Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:55, 20 August 2013 editPeridon (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers43,650 edits →Statement by User:Peridon← Previous edit Revision as of 17:30, 20 August 2013 edit undoCartoon Buffoon (talk | contribs)4 edits →Discussion concerning SonofSetantaNext edit →
Line 170: Line 170:


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. ] (]) 16:47, 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. ] (]) 16:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

====Statement by Cartoon Buffoon====
It seems to me that Psychonaut has failed to take Kim Dent Brown's advice in ]. I've never seen him edit in the Troubles area, so maybe he'd like to explain why he felt the need to file this report? At this point it looks like nothing more than harassment. ] (]) 17:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


====Statement by (username)==== ====Statement by (username)====

Revision as of 17:30, 20 August 2013

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the automated editing program, see Misplaced Pages:AutoEd.
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
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
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:

    1. ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. 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:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
    3. 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:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
    3. compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.
    1. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
    2. 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:

    1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. 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-en@wikimedia.org).
    Modifications by administrators

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

    1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
    2. 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:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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
    1234567891011121314151617181920
    2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
    4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
    6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
    81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
    101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
    121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
    141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
    161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
    181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
    201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
    221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
    241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
    261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
    281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
    301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
    321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340
    341342343344345346347

    MarshalN20

    Motions for interaction bans are now being considered by ArbCom. It is the consensus of uninvolved administrators here that this is the appropriate solution, however the case in question did not delegate authority for AE to impose such a sanction. Seraphimblade 14:40, 16 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 MarshalN20

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Lecen (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    MarshalN20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History#MarshalN20 topic banned
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. MarshalN20 again talks about Juan Manuel de Rosas and the sources used in the article, even though he was banned from it. He even asks the Arbitrator to reply to him through e-mail, in an obvious attempt to avoid the topic ban. Even though the Arbitrators imposed a mutual interaction ban, he spent the entire message speaking ill of me, which wouldn't allow me to defend myself.
    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
    1. Warned on by Sandstein (talk · contribs) ("No action, but MarshalN20 is warned that future actions that skirt the boundaries of their topic ban may result in sanctions.")
    2. Warned on by Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs) (interaction ban)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    @Question to all: I've seen that everyone is saying that my behavior was inappropriate. I'd like to know when and how was it inappropriate. Since I'm not going around criticizing or accusing Marshal of this and that, I'd like to know how did I violate anything. --Lecen (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Here


    Discussion concerning MarshalN20

    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.

    Rather terse statement from The ed17

    Marshall's actions are getting ridiculous. Is he or is he not topic banned? Ed  23:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

    @Marshall, I have no personal grudge with you, I'm just rather saddened that you can't seem to honor the spirit of the topic ban. @both, I would assume that this is not about the Falkland Islands arb decision, which is beneficial to the enclyopedia—it's more of a response to posting about Lecen on yet another arbitrator's talk page.Ed  03:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
    @Marshall, hah, I see what you did there. Because Salvio labeled it as an informal, you've skirted that by saying that there is no "formal" interaction ban. Ed  07:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

    Statement by MarshalN20

    The actions taken by Lecen and The ed17 are clearly a response to a recent motion passed by the arbitration committee (see ), where I am allowed to edit the history-related section of the Falkland Islands article. Neither Lecen or Ed want me to contribute to the encyclopedia (see ) due to a personal grudge they have against me.
    Also, as observed by Penwhale, my statement in AGK's page is a response to his friendly post on my talk page (see ). I understood AGK was opening up his sincerity towards me, so I responded with another sincere statement. I meant no harm to anyone by it.
    Moreover, as this diff demonstrates (see ), I removed any mention of Rosas or John Lynch from my statement and requested AGK to ignore the matter (and this was done prior to this report filed by Lecen). In fact, I edited my statement even prior to AGK responding to it or sending me an e-mail (he has done neither as of this statement). In other words, Lecen is using an old version of my statement for the sake of continuing his grudge against me (and using this enforcement board as a way to game his grudge).--MarshalN20 | 00:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

    @Ed, if this is "a response to posting about Lecen", then there is nothing that the enforcement board needs to do. There is no formal interaction ban between the two of us.--MarshalN20 | 16:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

    @Ed, I have not "skirted" anything, and again your tone (in both of your response to me) is that of mockery ("I'm just rather saddened" and "hah, I see what you did there"). This enforcement request is a serious matter. Your conduct is unbecoming of an administrator.
    Lastly, again I'll add that there is no interaction ban in this case. In fact, Salvio suggested that if the "informal" (ie, suggestion) he provided did not work, then he would file a request for a formal interaction ban. If the request board wishes to make a statement also encouraging the creation of a formal interaction ban, then I would gladly use this recommendation to file it myself. Regards.--MarshalN20 | 14:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

    Statement by Cambalachero

    The dates and times of the edits seem to confirm MarshalN20's version of the events. See MarshalN20's contributions and Lecen's contributions. MarshalN20 made the reported comment on August 12, 15:48. He realized by himself that he may have been breaching the ban, and removed the text and asked to ignore it on August 12, 19:06. Lecen made his first comment about MarshalN20's comment (at AGK talk page) on August 13, 09:01. Meaning, MarshalN20 fixed his comment in the evening, and Lecen noticed the comment the next day in the morning.

    That leads to an interesting concern. If MarshalN20's comment and Lecen's report took place the same day, this report may be considered as something similar to an edit conflict (MarshalN20 writes something he should not write, Lecen notices it and prepares a report, MarshalN20 realizes the mistake and fixes his comment, and Lecen finally sends the report, unaware of the change). But the time skip from one day to another does not allow to consider that scenario. Lecen must have seen MarshalN20's comment in the state he left them in the night; in fact in his first comment to AGK (this one) he does not seem to have noticed the (already deleted) comments about Lynch. It seems as if he found the original comment by checking contributions, and deliberately skipped to comment that MarshalN20 had already noticed the problem and had already fixed things. Still, if he has a good and sound explanation for the reason of the absence of this detail in his initial report, I would be open to give him the benefit of the doubt. In fact, Lecen may prove that he made an unintentional mistake the same way MarshalN20 did: by fixing it. He can admit that he somehow did not realize that MarshalN20 had already removed the problematic text, ask for a speedy decline of this request, and nobody will ever suggest that he tried to mislead anyone. Cambalachero (talk) 03:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning MarshalN20

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

    • Just an observation that the edit seems to be a direct reply to this edit by AGK, but on AGK's talk page instead. Also, his contributions shows that with the exception of the replies (I assume) to AGK's talk page, all his edits have been related to Easter Island and Falkland Islands since the motion on him passed yesterday. I'm leaning towards that it is not a violation of topic ban in this instance, but I welcome input from others. - Penwhale | 23:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
    • MarshalN20's original edit to AGK's talk page was a violation of the interaction ban, as it contained comments about Lecen which could reasonably be seen as negative. However, MarshalN20 did redact these comments even prior to this complaint being filed, upon realizing that they were ill-advised. Self-reversion is not always a guarantee against sanctions, but this should be considered when determining what if any sanctions to impose. I note, however, that Lecen has also violated the interaction ban with this edit by making disparaging comments regarding MarshalN20. Two-way interaction bans are two-way, and as both editors have violated the ban, I don't see a justifiable reason to sanction one without sanctioning the other in kind. Seraphimblade 06:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Given what I've seen just with this request, I think the two disengaging from one another for a while is a good idea. If there was uncertainty as to what the exact status of the ban was, I don't think I would see the need for any other action here, and that would remove any uncertainty. Seraphimblade 21:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Having been inadvertently exposed to the interaction between these two editors in recent days, it is apparent to me that Marshal and Lecen do not actually need to interact because they do not work together on content, and moreover that they cannot interact with any degree of professionalism. I fully agree with Seraphim. AGK 21:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I agree that no action is required with respect to this request, that both editors continue to act inappropriately to some degree, and that an interaction ban between them appears appropriate. However, there seems to be no remedy (such as discretionary sanctions) that would allow administrators to impose one, and so a request to the community or to the Committee would need to be made.  Sandstein  22:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Correct. Salvio's suggestion was to ask ArbCom to pass a motion for an interaction ban. Since they're already familiar with the case and it's already been before them, I think that would be a better route than a request for a community sanction. Since there appears to be consensus here that such an interaction ban is needed, I'll file the request. Seraphimblade 22:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Since this is now in front of ArbCom, unless any uninvolved admin objects, I'll go ahead with closing this request. I noted the consensus here as a statement on Lecen's request. Seraphimblade 00:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

    SonofSetanta

    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:

    1. 12:41, 20 August 2013 tagged Shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland for speedy deletion
    2. 13:25, 20 August 2013 tagged Shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland for speedy deletion
    3. 13:53, 20 August 2013 tagged Shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland for speedy deletion
    4. 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, the thread 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)

    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)

    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 User: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)

    Statement by Cartoon Buffoon

    It seems to me that Psychonaut has failed to take Kim Dent Brown's advice in closing this ANI thread. I've never seen him edit in the Troubles area, so maybe he'd like to explain why he felt the need to file this report? At this point it looks like nothing more than harassment. Cartoon Buffoon (talk) 17:30, 20 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)
    Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions Add topic