Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive138

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Qwyrxian (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Neo. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBIP

Diffs and explanations of problem

User:Darkness Shines completely transformed the article 2002 Gujarat violence from one violating multiple policies (particularly, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:BLP) into one that, while not perfect, was at least minimally compliant (see this sequence of edits). User:Neo. reverted, failing to even recognize DS's concerns, making an unfounded analogy. From that point forward (July 6), Neo and a few others began a series of "defenses" on the talk page, most of which failed to address policies, and in Neo.'s case, crossed over into tendentiousness.

The problem begins in Talk:2002 Gujarat violence#POV pushing by User:Darkness Shines, where Neo attempted to argue that WP:PRIMARY (including WP:BLPPRIMARY) don't apply here, despite the fact that they apply everywhere in Wikipedia (see [1]. He goes further and says that academic sources are "academic crap" and "conspiracy theories" "written to make money". He continues to hold this position in Talk:2002 Gujarat violence#Edit request on 6 July 2013, in which he asserts that such violations are "minor problems" that Darkness Shines is using to divert admins. Later, Neo erroneously states that verified information may not be removed from an article.

On July 8, Neo added what he claimed was an RfC...but the phrasing was so extremely biased that I removed the tag and indicated that such a leading question was unacceptable.

On July 9, Neo stated that my and User:The Rahul Jain's only reason for being involved in the article was because of "prior disputes on Jainism articles"; actually, TRJ had a dispute with Neo., which I stepped into because, as with this article, Neo was attempting to keep an older version of articles that violated policies in spite of TRJ's improvements. My reason for involvement in this article was originally as an uninvolved admin responding to an edit request that I became aware of because it was discussed on a user talk page I watch. I've since explicitly stated that I consider myself WP:INVOLVED and am not taking admin actions on the article. Neo. repeated this claim on July 15.

On July 10, Neo. insinuated that RegentsPark, the previous protected admin who had protected a version resembling DS's preferred version to stop an edit war, and chose the current version as the WP:WRONGVERSION, would come back to the article again to intentionally choose DS's version to favor him.

On July 11, Neo. proposed a new change to the article, which quite obviously violated WP:NPOV, later, User:Maunus noticed (and I confirmed) that Neo was misrepresenting the sources, either through lack of comprehension or deliberate POV pushing (see Talk:2002 Gujarat violence#comments and Talk:2002 Gujarat violence#31 convicted, we know already).

During this whole shebang, Neo. filed two WP:ANI complaints. Both were dismissed as being at best a misrepresented content dispute and at worst "baseless" and WP:IDHT/WP:STICK. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive803#Admin Qwyrxian and WP:ANI#GANG on 2002 Gujarat violence. He also made similar accusations at the Noticeboard for India-related topics (see WT:INB#Wikiproject India and GANG), which included an accusation of tag-teaming, and was closed as not appropriate for the noticeboard.

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

1. Warned on July 9 by Qwyrxian (talk · contribs)
2. User Talk:Neo.#Warning contains a series of edits by several admins about edit warring
3. Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) left the formal, templated warning on July 15

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Sandstein: The warning on July 9, left on the article's talk page, is sufficient to meet the warning requirements of sanctions; all that is requires is that editors be aware that sanctions are in place on an article, not that a personal, templated warning be left for that person specifically. There are certainly actionable diffs after the July 9 date; most notably the tendentiousness displayed in proposing and making editors waste time in arguing about a blatantly POV recommended change to the article. While article space problems are more "obvious" than talk page one's, WP:IDHT and WP:TE problems on talk pages can drive away good faith editors and be equally destructive to the encyclopedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to accept Sandstein's argument wrt the the warnings, as I have no problem with requiring strict adherence to rules. However, I'm worried that Neo's second statement itself is evidence that the problem has not gone away--rather, that the disruptive behavior is merely on hold while this discussion is open. To me, that statement still clearly shows errors in understanding of preferred editing behaviors, as well as still attributes unwarranted motives to myself and regentspark. So...perhaps a stern warning will do (along with some administrative watching of the talk page to ensure future behavior is acceptable)...but my experience with this type of POV pushing--so strong that the POV-pusher doesn't even realize that they're warping everything, including our policies, to try to make things conform to "the truth"--doesn't get better with time, or even with warnings. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff of notification

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.

This whole ArbCom concept is new to me. I use mobile. Please give at least 24 hours to study this concept and write my side. Until decision is made, I will not edit any article related to Gujarat, politics or religion. Thanks. neo (talk) 18:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC) It would take very long and very long post if I try to analyse every edit of all users. I may left out something but let me use Occam's razor and try to be short. I will talk about things happened before yesterday's edit by User:Utcursch.[reply]

The whole argument is about whether this 'Godhra train burning' section is presenting NPOV. And I don't see it. The section begins with "was reported to have been attacked and set alight by a crowd of Muslims". Then section goes on citing Banerjee report, Hazard center report, Citizen's tribunal report, independent observers and Ainslie Embree to tell reader that the fire was an accident and muslims got nothing to do with it. Shah-Nanavati report use 'conspiracy by locals' wording, not Muslims. But as it indicate Muslim involvement, DS has done WP:SYNTHESIS in next sentence to tell reader that Shah-Nanavati commission was partial and corrupt, attempt to destroy credibility of Shah-Nanavati report. So if a school child or new reader read this section, he/she would believe that the fire on train was an accident.

To present other side of the story, i.e 'direct or alleged involvement of Muslim mob', I proposed this edit. I am dealing with 4 users single handendly. DS says out of 6 sources, 3 are primary and 1 blog but refuses to tell which. Then he goes on to say that the "locals" word cover 'muslim mob' theory. So my edit is unnecessary. I pointed out to Maunus that 2002 HRW report is already used by DS in the article and 2012 HRW article still quote 2002 report. Now Maunus is giving strange argument that as HRW report is critical of post-Godhra violence, hence I can't use that report for Godhra incident and he accuse me of "misrepresentation". Qwyrxian was silent. I forced him to comment in this section. I am attrbuting to sources with direct quotes, but he also accused me of "misrepresentation". The Rahul Jain just occasionaly drops in to 'vote' in favor of DS and goes away without any comment on my proposed edit.

The team shows extreme disliking for news or any web sources and insist on 'academic' sources. But in 'Godhra train burning' section, out of 10 sources DS has used 4 news sources to support Banerjee report, Shah-Nanavati report, Citizen's tribunal report. When it comes to supporting their POV, they do use news and web sources, but oppose by others. They discard pre-2010 sources as old and outdated, but goes on using 2002 HRW report and 2003 USCIRF report to support their POV in the article.

Initially I assumed good faith in DS and believed that the 'attack by a muslim mob' theory don't exist in his 'academic book' sources. Hence I called those books as 'crap' because I believed that those books are not telling whole story about Godhra. But now I strongly suspect that DS, Maunus and Qwyrxian are cherry picking POV contents from academic sources and as most users don't have access to his academic sources, he is getting away with it. Yesterday User:Utcursch got hold of two books and said here that DS has clearly misrepresented Ainslie Embree. I strongly suspect that 'attack by a muslim mob' theory is also discussed in his academic sources but he is making readers believe that it doesn't exist in his book sources or all books talk about only 'accident' theory as real cause.

Such tendentious behaviour, gaming the system frustrate users and severely harm quality of wikipedia. I request ArbCom to take appropriate decision to stop their disruptive behaviour. Thank you. neo (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am giving Human Rights Watch[2][3], United States Department of State [4], European Parliament[5], Amnesty International [6], Social Science Research Council[7], United Nations Human Rights Council [8], TIME magazine [9], Wall Street Journal [10] as sources. I am attributing quotes to sources. I am ready to bring more hundreds of sources. But the arguments like this by Maunus that "Sources talk about attacks against muslims after Godhra, hence I can not use those sources for Godhra incident to show attack by muslims on train" and on this argument attempt to reject all thousands of sources is outragious. Making a team, inserting non-neutral contents and then forbidding any user to include other side of the story, pulling down Rfc to gag my mouth, such things are very serious matter for the wikipedia. If Admins disagree, then better to block me. I can't stand this nonsense. neo (talk) 11:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was I supposed to comment on the statement of Qwyrxian or was I supposed to make statement on the issue? neo (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much before User:Darkness Shines started replacing article, I had told him to propose his changes on article talkpage.[11] But DS ignored it and started replacing article. I objected and told him on article talkpage to self-revert. Div999 supported DS, while me, Solomon7968, Shii raised questions.[12] But as DS went on replacing article, I reverted all his edits except this one concerning BLPPRIMARY. It is never restored till date but Qwyrxian keep talking about it again and again. On that false assumption he reverted my edit[13]. Qw had no idea what DS is doing, when I pointed out he did second mass revert.[14] If there was ever BLPPRIMARY in my revert removed by DS, Qw should give diff, otherwise he should stop raising this issue again and again which potentially misguide users.

• I stand by my argument that verified contents can not be removed without explaination.[15]

• Qw should have pointed out which sources and contents in prev version of article violate WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Qw never did, he left that job for DS and DS also never did. In fact in his second comment on talkpage Qw suggested to DS to discuss changes section by section or take Rfc.[16] I agreed.[17] DS disagreed.[18] Then Qw did U turn, declared himself editor and started asking me to show what is wrong in the draft article of DS[19] I had no access to book sources of DS and was unable to comment on whole draft article of DS in short time. Qw had suggested Rfc to DS, but instead I went for Rfc. Qw removed Rfc tag accusing me of bad behaviour citing WP:AC/DS and saying that standards are extra high for this article.[20] But he didn't know existence of this article until a "week ago".[21] If he have no idea about subject of the article, why he allowed replacement of whole article? He claims standards are extra high but as he had no idea about existence of the article, he never checked whether contents of DS really exists in academic books. Qw says that he might have argued to block DS before. [22] Why suddenly blind faith in DS to allow him to replace whole article which is under WP:AC/DS? * Qw has himself said that he was not aware of existence of article. He has also said on my talkpage that he came on this article after seeing my edit request on RegentsPark talkpage.[23] Also it can be seen from article edit history that The Rahul Jain jumped in on this article only because of me and Qw.

• My doubt about RegentsPark-DS was not unfounded.[24] Even after ANI discussion, he protected article which had disputed contents of DS.[25] I have no reason to believe that RegentsPark won't do it again.

• Maunus has commented only about HRW and UN source. I asked in RSN whether HRW is reliable source and am I misrepresenting. I am not misrepresenting anything.[26]

• It can be clearly established that Qw and Rahul Jain were not on '2002 Gujarat violence' and I had prior dispute with both related to Jainism articles. There are 4.4 million articles. Now how they suddenly jumped on '2002 Gujarat violence' to support another disputing pair of DS and Maunus is mystery. If this does not fit into definition of tag team, then I retract my accusation and apologize to all concerned. neo (talk) 20:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concur largely with Qwyrxian's analysis above so I'm not going to repeat all the diffs here but do wish to make a couple of points. Neo needs to be aware that the way Wikipedia works we collaborate on content. What that means is that sometimes editors may agree with each other while at other times they may disagree. However, in each instance of agreement or disagreement, the way forward is always through specific content suggestions and specific sources to back up those suggestions. Wholesale reverts with broad accusations of POV violations and/or tag teaming are not only not helpful but are also disruptive (cf. [27], [28]). Neo needs to realize that pointy RfCs, assumptions of bad faith, and large scale reverts are not the way toward becoming a useful editor on Wikipedia. --regentspark (comment) 15:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@YK. Neo. reverts wholesale without discussion stuff he doesn't like (see my My two diffs above and also in Qw's statement); sees tag teaming and gangs working against him (see the edit summaries in his contributions. All signs of an editor who would rather see his or her version and nothing else. --regentspark (comment) 13:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I agree with user:Sandstein that a content dispute has been brought to this venue, as evident from the arguments put forward by the nominator and the counter-arguments presented by Neo. (2) The revision history statistics of 2002 Gujarat violence indicate that there have been 3857 edits made by 1073 users, made over a period of almost 10 years.[29] What kind of evidence does the nominator have in support of his claim that DS has completely transformed the article from one that had multiple issues to one that is compliant? (3) In a subject so subjective and controversial, the article would reflect the views of the consensus. Do DS's 128 edits made in 45 days, the third highest to the article, reflect respect to wp:CONSENSUS, where is the evidence that Neo's edits overturn that consensus? (4) So the nominator's claim that "There are certainly actionable diffs after the July 9 date; most notably the tendentiousness displayed in proposing and making editors waste time in arguing about a blatantly POV recommended change to the article." does not apply in Neo's case. Neo is prepared to discuss and act according to the rules as declared in his edit on "11:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)" in which he informs that he would refer the matter to DRN or RFC/U.[30] (5) Neo is trying to discuss, he has less than 12 edits to 2002 Gujarat violence, DS has 128. RegentsParks needs to provide evidence why he considers Neo unwilling to collaborate. (6) I suggest to Neo that he ought not to use words/phrases like "nonsense" or "block me", he may consider looking at the path user:Mrt3366 had to take, he has to trust the system, there isn't anything personal against him. (7) I suggest that Neo shouldn't comment on the motivation of other editors in making edits, and not make personal comments about them. (8) There have been allegations by the nominator that edits made by Neo are actionable, evidence for the same simply indicates a content dispute, Neo has expressed willingness to set right any behavioural issues the community may find in his edits, he has demonstrated sound understanding of the principles of good editing by his statement that he would stay away from "sanction areas" pending his appeal. Administrative action on Wikipedia is "coercive and not punitive", I therefore do not see any reason to ban or block Neo, if any advice is necessary to be given to Neo, it may be given, Neo has demonstrated that he would take it to heart. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with user:Sitush's observations generally. However my linking to wp:CONSENSUS implies that the consensus is amongst compliant editors and not vandals or the like. Also if there is allusion to a systemic bias on his part, he has to present evidence to prove his claim. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• DS: What is the particular misrepresentation? Would you pl be specific? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• DS: There are 11 sources, you need to specify the one or two specific bad cases. Also these are content disputes? Is this the right venue? Don't we do this at DRN? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• DS: The Hindu story dt. 2005-01-23 mentions various controversies, those controversies have not been mentioned in the section, matters such as molesting a Muslim girl on the platform, accident and not sabotage.[31] Perhaps we can have that in the section based on the Hindu story. However those speculations seem to have been overruled by the subsequent 31 convictions, 11 death sentences and 20 life terms, 63 acquittals. However this IBN source[32] doesn't tell us that all were Muslims, we just have 4 Muslim (sounding) names. So the IBN source cannot be used for the "all Muslims" remarks. Was this IBN source related lacunae discussed on the talk page, did Neo justify this mis-representation? Please supply diff of discussion. I've checked four sources, two are used fine, there is no misrepresentation in the third, the fourth (IBN the one you didn't share) doesn't inform all were Muslims. Please supply diffs as above. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• DS: Why did you remove my edit which informs that Dargah that was a syncretic place of worship? Your edit summary didn't provide any explanation.[33] The statement I added was "The shrine was a site of syncretic worship having Hindu and Muslim followers" The source which incidentally has been used by you six times in the same articleBunsha 2006 informs us "The Rashiduddin Chisti dargah was a place of worship not only for Muslims, but also for Hindus." Why did you not use it to inform readers that the Dargah (typically of Dargahs in India, notable examples are the Khwaja Garib Nawaz dargah or the Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti darga or the Haji Ali Dargah) was a syncretic place of worship? I requested you[34] to discuss the same on the article's talk page, why didn't you discuss? I opine that your aforementioned deletion is gross misrepresentation of the source. Is Neo dealing with such mis-representation? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• DS: I've answered your question above, as best as I could in my edit: 10:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC). Now why was the well sourced syncretic edit reverted by you without explanation? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• user:cailil: Neo is asking questions, he should be given an opportunity to understand where he was wrong and if he is prepared to improve, IMO a ban isn't necessary. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles such as the one referred to in this instance are prone to often-extreme Hindu-Islam, India-Pakistan POV-pushing and friction. That POV issue is in large part why the sanctions whose enforcement is being requested here were introduced. I have no opinion on the request itself, having deliberately tried to keep a low profile and having no desire to get sucked into yet another aspect of the increasingly disruptive "Indo-Pak", Hindu-Muslim palaver that has been getting a higher and higher profile in all the wrong places over the last few months. From my own experience of Neo. elsewhere, it does not surprise me that the behaviour has ended up here, but beyond that I really do not want to get involved. - Sitush (talk) 23:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to look into it right now but there may be some past history here. Neo has made a request at WP:BN that concerns another user account. - Sitush (talk) 10:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked this question of Neo. and another editor on the talk page of the article this pertains to, as Yogesh Khandke is so sure of Neo. being neutral, tall me YK, is this [35] within our NPOV policies? Are the sources used in that section, used correctly? Darkness Shines (talk) 01:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Yogesh Khandke: It is a simple question YK, is that section neutral? And is it an accurate reflection of the sources used in it? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Yogesh Khandke: You have said in your first statement "What kind of evidence does the nominator have in support of his claim that DS has completely transformed the article from one that had multiple issues to one that is compliant?" Other than the BLPPRIMARY issues and PRIMARY issues I had fixed that section is an example of what the article looked like before I rewrote the most of it. You say "Neo is trying to discuss" But he was not, his first post about my changes were an accusation of POV pushing and a demand I self revert, even though he claimed above in his initial statement that he was "AGF" of myself. His second post on my changes were to call the sources "academic crap which make up stories long after the incident." and that these academics are " conspiracy theorists tends to screw straight forward cases and publish books to earn money", even though he says above he has no access to them, and not once did he ask for quotes or clarification on the sources. Does that sound like as you say, "Neo is trying to discuss"? So onto the section, and the question nobody seems willing to respond to. Is that section written in a neutral manner? A simple yes or no will suffice for that one. And as you seem unwilling to look at the sources here are a few from that section, are these sources used correctly and in line with out NPOV policy. This is the first source used in the section[36] The second[37] The third[38] Darkness Shines (talk) 10:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Yogesh Khandke: I told you in my edit summary why I reverted you, I do not want you following my edits, if you would like me to explain why this is so I will be more than happy to. You never responded to my question, was that section written in a neutral manner? And when compared to the edits I had done to bring it in line with policy then was Neo. correct to revert that work and call the sources used "academic crap"? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry YK, do you in fact wish for me to expand upon why I do not want you to follow my edits? And still no, you have not responded to the question, you have in fact skirted around it. Let me put it in very plain language, was neo with the full stop correct in his assertion that the sources used were "academic crap" and was he correct to edit war over the changes? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't readily see anything actionable in this submission, or to convince me that this is not mainly a content dispute. The warning allowing us to impose discretionary sanctions was issued on 15 July. Anything earlier is not actionable in the context of this forum in my view. And there is no later dated diff in the evidence submission. Additionally, writing poor-quality content (not that I say that this has necessarily happened here) or making mistaken arguments in discussions is not a violation of Wikipedia's conduct policies, and therefore not in and of itself sanctionable.

But writing non-neutral and unverifiable content is, as is engaging in personal attacks. Neo. should take care in the future to adhere to all important policies as outlined at WP:5P, and not make sweeping accusations of misconduct without adequate evidence. The countercomplaint by Neo. is too confused and insufficiently supported by evidence (in the form of explained diffs!) to be actionable at first glance.  Sandstein  21:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Qwyrxian, the July 9 warning is not sufficient, because WP:AC/DS#Warnings requires that the warning include "a link to the decision authorizing sanctions", which that warning did not.  Sandstein  23:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Sandstein, but this objection is really an extreme form of rules-lawyering formalism. The warning contained a link to WP:Discretionary sanctions, which in itself documents an arbcom decision "authorizing sanctions", describing the nature of discretionary sanctions and listing, with links, all the individual arb cases. That is at least as authoritative and as informative (if not more) than a direct link to the original case page, and is more than enough to fulfill both the letter and – more importantly – the spirit of the formal rule. I haven't yet looked at all the evidence presented above, but I'm certainly not going to look at it with an artifical cutoff date of 15 July in mind, unless there is positive evidence that he has significantly improved his conduct after that date (as opposed to just accidentally not producing new egregious cases of misconduct). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you may do as you wish, but I prefer to err on the side of caution when determining whether enforcement authority exists. The problem is that WP:DS is not a decision authorizing sanctions; the individual case decisions do that.  Sandstein  18:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as I'm concerned that July 9th warning IS sufficient[39], so I agree with Future Perfect. Such a warning has been good enough historically. If there had been a talk page template that would have been enough (for me now and again has been historically). Given that the message on the talk page was directly to Neo, I see it serving the same purpose as a formalized warning.
  On a first look at the evidence there is either a WP:COMPETENCE or tendentiousness issue here with Neo. There have been enough administrative warnings here from multiple uninvolved sysops. And Neo has been casting aspersions wildly. Some sort of restriction is in order here, at least to point Neo in the right direction or to let him learn elsewhere (in other topics) how to behave on WP. I'd be considering a 1 month page ban. But I'm open to suggestion either to be more or less harsh--Cailil ^talk 22:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've looked over this again and remain of the opinion that Neo should at least be page banned. The warnings were clear - the reaction was wildly inappropriate. I've asked Future Perfect to review his comment above as I would another opinion before acting--Cailil ^talk 17:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In a comment at Future Perfect's talk page, Neo. said that he would refrain from editing anything about religion or politics in Gujarat until a decision was reached here. That wording sounds like a good description of the area of trouble. I recommend that Neo. be placed under a three-month topic ban from religion and politics in Gujarat due to his apparent misunderstanding of how Wikipedia policy applies to controversial articles. The worst diff (among those listed above) is probably the one about 'academic crap.' The fact that Neo. seems to not fully understand what's going on here doesn't work in his favor. I notice that another admin (above) proposed a one-month page ban instead, but I doubt the value of such a short ban. If you feel that three months isn't justified, consider closing this complaint with just a warning. EdJohnston (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing: User:Neo. is banned for three months from anything about religion or politics in Gujarat, broadly construed. The ban covers all pages of Wikipedia including talk. EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:GiantSnowman has abused his Admin privileges many times and I have come to request that he be stripped of these powers.

Although he may have very well likely abused his Administration many more times, I have been witness to three occasion, twice being the victim.

1. GiantSnowman was trying to remove information I but up on the Arsen Beglaryan article despite it being backed up by sources. I pointed out the source and he stated "No, I have looked at the sources - as I have stated (far too) many times". When I asked what kind of sources he wanted, he said "Something more than run-of-the-mill/transfer news - an in-depth piece(s) or interview in national media would suffice.". After that I pointed out most links were interviews. After that he let the page be. Thus, he showed that he has a failure to communicate, which violates WP:ADMIN.

2. GiantSnowman deleted the opinion of another user on an article for deletion page. Although the user's large comment was messy, it was still contributing to the discussion and the user was acting in good faith. The user voiced a complaint to ANI over this. GiantSnowman had shown he has Bad faith adminship and again had failure to communicate.

3. Most recently, GiantSnowman had blocked me for a month over supposedly violating a ban, which had actually expired over 2 weeks ago at the time. The block was removed a few days later and there was instant general consensus to remove it. The reason for the block was one other Admin's suspicion, who was unaware the ban was over. The other Admin was better, and did not jump to a block without knowing full details. GiantSnowman, however, instantly placed a block not even 5 minutes later without even checking that the ban in question was over. The other Admin soon realized his mistake and left the discussion. Despite the only small lead towards the block having recalled his claims, GiantSnowman still refused to remove it, and so I applied it in WP:AE and a number of different Admins immedietly and unanimously agreed to remove the poorly placed block. GiantSnowman had, for a third known time, violated Failure to communicate and had now violated Repeated or consistent poor judgment on WP:ADMIN

I call upon Wikipedia's superiors to strip this Admin of his powers, which he has demonstrated time and time again he can't be trusted with. TheShadowCrow (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, TheShadowCrow: This is not the proper forum for this kind of request. First off, the authority to remove administrator access resides solely with the Arbitration Committee, and you should open a case with them if that is the desired goal. However, I must also warn that without proper Steps in dispute resolution being taken, such as a Request for Comment, it is unlikely that they will accept the case. SirFozzie (talk) 21:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm speedily closing this as not actionable per SirFozzie's explanation, which is correct.  Sandstein  21:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Neo. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Temporary name for account "Neo." (talk) 08:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban 'religion and politics in Gujarat' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Neo.#Notice_of_Arbitration_Enforcement_noticeboard_discussion

Administrator imposing the sanction

EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

• As per WP:AC/DS criteria 2 and 4, warning should be given by uninvolved admin and it should identify misconduct and advise to mend ways. This sanction is based on this so-called warning by involved editor.

• I have edited only 2 Gujarat related articles with total 8 edits. 1 edit on Narendra Modi to concur with same 2 reverts by 2 users.[49] I have 7 edits on 2002 Gujarat violence. Before starting editing the article, I had told User:Darkness Shines to discuss his replacement of article on article talkpage.[50][51] As Darkness Shines didn't hid me and other 2 users, I did 3 edits on 6 July and 1 edit on 8 July to restore previous version of the article.[52][53][54][55] 2 edits on 15 July 2 concur with contents of User:Utcursch.[56][57] I have attempted to include my own contents only once in any Gujarat related article on 10 July[58] (and that edit was reverted after 6 minutes.[59]) I think it is inappropriate to ban me from whole spectrum of Gujarat related articles because of only 8 edits.

• I had clarified on talkpage that whole issue is about 'Godhra train burning' section to make it neutral.[60] But even after that User:Qwyrxian filed appeal to ban me and admins have banned me for whole range of articles. As I have tried to include my contents only once, I think the appeal by Qwyrxian was to restrict me from article talkpage. In that case, Qwyrxian and other users like him could have chose not to respond to me.

• Initially on 17 July, Admin Cailil proposed 1 month page ban. On 26 July, Admin EdJohnston read my this comment on talkpage of Admin Future Perfect. He used my own idea, inflated it and proposed either 3 months ban on Gujarat politics, religion articles or no ban at all, just warning. Then Admin Cailil changed his mind to concur with 3 month ban on whole spectrum of Gujarat articles. As I am not involved in other articles, I think this decision is unfair and needs to be reviewed.
• I apologize for accusation of 'tag team'. I made 'academic crap' comment rather in jest to counter 'shit article' comment of Darkness Shines.[61]

• I have no specific area of interest on Wikipedia. I treat myself in anti-vandal unit and I can jump on any article out of 4.4 million articles. On 3 July, I detected that Darkness Shine is about to replace whole article with his own version and I just jumped in. My involvement in Gujarat related articles is limited only to '2002 Gujarat violence' and that too ONLY for this 'Godhra train burning' section. Once this section has covered both theories to make it neutral, I will refrain from editing any Gujarat related article or its talkpage. I request you to lift this ban so that I can go to DRN or Rfc or any appropriate forum to resolve this issue. Thank you. Temporary name for account "Neo." (talk) 08:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ Cailil: WP:AC/DS requires that warning should be given by 'uninvolved admin' which should specify misconduct and advise. You are citing so-called warning given by 'involved admin' who is equivalent to involved editor like Darkness Shines. And another warning by Bbb23 and RegentsPark was regarding possible edit war. If edit war warning are basis of AC/DS, I don't see mention of it. Also your argument that some other editor can go to DRN or Rfc is flawed. There are 5 users (DS, Maunus, Qwyrxian, The Rahul Jain, RegentsPark) who are working in 'collaboration' to prevent edits to the article. It is impossible for single user to contribute to the article. Even edit of Admin User:Utcursch was reverted by DS.[62][63] When I tried to concur with edit of Utcursch, Qwyrxian came here to sanction me and then DS reverted edit of Utcursch. Single editor like me or Utcursch can never succeed to make the article neutral. Also, when Qwyrxian has said that he wanted me to ban from only article talkpage and when I never edited other articles, why I have been banned from whole range of articles? Temporary name for account "Neo." (talk) 11:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The article that was most in dispute was 2002 Gujarat violence. My closure of the original AE complaint about User:Neo. can be seen at this link. I hope that my reasoning was clear. I participated along with three other admins in reaching a conclusion. EdJohnston (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neo is not actually providing an objective basis for over turning here. The level of warnings received by Neo on July 8/9th was extraordinary. As detailed in the above AE thread, Qwyrxian notified Neo that the area was under discretionary sanctions[64] and this was followed by stern warnings from by Regents park and Bbb23 that a block was imminent. As detailed above 3 sysops (myself, Future Perfect and Ed) saw Neo has having sufficient warning for sanction. His behaviour was untenable, and the continued level of invective towards other users in this request should be noted. I stand by the decision above. The Gujarat article can go to RFC or DRN without Neo and a consensus can still be formed and solution to any policy based issues can be resolved, again without this user's intervention (IF such actions are required). Neo's request is for the ban to be lifted so that he can return to previous activities - the very activities that led to this sanction--Cailil ^talk 11:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand this request. The enforcement action was taken less than a week ago. The reasoning was clearly laid out, and supported by several uninvolved administrators as well as a number of involved editors. Neo offers no new evidence, nor really any novel reasoning. I'm unclear why he thinks AE should reverse the properly instated topic ban, except because he doesn't like it.

I do want to respond to one of Neo's points, where he says, "As I have tried to include my contents only once, I think the appeal by Qwyrxian was to restrict me from article talkpage." Yes! That is absolutely what I was trying to do. Your points on the talk page were tendentious and disruptive. They were preventing positive, consensus-building steps forward, because you kept repeating the same non-policy compliant suggestions and arguments. Further, you continued to cast unwarranted aspersions on other editors. Thus, your participation on that page was a net negative to the project.

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

From reviewing this, I see no reason to accept the appeal, but I will wait for more comments from uninvolved administrators before closing. SirFozzie (talk) 01:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

TheShadowCrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – TheShadowCrow (talk) 04:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Removal of sports exemption from WP:ARBAA2

Administrator imposing the sanction

Bbb23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

On July 25, User:Ymblanter was under the impression I had violated a ban, not knowing at the time that it had expired 2 weeks previously. User:GiantSnowman, who has a history of not even bothering to look things up (not my words) immediately put down a block without even bothering to see the ban was expired. User:Sandstein had then came in and confirmed that I had not violated the expired ban (which he applied), but did claim I violated my current ban of WP:ARBAA2. I told him he is wrong, and he admitted that he was indeed wrong and I had not violated said ban. Even though the block was clearly based off a an expired block, GiantSnowman refused to remove it, which denies him of sympathy admins would later give him for "not knowing about the sport exemption", even though this has nothing to do with WP:ARBAA2. I filled an appeal on my talk, and it was soon moved here, where I couldn't add to it. Despite that this wasn't related to the WP:ARBAA2, as you can see in the last link the admins talked about it as if it was and assumed that, proposed by User:EdJohnston, removing the sport exemption would simplify things, which made no sense at all. Despite the block being based on a expired ban, it took the admins 5 days to decide to lift it, with the sports exemption gone. Ownership of the ban was given to User:Bbb23. It previously belonged to User:CTCooper, who was in favor of lifting the block. Bbb23 agreed to putting the exemption back. However, he hasn't, and has been really unresponsive to my requests to do so, more or less not upholding the task placed upon him. So now I'm here, requesting I am returned what was taken from me.

And I really hope no Admin is going to close this right away and refuse to comment. I get a bad feeling that is going to happen. TheShadowCrow (talk) 04:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, me and another user pointed out only facts on why the article should be moved, yet you and GS simply refused to move it, despite the most common name being clearly identified as Hovhannisyan.

But you're being off-topic. Ymblanter, were you not under the impression I had violated an expired ban? TheShadowCrow (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• All the blocks that led to this were removed early and yet I'm the one causing a disruption? TheShadowCrow (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Generally speaking, that occurs momentarily immediately succeeding a block. TSC’s conduct is an unending series of episodes in which he acts irrationally."

Because I've essentially been blocked since the 25th. So far this ban has been an unending series of "sanction TSC and don't bother to explain why." B, you yourself has threatened to block me on the grounds of talking to you. I have been given no voice at all. Why wouldn't I be pissed?.

All the admins have basically said "he shouldn't be given anything because he's bad and has created a mess". That is not true. This mess is also the admins fault for how they have handled things. The main question remains unanswered: Why did the AA2 ban have to be changed when it was not the reason for the block?

User:Ymblanter should admit that he was under the impression a two week old ban was still active. User:Bbb23, User:CT Cooper and User:EdJohnston need to comment on the AA2 being unrelated to the situation. TheShadowCrow (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether or not I should comment in the "Results" section since I participated in the related case, but I will repeat here what I said there, along with some additional observations. TSC's last two blocks were overturned, meaning that his last endorsed sanction was, if I'm not mistaken, in December last year. Since then, he has authored over 100 articles about Armenian sportspeople.

TSC came to attention again recently for a couple of edits seen as violations of his ARBAA2 topic ban. One was for initiating a discussion about the correct name of an ethnic Armenian sportsperson, the other was for a copyedit to the page of a category seen as coming under ARBAA2. Both these blocks have subsequently been overturned, but in the appeal against the second block it was decided to rescind TSC's previous exemption from Armenian-related sports articles, meaning he is now prevented from editing such articles.

After a brief review of the evidence, I still cannot see any justification for the removal of TSC's editing privileges regarding ethnic Armenian sportspeople. This topic area is clearly an area of interest to him and he appears to be contributing useful content there, so what purpose is the ban supposed to be serving? The two blocks for two edits in the exempted topic area which supposedly violated his ARBAA2 ban area have both been rescinded, so in effect his editing privileges in the sports-related area have been removed for offences that were subsequently deemed either nonexistent or dubious, which hardly seems to be a just outcome to me. I could also point out that the two alleged offences which attracted the now-rescinded blocks were at most minor or technical in nature, and IMO might have been better responded to with nothing more than a word of advice or caution, per WP:AGF.

Withdrawal of a user's editing privileges, particularly for an indefinite period, is a serious step that should never be undertaken without due cause, and I am simply not seeing it in this case. Gatoclass (talk) 06:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein, with regard to STC's very confrontative and exhausting attitude towards any administrators interacting with them, I am obliged to concur to some extent with this observation, however, it's well known that users recently placed under sanctions, particularly sanctions they regard as unjust, will often react with a considerable degree of hostility, and a principle often cited on this project is that users should not be subject to additional sanctions merely for reacting inappropriately to their placement. With regard to TSC's apparent difficulty in understanding the meaning and scope of topic bans, he can hardly be accused of such when his last two blocks were rescinded either because reviewing admins agreed with his interpretation of the scope of his ban, or else concluded that his interpretation was not unreasonable. Additionally, I fail to see how his recent sanctions-related requests can be described as "misguided" given that his last two appeals were both successful. Gatoclass (talk) 06:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bearman's evidence has reminded me that TSC's editing of Armenian sports-related pages over the last six months has not been entirely trouble free. I'm still not sure that a ban is the best response but can see why others might come to that conclusion. The user might benefit from a mentor, but I'm afraid I can't put my hand up as I don't have time to take on more responsibilities at present. If and when TSC is permitted to return to editing in the topic area, I would suggest a mentor be considered as he clearly has some way to go on the learning curve ATM. Gatoclass (talk) 05:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that TSC did not provide the link to the discussion from which their recent troubles started. Here it is: Talk:Khoren Oganesian#Requested move 2. This is not a long discussion, and everybody can check that TSC is not prepared to follow Wikipedia policies, and resolves to personal attacks instead. I should also add that I personally first came across TSC a year ago, when I they were persistently adding the category Category:Armenian judoka to Arsen Galstyan, wh o is accidentally an Olympic Champion competing for Russia. My attempts to remove the category resulted in this discussion, where at some point TSC stated that I should find sources that Galstyan does not have Armenian citizenship. My general impression is that discussion anything with TSC is baseless. The only argument they accept is a warning of an imminent block based on arbitration restrictions. I am afraid the arbitation enforcement should be kept in force, or, at the very least, they should be placed on a 1RR rule or smth. Otherwise they will be discussing any edit to death not really being succeptible to any arguments based on Wikipedia policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've had several run-ins with TheShadowCrow on BLP pages of Armenian athletes. Typically, I found that TSC will make pushy and POV edits on these articles. One such incident resulted in a 3 month topic ban on April 11, 2013. This can be seen here. Not only did TSC make a pushy nationality related edit to the Gegard Mousasi article, TSC then went ahead and made misleading edits on the Karo Parisyan article by manipulating what the sources actually stated. As a result, TSC was topic banned from BLP and Armenian related articles for 3 months starting on April 11th. However, TSC immediately broke this topic ban on April 22, 2013 as can be seen in this thread. In fact, there were some egregious violations of the topic ban including one to change the name of an Armenian athlete (Khoren Oganesyan) on another page when TSC's attempt to have Khoren Oganesyan's name changed on the main article failed. Based on recent history, I just have not seen TSC being able to edit Armenian related pages with a neutral point of view and it seems that TSC can not work within the boundaries of policy with regards to these articles. BearMan998 (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of the Organesian requested move, after TSC failed to get consensus to move it, TSC went to the closing admin and tried unsuccessfully to get it moved against consensus anyway as seen here. When that didn't work, TSC starting changing Organesian's name to TSC's desired spelling on other pages as seen here. BearMan998 (talk) 17:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears TSC is attempting to wikilawyer here by smearing those uninvolved admins that he has interacted with. Considering the lack of WP:CLUE this entails, as well as the attempt to wikilawyer on this page by deleting the comments of other editors, I would concur with simply closing this discussion, and implementing the proposed topic ban from making further non-arbcom appeals for 6 months, IRWolfie- (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd also support an extended block considering the sheer WP:POINTYness and lack of WP:COMPETENCE of TSC replies here: User_talk:TheShadowCrow#August_2013. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that TheShadow Crow is attempting to delete BearmMan998's statement: [65][66][67]. Also can people write in their own statement boxes instead of each others before things become a mess. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted, warned and fixed.  Sandstein  17:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've now blocked TheShadowCrow for 24 h because despite warnings they've continued to mess around with the statements of others in this thread.  Sandstein  18:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

TheShadowCrow is subject to an indefinite Armenia-Azerbaijan topic ban, which they do not appeal here. Rather, they ask that sports topics be exempted from the ban. However, they do not provide any reason for why that exemption should be made in the light of the reasons for the original topic ban. For that reason, the appeal should be declined. Moreover, as any who follow this board and WP:RFAR may attest, TheShadowCrow has recently been engaging in what I can only call a misguided campaign of wikilawyering against perceived failings by administrators (of which the tone of this request is an example), while failing to address in their voluminous submissions their own conduct that is the basis of all restrictions that apply to them. As I have indicated in a previous appeals discussion, TheShadowCrow's apparent difficulty in understanding the meaning and scope of topic bans, coupled with their very confrontative and exhausting attitude towards any administrators interacting with them, would result in any exceptions being very difficult and time-consuming to manage. For this reason, too, the appeal should be declined. Additionally, considering the volume of recent misguided sanctions-related requests by TheShadowCrow, I propose that they are restricted from appealing their sanctions to any authority other than the Arbitration Committee more than once every six months, including this appeal.  Sandstein  06:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass, with regard to your opinion that "users should not be subject to additional sanctions merely for reacting inappropriately to their placement", I am of the opposite view. Users sanctioned for inappropriate conduct should instead show through exemplary conduct that the sanctions are no longer needed. As to your other point, that the appeals were granted has nothing to do with TheShadowCrow's understanding of what a topic ban entails, but rather with the (in retrospect perhaps inappropriate) leniency of the administrators involved.  Sandstein  18:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• TSC is very close to an indef block outside of this ban for considerable point making behaviour. His actions leading to sanction under his topic ban were utterly inappropriate (see previous thread) and the purpose of the exemption was rendered moot by them. In short there is no way that TSC should subject to anything less than a full topic ban from Armenia-Azerbaijan pages.
  I'll support Sandstein's move to restrict TSC's use of boards to wikilawyer, and I agree direct appeal to arbcom once in 6 months is enough. But I also will state that if TSC's tendentious behaviour continues normal administrative intervention to halt it may occur without further warning--Cailil ^talk 12:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• To be precise, my proposal is to limit appeals to any authority other than the Arbitration Committee, such as on this board. We probably can't limit appeals to ArbCom, although they can.  Sandstein  18:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like first to address the issue of whether I am WP:INVOLVED. I was the administrator who offered an opinion and closed the last block appeal by TSC. As part of that closure, I found there was a consensus that the block exemption was properly rescinded (User:CT Cooper, the admin who had implemented the exemption, had rescinded it). I don’t believe that evaluating a previous block appeal makes me involved. In addition, contrary to TSC’s claim above, I am not the admin who imposed the exemption. As already stated, CT Cooper did. The ban for which I took "ownership" was the current indefinite ban, originally imposed by The Blade as a six-month ban back in September 2012 (I think that’s the right month), and later extended indefinitely by CT Cooper. A discussion among several admins occurred on User:EdJohnston’s talk page as to what “ownership” meant in this context, and it was agreed that it simply meant that TSC could come to me with questions he had about the ban. It did not mean that I had the same privileges as a normal sanctioning admin, that I could unilaterally undo my sanction. Indeed, it was clearly agreed in that discussion that the only way TSC could eliminate or otherwise reduce the scope of the ban was through AE. The only other possible basis for finding me involved is TSC’s “harassment” of me, for which he was warned by User:Seraphimblade. I do believe that it would have been unreasonable for me to block TSC for that particular disruption, but that’s the only narrow exception I see in my interaction with TSC, which has been otherwise purely administrative.

There are no merits to this appeal. Indeed, it is frivolous. Since being unblocked, TSC has done nothing constructive on Wikipedia. Last time I checked he had made only two article edits since being unblocked. The rest of the time he has spent, to put it bluntly, screaming at just about everyone. I advised him after the last unblock that not only was I not going to alter his ban on my own, but also that there was a clear consensus that he should wait at least three, if not six, months before appealing any aspect of his ban. He has refused – and continues to refuse – to accept that. TSC’s statement here that "Bbb23 agreed to putting the exemption back" is false. If you click on the link, it says exactly the opposite of what he says.

Unlike User:Gatoclass, I do not view TSC’s conduct to be similar to that of an editor who was just blocked and has an emotional reaction. Generally speaking, that occurs momentarily immediately succeeding a block. TSC’s conduct is an unending series of episodes in which he acts irrationally. Many of his outbursts, which I will not expand on here, are blockable in and of themselves, and he has been fortunate not to have been blocked until his behavior in this forum.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to clarify that I did not in any way intend my warning to TSC to suggest that Bbb23 was improperly involved, and only gave it because Bbb23 had expressed discomfort with personally taking action in that one particular case. The reason for the warning was that after the original discussion had been closed and Bbb23 had clearly indicated that the ban would not be lifted and the discussion was no longer welcome ([68], [69]), TSC made an additional profanity-laden demand [70], after which Bbb23 made quite explicit that the discussion was closed [71]. TSC followed this by adding another section adding the same question, and edit warring over its removal [72], [73]. To be sure, administrators are required to be willing to explain and be open to questions on their decisions, but that doesn't mean they have to put up with an unlimited amount of abuse and filibustering after they've done so, and Bbb23 certainly had been very patient with explaining what had been done and why. I don't see any reason, based upon what I've seen, to believe that lifting any portion of any ban on TSC is a wise idea. In fact, what I've seen convinces me of exactly the opposite. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the extraordinary level of disruption caused by TSC I'm going to move from warning to suggesting an indefinite block. One to last until TSC agrees to stop his current behaviour. This doesn't need to be under WP:AA2 it can be a normal sysop action. The conduct of this user is so far beyond the pale that I don't agree a Mentor is a good idea (as suggested by Gatoclass above). This is a WP:Competence issue and we can't help this person if they are unwilling to help themselves. The first step to helping themselves is agreeing to stop. The second is acknowledging past misconduct (but I would not make unblocking dependent on that acknowledgement - TSC just needs to do it for his own good). The third is editing collegiality elsewhere on WP--Cailil ^talk 12:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not all that extraordinary, really. But I'm not objecting to an indefinite block, per se, because it appears that TheShadowCrow does not have the social skills and attitude needed for productive participation in this collaborative project, and has shown no interest in contributing anything outside of the topic area they are banned from. As discretionary sanctions blocks are only authorized for up to a year, anything longer would need to be a normal admin action. Any block so imposed should be made in addition to the appeals restriction discussed above.  Sandstein  13:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting old now. It's clear that there is no consensus to grant the appeal. I'm therefore closing the request as declined, and with the restriction as discussed above. This is without prejudice to any action, such as a block, that individual administrators may additionally wish to undertake.  Sandstein  10:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Lecen (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

MarshalN20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia: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. [74] 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 [75] 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 [76] 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)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Here

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.

Marshall's actions are getting ridiculous. Is he or is he not topic banned? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@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 ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@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 ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The actions taken by Lecen and The ed17 are clearly a response to a recent motion passed by the arbitration committee (see [77]), 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 [78]) 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 [79]). 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 [80]), 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 | ^Talk 00:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@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 | ^Talk 16:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@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 | ^Talk 14:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 23:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• 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 [81] 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 ^{Talk to me} 06:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Except that Salvio's interaction ban was informal. Perhaps we can make it AE-formal? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 20:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 ^{Talk to me} 21:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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 ^{Talk to me} 22:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I see now that Lecen has filed precisely such an amendment request. AGK [•] 23:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 ^{Talk to me} 00:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Psychonaut (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

SonofSetanta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia: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 [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88]. He is also already aware that the article is subject to 1RR [89].

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

[90]

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.

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 [91]. (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 [92] (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 [93]. 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 Wikipedia: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 [[User:MelanieN]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

*@Sandstein, Psychonaut's complaint from last week is here [94]. 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)[reply]

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 [User_talk:Cailil&diff=569404259&oldid=568927484] 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 [User_talk:Cailil&diff=569404917&oldid=569404259|here]. I then checked the discussion on the article talkpage [[Talk:Shoot-to-kill_policy_in_Northern_Ireland#Tags|here] 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 [95]. I filled in the deletion request at AfD Wikipedia: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 [User_talk:Cailil&diff=569404917&oldid=569404259].

@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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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 [96] 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 Wikipedia 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 [97]. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@ 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)[reply]

@ 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)[reply]

@ 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)[reply]

@ 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)[reply]

@ 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)[reply]

@ 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[98] 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia before, mainly sticking to the deletion zone where I usually do know what I'm doing... Peridon (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I do not think a topic ban here is appropriate. From what I can see, SoS has a misunderstanding of Wikipedia'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)[reply]

Clarification: I think that SoS's tagging of the article for patent nonsense was based off of a misunderstanding of Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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

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.

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.

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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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 ^(talk) 21:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^(talk) 21:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

@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 ^(talk) 22:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^(talk) 22:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^(talk) 21:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@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 ^(talk) 22:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SonofSetanta has been editing Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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 [100]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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[101]. 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[102][103]. 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[104] 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 ^talk 17:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 ^talk 18:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

I'm especially concerned by the fact that SoS clearly indicated knowledge that the article was under 1RR [105], 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 ^{Talk to me} 21:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions

Topic ban from everything related to The Troubles, imposed at [106], logged at Wikipedia: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.

"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 [107] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia."

Withdrawing these comments after further reflection.
As per here Wikipedia: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) [reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I want to distance myself from whoever is taking advantage of this situation to appear as a pop-up user. This has nothing to do with me. I have called for no support from anyone and any comments which appear in my favour are unsolicited. I ask whoever is doing this to stop and realise the damage you are doing to my case. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see all the advice which has been written and have taken note of it. I certainly appreciate Cailil stepping in again on my behalf. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My appeal is sincere. I am a hard working Wikipedia who just wants to get on with editing. It means a lot to me to be able to occupy myself here. I made a mistake is all. I repeat my request however that, whatever the outcome of this appeal, be it enforced or voluntary, that my topic ban does not exclude me from editing all military articles, including the Ulster Defence Regiment articles. Is this reasonable of me? SonofSetanta (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I note that a few editors are saying I have edited for five years. This is totally incorrect. In a five year period I have been active for 12 months which includes my current identity. All of this can be confirmed from my editing history. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User:EdJohnston. Ed please note the text above concerning the length of time I have been editing. I also take exception to you stating that I was involved in a "Battle Royal" over copyright. I had some copyright issues, some concerning images uploaded in 2008 which had been on articles ever since without complaint. I took advice from Cailil and sorted them all out. It was over a in a couple of days. I have complaints about the way it was handled by and the lack of advice from copyright patrollers but I applied myself to it and learned. Where are the copyright issues now? No thanks to you of course. I approached you at least twice for guidance and you're yet to reply. I see you give me no credit for actually taking the time to learn about copyright and sorting the issues, nor do you note that all bar one or two of the images I no longer wanted to keep are still there showing that there was no real problem to start with, including the one (yes, just one) the row was over. No doubt you'll reply that I was "admin shopping" but you'd be wrong. I usually turn to Cailil but knew he wasn't there because of real life commitments so despite leaving him a message I knew I should find an admin who was currently active. That's why I approached you and User:Black Kite. What is all this about really? Why are you arriving now to beat me with a metaphoric stick. I KNOW I've not got the demeanor for articles on The Troubles which is why I don't want to edit there anymore. Ulster Defence Regiment however is a military unit and while it may have been involved in the Troubles I have been editing there since May with no issues at all - outwith a copyright patroller wanting to remove a NFU image - a request which has been denied him by admins. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Cailil. I hear what you say but I've been editing on the UDR articles since May and have had no problems at all except for one copyright patroller who wanted to delete the image File:The Yellow Card.jpg. That image has been "kept" by an admin. Showing that the copyright patroller's opinion wasn't one shared by others and that I was right to introduce the image in the first place. No infighting regarding the content. No WP:BATTLE and no edit wars. Why shouldn't I continue to edit where I've had no problems? SonofSetanta (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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 [108] [109] [110] [111] of the same article and one PROD [112] plus some WP:VAGUEWAVE on the talk page [113] [114] are disruptive. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 [115] [116], 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 [117]. 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)[reply]

• As for "It's a case of hiding identity", please read WP:PRIVACY. Also, the request that I reveal my identity has quite a shade of WP:KETTLE in view of [118]. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

SoS does make a great contribution to UDR articles etc. I would let them edit these military articles as long as the edit has nothing to do with the Troubles. SoS has a fan club who will no doubt raise a breech.

Having said that if SoS was allowed to do a voluntary withdrawal from Troubles related issues, they would need in my view have to seek a proper appeal to be allowed to edit the area again. Just asking me to help and an admin for permission would not qualify as an agreement by the community for them to start editing there again. So a voluntary withdrawal would be kind of fruitless. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Although I commented I didn't act in the last thread so I'll make a comment here, but if other sysops object I'm happy to transfer these remarks to a section above.
  Recommend declining. First of all SOS is providing no grounds for over turning. In saying he wants to take a "voluntary and indefinite" break from WP:TROUBLES area he must recognize that there is a problem with his edits in that area. Furthermore, as a point of order SOS states above that "The overwhelming consensus at the arbitration page was that a mistake". This is not a point of view expressed by any of the 3 sysops. Other uninvolved users did have that opinion but AE is not a !Vote (please read the big red box above explaining how this page works). Also SOS argues that there was no "deliberate disruption" in his actions. That is not relevant. Whether the disruption is deliberate or not was explained by Sandstein to be irrelevant to his decision. The fact that disruption has occurred in an area under probation is a very very serious matter. SOS is still failing to grasp that. Finally, although I suggested a definite duration ban in the last thread Sandstein's actions are well within sysop discretion and had the full backing of another admin for a ban of indefinite duration (and the general backing from me for a topic ban). There is no reason here to adjust or over turn the ban.

  SOS step back. (That must be the 10th time I've said that to you in the last month - you haven't listened, now it's time to start.) You are testing the patience of a lot of the community. And have stretched the rules and procedures of this site to breaking point. STOP. If you continue things will get worse. You are throwing accusations around like confetti and are only making yourself look bad. Relax go make some constructive edits in other topics and learn about other things on this site. And for your own good avoid reverting.

  We've had now a second throw-away single purpose account from one side of the real life divide around WP:TROUBLES pop-up in support of SOS (User:Cartoon Buffoon and User:SixtyNineSixtySix, also possibly related to User_talk:Zoombox21). This may be a genuine troll or a "bad hand" sock trying egg vulnerable/dogged users on, either way a pattern is emerging--Cailil ^talk 23:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In general exemptions don't help - they only muddy the water. An exemption to edit the UDR article while banned from the WP:TROUBLES area is impossible, as per Ed below. I understand that this is tough medicine SOS but if you work elsewhere on wikipedia for a time and show progress the ban will eventually be lifted. There are literally millions of articles you can edit--Cailil ^talk 17:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I see absolutely no reason to undo the previous enforcement, rather, this sounds like more volunteer time is being wasted. IOW what seemed like yet another draconian measure by Sandstein turns out to be entirely warranted. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Recommend declining. SOS seems well-intentioned but he is constantly getting into difficulties when editing in the Troubles area. If he were new we might cut him some slack, but it seems he has been editing since 2008 under various identities. I see no reason to lift the ban imposed by Sandstein per the last AE thread. This doesn't mean that his ban can't be reviewed in the future if he can establish a better track record. Getting into a battle royal over copyrights and image licensing is not a good sign -- he can't blame that on a cabal of opponents. I don't see how we can exempt Ulster Defence Regiment from his ban because that article is highly related to the Troubles. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@SonOfSetanta: Editors who want to see how the copyright issues have been sorted may notice that the AE thread whose result we are reviewing here was brought by User:Psychonaut who is a copyright enforcer, *not* one of SOS's usual content opponents on Northern Ireland issues. The ANI thread can be seen at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive808#Wolfe Tone Societies. If you believe that Psychonaut is exaggerating you probably need to review the copyright issues. Of course, if User:Psychonaut has changed his mind maybe SOS will persuade him to comment here. Typically, copyright issues can be worked out with a sufficient amount of diplomacy and patience. It is hard to see that the ANI thread reflects much credit on SOS. EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This request is pretty clearly on track to be declined. I suggest closing it as such, with an additional caution to SoS that accusations against other editors of wrongdoing such as sockpuppetry must be substantiated by corresponding evidence or must not be made at all. Unless any other uninvolved admin objects shortly, I will close as such. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]