User talk:DanceHallCrasher

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lapsed Pacifist, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Valenciano (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctions are in effect for articles related to The Troubles

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding The Troubles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 EdJohnston (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You are edit warring and violating 1RR. I am not casting judgment -- I understand how volatile this topic is (The Troubles), but you are going to wind up blocked or topic banned if you don't revert and stop. Quis separabit? 19:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR". I am not planning on reverting again, but I objected to this and a similar edit to the Northern Ireland category to change the scope so the categories could be added back, when the scope is the same as the parent Category:Politicians convicted of crimes.DanceHallCrasher (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) As stated by DHC reverts of IP's are exempt. editor tried a sneaky move by changing the scope of the Cat before adding them again, good to see you Rms though policing this difficult area. Mo ainm~Talk 19:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was thinking of the edits by @Laurel Lodged but OK. Yours, Quis separabit? 19:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I regarded the reversion of the edits by Laurel Lodged as my first revert, since the reversion of the IPs edits were exempt, if I am incorrect in my assumption I apologise. I left a message regarding the categories on Laurel Lodged's talk page.DanceHallCrasher (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1 revert does not breach 1RR, so do you think if you revert someone then you have breached the sanction? If yes have you put the same notice on the other editors page? Mo ainm~Talk 19:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the admin taking action, however rather than reinforce an edit that has been challenged ~~DanceHallCrasher you should take it to talk. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)~~ @Laurel Lodged it should be taken to talk. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Though to be honest Mo ainm at least Rms125a@hotmail.com went the diplomatic route first rather than simply flash report them on a whim without trying any form of discussion or caution. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Murphy (Irish criminal) is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:TROUBLES

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding The Troubles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

IrishSpook (talk) 13:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One revert, two reverts. John 8:7.DanceHallCrasher (talk) 13:08, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I noticed a mass revert of your edits and after looking a bit deeper I suspect that the editor is a Sock so I wouldn't get into an edit war with them they will just revert you again. I have started a Sockpuppet investigation on the accounts. Mo ainm~Talk 22:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]