He may have a point about the article having faults, or this might be PoV or misunderstanding too. There is a discussion on the article talk page at present (and I'm leaving it those who know or think they know - I know I don't know enough about the subject to contribute in any other way than procedural guidance). Peridon (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

It was me that moved the 'sanctions' post by SonofSetanta - I thought I displaced it when I posted. I've never been in this region of Misplaced Pages before, mainly sticking to the deletion zone where I usually do know what I'm doing... Peridon (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

@Sandstein - I agree with HighKing. I was the first tag remover, and I really think that SoS was confused. If you don't work with the deletion processes, they can be confusing (just as I find this place confusing compared with Afd, SPI and AN). As I was the recipient of an AfD removal warning for removing a CSD tag, I am sure that SoS was confused. I hope that Melanie and I have managed to explain things now so there shouldn't be confusion in future. As to the content of the article, I say nothing. Not one of my areas of knowledge. Peridon (talk) 16:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Statement by User:HighKing

I don't agree that an indefinite Topic Ban is an appropriate restriction for this occasion. The Troubles is a difficult topic at the best of times, and we should try as hard as possible to encourage editors to edit within the bounds of the rules. There's a difference between editors that show no signs of learning, at all, and editors like SonOfSetanta that are active, engaging, slip up now and then, but appear to be learning. For the most part, this particular issue had already been dealt with (and accepted by SoS) before this report was filed by Psyconaut. I don't think there'll be a repeat of this behaviour, so I'm not sure what a Topic Ban will achieve, other than to lose an active editor who appears to be contributing well to articles. --HighKing (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

In response to Sandstein below - you say that you don't find Sos's explanation as credible....that's a bald bold statement, but I can't understand how you can reach that conclusion. Frankly, I don't agree. Sure, we can admonish the behaviour with "should have been more careful", but I can't for the life of me think of any reason or gain to SoS for lying. Again, before this report was filed, he had pinged Cailil for advice on how to proceed. --HighKing (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Michaelzeng7

MelanieN, I doubt a neutral deletion nomination would provide any benefit to this situation. This topic was placed under a ton of scrutiny in the past, and the fact that the article is still here means something. You did well in your explanation of the deletion processes, however. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not think a topic ban here is appropriate. From what I can see, SoS has a misunderstanding of Misplaced Pages's deletion policies and guidelines, and he is learning, albeit slowly. I agree largely with what HighKing has stated. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Clarification: I think that SoS's tagging of the article for patent nonsense was based off of a misunderstanding of Misplaced Pages deletion guidelines. No ban should be imposed because they used an improper speedy tag or incorrectly nominated the article at AFD. I am not familiar with the Troubles or the history of this editor, but if SoS's intentions for deleting the article are found to be in line with a history of disruptive editing in this topic area, then I have no objections. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Cartoon Buffoon

Removed; user has been indef-blocked by Cailil. Sandstein 19:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Psychonaut

I agree with HighKing and others that SonofSetanta was confused, at least initially, about the deletion process. However, he continued to add deletion tags after being instructed not to five times in three different places (in edit summaries of the article, on the article talk page, and on his user page). I saw no other explanation for this than intention to edit-war.

Cailil is mistaken in his statement that I've been repeatedly involved in threads aimed at banning SonofSetanta. I work mostly in copyright cleanup, and arising from this work I initiated one prior WP:ANI thread suggesting that SonofSetanta be blocked for persistent copyright violations and associated edit warring over the course of a month . Cailil may be thinking of the previous ban proposal on WP:ANI, in which I did not participate. User:Kim Dent-Brown's "back off" quote has also been removed from its context:

I suggest that critics of SoS back off, and give him/her more time to allow evidence to accrue. … If the evidence is of further problems, let's have a proper report here with recent diffs and a link back to this closing statement.

Well, I've identified further problems and have posted a proper report with diffs, though in this case it seems WP:AE rather than WP:ANI is the correct venue. It seemed to be an open-and-shut case to me. Had I known the WP:1RR threshold here was so high I wouldn't have bothered…

I have no personal dispute with SonofSetanta—I don't edit any of the same articles he does, nor have I edited any Troubles-related articles (to my recollection). In my capacity as a WP:CP volunteer I have occasionally checked his contribution history here and on Commons to fix obvious copyright violations (of which there have been many), which is how I came to notice the edit warring. This sort of monitoring is routine, and indeed expressly sanctioned by Misplaced Pages:Harassment#Wikihounding, with which I am well acquainted. For some reason people seem keen on imputing malicious intent where none exists, so I don't plan on participating in any further administrative threads about this user, though will continue to tag unambiguous copyvios if and as they arise. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Mabuska

Some editors get it quicker than others. Others need more of a helping hand. Hounding in the way Psychonaut is doing it isn't helping. Psychonaut seems to employ as little diplomacy directly with SoS and just seems to like slapping tags and filing reports - Psychonaut's first action in regards to this issue is this AE and subsequent notification for SoS. Surely to avoid the chance of being labelled a stalker, Psychonaut should maybe have asked an admin to check it out and see if was worthy of AE first of all? Mabuska 21:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Mo ainm is well acquainted with the 1RR as they have notified many editors of it previously, so do they need a warning recent or past when they know so well of it? For Mo ainm himself warned SoS of 1RR at the bottom of this version of SoS's talk page. Mabuska 21:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Then again Mo ainm's previous account BigDunc was blocked for 1RR and that was in 2009. Mabuska 21:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

@Mo ainm - ~~Sandstein I'm assuming is looking for evidence that you know about 1RR.~~ Just because you may or may not have been issued a warning yourself as you have until recently always depended on other editors to help you out with bypassing 1RR/3RR, you are fully aware with it as your previous account shows with its block for violating it and your current account knows of with your warnings to other users about it.

You can't say you didn't know about the 1RR in regards to Troubles articles. ~~That is what I believe Sandstein is looking evidence for.~~ That alone I believe equates to a warning for yourself as a warning is also a way to notify editors of the restriction. Mabuska 22:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

In fact, as your previous account as already stated has been blocked for 1RR meaning they had to have been warned, you thus already have been previously warned about it. New account or not - you where warned and blocked. Mabuska 22:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

In response to SonofSetanta's plea, I would have to say that it should be able for him to make non-Troubles related edits to that article as most of it appears to be non-Troubles related. Mabuska 21:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

@Someone not using his real name: "and might be explained by Mabuska's own partisanship in matters related to Northern Ireland" - really? I will request evidence for your claim at your talk page to substantiate this claim from an editor that as far as I aware I have never even spoken too before and has only been active for a few months, a period I have been largely inactive for. Mabuska 22:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Someone not using his real name

SonofSetanta has been editing Misplaced Pages for at least five years using multiple accounts, but he still seems to struggle with the basics, including copyright, edit warring, etc. I would support a WP:CIR block even if his actions in the latest incident were in good faith, but it's pretty hard to keep assuming that at every faux pas he makes. I don't see any hounding by Psychonaut; the accusations leveled against Psychonaut by Mabuska reek of bad faith and might be explained by Mabuska's own partisanship in matters related to Northern Ireland. Furthermore, seeing the combined insistence by Mabuska and SonofSetanta (and of the sock Cartoon Buffoon) to nail Mo ainm on clearly pretty frivolous charges, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that SonofSetanta is simply playing stupid. The posts by SonofSetanta on the article's talk page show a clear if rather pathetic attempt at wikilawering in order to delete that article by any means. This is simply tendentious editing by SonofSetanta under the guise of playing stupid when he is infringing the rules, but at the same time he is demanding that others be sanctioned for lesser misdeeds. SonofSetanta is an agent provocateur if there ever was one. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning SonofSetanta

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

Contrary to what the request suggests, the discretionary sanctions remedy does require a prior warning in a specific form, see WP:AC/DS#Warnings. However, such a warning was previously provided at . SonofSetanta's conduct here, edit-warring to add a "nonsense" speedy deletion tag ("a page that is patent nonsense, consisting purely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history") to an article that obviously does not meet that definition of nonsense (Shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland) is manifestly disruptive. The sanctions log indicates that they have been previously been the subject of four separate sanctions for topic-related disruption going back to 2010. If no other uninvolved administrator disagrees, I'll impose an indefinite topic ban with respect to everything related to The Troubles. Sandstein 15:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

SonofSetanta, thank you for your statement. Can you please explain:

what led you to believe that the speedy deletion reason WP:CSD#G1 applies to that article?
why you thought that your repeated reinstatement of the deletion tag (in spite of correct warnings to the contrary) was not edit-warring?
what evidence (in the form of diffs) you have for your allegation that Psychonaut has been repeatedly hounding you with frivolous complaints?

MelanieN, you are free to submit the article to AfD if you think there is a reason it should be deleted, but I recommend not making nominations for others if no reason for deletion is put forward. Sandstein 16:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I still think an indefinite topic ban is appropriate. SonofSetanta's explanation that they made a honest mistake does not appear credible. As a user who has been editing since 2008 (under other accounts, per Mo ainm), they should be acquainted with our most basic procedures (as they were warned to do), and as somebody who has been sanctioned a dozen or so times (including the other accounts) for edit-warring, they should have known that only reverting "edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language" are excepted from revert restrictions per WP:3RRNO, which clearly does not apply to an administrator correctly declining frivolous speedy deletion requests. Finally, they provide no diff-based evidence for their (disruptive, if unproven) allegation of hounding by others. Tons of bricks have been explicitly authorized for this topic area, and it would have been SonofSetanta's duty to conduct themselves such as to avoid them. Sandstein 16:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Sigh, I'm not surprised that this has ended up here. SOS has for the last 7 or 8 weeks entered into persistent (almost dogged) disputes with groups of editors including Psychonaut and Moanim in the WP:Troubles area. SOS has complained of other editor's battleground mentality while not being able to recognize his own. All this after being blocked by me for violating 1RR in early July. There is no excuse for SOS's breaking 1RR and so I must agree that sanctions in this area are appropriate.
SOS has for all this brouhaha been making progress, it's my considered opinion that SOS would benefit from time editing other articles outside the WP:TROUBLES area in order to learn and gain sufficient competence with WP's policies to continue editing in an area under probation. Thus I would suggest a ban of definite duration (3-4 months). If problems recur after this we can go to indef then.
All that said SOS is not alone in breaching 1RR. Mo anim has broken that here . Given that Moanim is to the best of my knowledge a clean start account and has been editing in the WP:TROUBLES area significantly for a number of years I consider constructively warned. But I wont quibble if consensus is that they should only be warned officially for WP:TROUBLES at this point.
It should also be noted that Psychonaut has at this point been involved in two administrative treads with the specific aim of indef blocking/banning SOS in disputes where he is not involved. This is a big red flag, especially as he (along with others) was asked by another uninvolved admin to "back off". I'm inclined to consider this request valid but also to be an attempt to use AE to "win an argument". I'm inclined to consider warning Psychonaut (not to use administrative threads/procedures to attempt to win personal battles) to be enough in this instance, but it has to stop--Cailil 17:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Another sigh. Cartoon Buffon is a scrutiny evading sock and has been blocked per WP:DUCK. (NO edits other than the two to this thread)--Cailil 18:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree with the block. A time-limited topic ban of SonofSetanta is possible, but considering their longterm history of disruption under multiple accounts (to evade scrutiny?) I'd prefer indefinite. I don't think Psychonaut's conduct here is objectionable; the present request clearly has merit. As to Mo ainm, I am of the view that the 1R rule in this topic area is not enforceable via AE because it is not the subject of a remedy voted on by the Arbitration Committee: It's not clear who, if anybody, decided or authorized WP:TROUBLES#Final remedies for AE case. So Id' take no action in that regard. Sandstein 19:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:TROUBLES#Guide to enforcement. Seems to be the consensus. --Joy (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Enforceable, then. On that basis, no objection to a block or restriction of Mo ainm as deemed appropriate, if they have in fact been warned as per WP:AC/DS#Warnings, of which we'd need a diff for the record. Sandstein 20:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm especially concerned by the fact that SoS clearly indicated knowledge that the article was under 1RR , but then proceeded to edit war back in both a speedy tag (after an administrator declined the deletion) and a prod tag (which should never be reinserted anyway, any editor can challenge and stop a prod for any or even no reason). SoS then proceeded to refer to the disputes to his deletion request as "vandalism", which they clearly were not. I would tend toward an indefinite ban. Indefinite doesn't mean forever, but it would mean we'd need to see some measured improvement in behavior before we'd consider lifting the ban on such a contentious area. I think this is a better option than a ban which will expire regardless of any improvement. Seraphimblade 21:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

This is just to note that I have received an e-mail by SonofSetanta in which they make various claims about their private situation. In my view, thîs private information has no relevance to this request and I am not changing my views expressed above. Editors are required to follow our policies and guidelines without regard to their private situation.

The additional statement by SonofSetanta also does not change my view. Based on their assertion that "I've done nothing wrong" when in fact they have done very many things wrong, I must assume that similar disruptive conduct will continue if a topic ban is not imposed. Because sanctions are preventative rather than punitive, it does not matter whether the disruptive conduct that is to be prevented is the result of malice, incompetence, bad judgment, disability, or a combination of such factors. Sandstein 09:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion so far has confirmed my initial assessment that an indefinite topic ban is appropriate. As Seraphimblade said, it does not have to be indefinite and can be reviewed after several months of unproblematic productive editing in other topics. So closed. Sandstein 06:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Parishan

Request concerning Parishan

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Zimmarod (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Parishan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:ARBAA2#Standard discretionary sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

15 July 2013 Continued edit war by previous users , , by adding odd and unreferenced "Qaxaç qalası" as a putative alternative name of a medieval fort in Nagorno-Karabakh known as Kachaghakaberd. No explanations or sources provided despite several prompts.
12 June 2012 Continued edit war by previous users by adding odd and unreferenced "Qaxaç qalası" as a putative alternative name of a medieval fort in Nagorno-Karabakh known as Kachaghakaberd. No explanations or sources provided despite several prompts.

18 August 2013 Continued edit war by re-adding the unreferenced and controversial phrase "Ghareh Keliseh" as a putative Azerbaijani Muslim name for an ancient Armenian Christian monastery. No explanations or sources provided. Talk pages ignored.
3 August 2013. Same (see above)
19 July 2013. Same (see above)
18 July 2013. Same (see above)
18 July 2013. Same (see above)

-----------------------------------------

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

Warned on: 18 July 2013 by User:MarshallBagramyan
Sanction to six months: 24 July 2009 by Sandstein.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

As of late User:Parishan restarted edit wars on several pages, esp. on Kachaghakaberd and St. Thaddeus Monastery, where he adds odd names to Armenian monuments and characterizes these names as "Azerbaijani," without citing any references or bothering to explain his actions on talk pages despite invitations from other users to do so , . Parishan's edits came under sanctions several times in previous years, and he was warned lately by a long-time WP editor MarshallBagramyan.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Parishan

Statement by Parishan

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Parishan

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by SonofSetanta

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user: SonofSetanta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Sandstein 16:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions

Topic ban from everything related to The Troubles, imposed at , logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#2013

Administrator imposing the sanction: Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: Notification here.

Statement by SonofSetanta

"The overwhelming consensus at the arbitration page was that a mistake had been made by me, something which I maintained throughout. Two of the three editors who had been involved confirmed this as their opinion: User:MelanieN and User:Peridon (who is an admin). My belief at that time was that I was undoing vandalism and that was over-riding WP:1RR. I was getting to grips with it and had moved to the article talk page until the unexplained intervention of (User:Mo ainm) whom I have experienced unpleasantness from before and who can be seen to clamour for a ban against me throughout the proceedings. He made two swift reverts on a 1RR page without explanation. I note also that Someone not using his real name, who is in fact User:One Night In Hackney, and who has been the subject of many AE cases regarding The Troubles. I hope that any involved sysops will regard whatever these two say as WP:WEASEL and in particular the pursuance of a grudge under WP:BATTLE, particularly as both have gone to some lengths to hide their previous editing history as per WP:CLEANSTART (both have been topic banned from Troubles articles in the last year). I therefore put it to you that, although I made a genuine error on a new procedure, the mistake was compounded by the intervention of someone who was determined to take advantage of the situation, WP:WIKIHOUNDING.

Much has been made of my inability to cope with new tasks on the wiki. I accept that as correct. Once I learn something however I don't repeat mistakes as is evidenced in my approach to the problems I had with image copyright in the days leading up to 5th July 2013. I would still say the approach of copyright patrollers was less than sympathetic and I was very much thrust into a learning curve I wasn't ready for. However, I applied myself to it and there are no such issues remaining today. This includes going back over two previous identities and making sure that all copyright issues were dealt with, including the many frivolous ones.

My previous identities have come in for scrutiny. As of 7th August 2013, as per the advice of a sysops, all three accounts were clearly linked after I made it absolutely clear that I was the owner of those accounts.

Notwithstanding the above, which I believe clearly exonerates me from any deliberate disruption, I made a clear statement on the AE case here that I was withdrawing voluntarily and indefinitely from all articles concerned with the Troubles. I am firmly of the belief that my current personal disposition makes me unsuitable for editing articles where partisan views create an atmosphere in which collegiate discussion and the pursuance of academic accuracy take second place to establishing a political WP:POV. I had requested that the article at Ulster Defence Regiment and all articles relating to it with Ulster Defence Regiment or UDR in their title be exempt from this withdrawal as to me the continued editing of these articles falls squarely into the sphere of Military history and my success as an editor on all articles concerning the UDR is without doubt, having raised the main article to B Class, narrowly missing an A Class recently and now up for WP:GA. I repeat my offer of voluntary restrictions now, suggesting that it, as a self imposed sanction, gives me more scope to prove over a long period of time that it is the interests of Misplaced Pages I have at heart and not a personal agenda.

I request that this topic ban be overturned and instead I will enter into an indefinite voluntary withdrawal agreement from Troubles articles. Should I ever feel able to return to these contentious areas I agree to do so only under the supervision of my mentor User:Mabuska and with the permission of a sysop.

Whatever the outcome of this appeal I request again that all articles concerning military history, and in particular articles concerning the Ulster Defence Regiment, be exempt from any voluntary or imposed restrictions so that I might give my best to Misplaced Pages."

Someone not using his real name

As per here Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive805#SonofSetanta_Topic_Ban it can be seen that User:Someone not using his real name appears in close company with User:Domer48 and User:Mo ainm when I am in trouble. All three calling for a ban against me. These three would have previously worked together as User:One Night In Hackney, User:BigDunc and User:Domer48 and would have applied a similar modus operandi. It can clearly be seen from his home page that User:Someone_not_using_his_real_name is hiding his identity but has taken precautions to avoid accusations of WP:SOCK. This amount of cunning is what one would expect from the user who has displayed WP:LAWYER tendencies in the past on numerous occasions to avoid blocks, bans or other sanctions. I'm sure it has been put to him publicly on the wiki that he is in fact, Hackney. I believe Cailil might be able to shed some light on this. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I suggest this can be resolved by User:Someone_not_using_his_real_name confirming directly with a sysop what his known identity is. That way he can maintain his privacy if he ISN'T who he appears to be. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It's clearly not sockpuppetry as the user has taken protection against that. It's a case of hiding identity and I'm suspicious of the reasons behind it. Especially when this editor joins with two others who are known for edit-warring on Troubles articles. I'm not well enough versed on procedures to say what it is but my antenna are up. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

The appeal should be declined as superfluous, because the appellant offers to observe a "voluntary and indefinite" abstention from topic-related articles. Because this would be largely identical to the topic ban being appealed here, an undoing of the ban would not amount to any substantial relief for the appellant. To the extent that other editors may nonetheless wish to review the ban on the merits, I refer to my comments in the original discussion and recommend that the ban be maintained.

The appellant's allegation that Someone not using his real name, who commented in the discussion about the request that led to the ban, "is in fact User:One Night In Hackney" merits closer attention. The appellant should provide evidence for this allegation. If they cannot, it may be grounds for further sanctions per the principle enunciated in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds#Casting aspersions. If the allegation is true, it may be grounds for sanctions against Someone not using his real name for misusing multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny. I have informed Someone not using his real name about this thread. Sandstein 16:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Black Kite

Even if User:Someone not using his real name is User:One Night In Hackney, there are no grounds for sanctions; the ONIH account was last used in September 2012 and the new account created in June 2013. ONIH was under a temporary Troubles topic ban but that expired in November 2012 and so was not active when the new account was created. Black Kite (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Someone not using his real name

The claim that I am some editor I've never heard of ("One night in Hackney") is ridiculous and unsupported by any evidence. Such a claim should be raised at SPI, not here, but Sandstein invited me to comment here. I have voluntarily disclosed the IP address from which I have made most of my edits (on my user page), you can probably see it's very far from anything related to Ireland. How good was One night in Hackney's Russian or Romanian? My first acquaintance with SoS was on ANI, in the threads about his repeated violations of copyrights. I have not made any substantive edits to Ireland-related articles. It doesn't take a content expert though to see that SoS' actions—4 CSDs of the same article and one PROD plus some WP:VAGUEWAVE on the talk page are disruptive. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

As for the accusations of WP:MEAT, I was not solicited to comment in the previous AE. The main reason I've commented there is the ridiculous barrage of accusations leveled at User:Psychonaut , whose only real fault was that he spotted and reported the edit-warring over the CSD tags, no doubt during his copyvio investigations. Per his previous statement at AE, Psychonaut is also uninvolved in Ireland topics. If an editor's behavior (SoS in this case) appears obviously disruptive even to complete outsiders to the topic (myself and Psychonaut), that is probably an even stronger case than when the editors involved in partisan content disputes report each other here. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

As for "It's a case of hiding identity", please read WP:PRIVACY. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Lukeno94

I see numerous issues with SonofSetanta's immediate appeal of the AE enforcement. The most obvious one is a clear inability to grasp that their editing has indeed been problematic. I object to the idea that SonofSetanta should get to choose when they can return to editing these articles, and their issue with these articles goes well beyond the "one mistake" they tout in their request (the POV-pushing I have observed has been on a separate article to the one that was initially mentioned in the original AE thread.) The WP:SOCK allegations aren't based on any factual evidence, but on apparent paranoia; allegations of WP:MEAT may have more basis, but are clearly not for a WP:AE thread, and, devoid of any evidence, are further detrimental to SoS' case. The irony of WP:LAWYER being named in their case is fairly amusing. SoS has shown an incredibly poor grasp of various policies, including the WP:CSD and WP:Edit warring policies, throughout their edits when related to the troubles (I have been frivolously accused of "tag teaming", having objected to a clear POV-pushing and policy-misrepresenting revert on a single occasion.) I think this should be closed as a frivolous/disruptive request, and possibly some kind of sanction levied - at the very least, closed with a "you cannot appeal for six months" statement. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Statement by One Night In Hackney

Comical. The idea that Someone not using his real name has to prove his innocence from a frivolous allegation is turning things backwards. If SoS thinks he's a sock of me, go ahead and file an SPI. I would say more on this subject, but it's probably more amusing to see how this plays out. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 18:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by SonofSetanta

Result of the appeal by SonofSetanta

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.