Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

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

Parishan

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Parishan

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBAA2#Standard discretionary sanctions

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

15 July 2013 Continued edit war by previous users [1], [2], by adding odd and unreferenced "Qaxaç qalası" as a putative alternative name of a medieval fort in Nagorno-Karabakh known as Kachaghakaberd. No explanations or sources provided despite several prompts.
12 June 2012 Continued edit war by previous users by adding odd and unreferenced "Qaxaç qalası" as a putative alternative name of a medieval fort in Nagorno-Karabakh known as Kachaghakaberd. No explanations or sources provided despite several prompts.
18 August 2013 Continued edit war by re-adding the unreferenced and controversial phrase "Ghareh Keliseh" as a putative Azerbaijani Muslim name for an ancient Armenian Christian monastery. No explanations or sources provided. Talk pages ignored.
3 August 2013. Same (see above)
19 July 2013. Same (see above)
18 July 2013. Same (see above)
18 July 2013. Same (see above)

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

As of late User:Parishan restarted edit wars on several pages, esp. on Kachaghakaberd and St. Thaddeus Monastery, where he adds odd names to Armenian monuments and characterizes these names as "Azerbaijani," without citing any references or bothering to explain his actions on talk pages despite invitations from other users to do so [3], [4]. Parishan's edits came under sanctions several times in previous years, and he was warned lately by a long-time WP editor MarshallBagramyan.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [5]

Discussion concerning Parishan

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Parishan

I did provide a source (archived version) when the Azeri spelling for St. Thaddeus Monastery was first added. The anonymous user that was removing it was on an POV spree and got banned repeatedly for disruptive editing: [6], [7], and reverting that account was not against the rules. Parishan (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Parishan

Parishan's statement [8] is deliberately misleading. The source for the "Azerbaijani" name of the Armenian St. Thaddeus Monastery is a long-defunct and questionable website, which never mentioned that the phrase "Ghareh Kilisa" was an Azerbaijani phrase. Please note that it is Parishan's own POV and WP:OR opinion. And anonymous websites like are not authoritative sources anyway, even if it/they ever mentioned that the phrase "Ghareh Kilisa" were in fact Azerbaijani. As long as I know, the phrase is actually Persian, not Azerbaijani or Turkic. It was Parishan who asserted such a POV in the first place, and IPs, no matter how misbehaving they might have been on other pages, were trying to correct Parishan's disruptive entries, and they were explaining what they were doing in contrast to Parishan's actions, who kept mechanically reverting IPs while providing no explanations in summary or on talk pages. Please note that the lame reference to the website that Parishan supposedly provided was inserted as many as 5(!) years ago, and throughout all these five years Parishan never bothered to re-insert that reference or find a new, more credible one. This shows how disruptive Parishan's actions are, and how determined he remains to disregard WP:NPOV and defy AA2. Zimmarod (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Grandmaster

This is a frivolous report. Reverting vandalism is exempt from 3RR and editing restrictions. Some diffs are from more than a year ago and are stale. And in the rest of diffs Parishan reverted vandalism by the banned user. I personally reported the IPs that edit warred across multiple articles both at WP:AIV: [9] and at talk of the enforcing admin: [10], after which the disruptive IP range was blocked. Block logs of the edit warring IPs speak for themselves: [11] [12] [13] Someone used multiple IPs to edit war across a number of pages.

In addition, after the previous frivolous report on me Zimmarod was warned by consensus of admins at this board "not to misuse Wikipedia as a battleground, and more particularly, not to accuse others of severe misconduct (such as vandalism or harrassment) unless such accusations are made (a) in the appropriate dispute resolution or enforcement forum, and (b) with adequate evidence to support these accusations". [14] This warning was placed at his talk as well: [15] As we can see from the above, Zimmarod disregarded this warning by filing a baseless report about another editor at WP:AE. Grandmaster 22:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Grandmaster

The report is not frivolous. The IPs on the St. Thaddeus Monastery page were edit-warring but their conduct cannot be characterized as vandalism, as mis-characterized by Grandmaster. The IP were removing Parishan's edits and he was re-asserting them in a clear violation of WP:NPOV. And the history of edits on that page shows that the edit-warring IPs were not the first users who were trying to clear Parishan's POV edits. In other words, Parishan has long been aware of the POV nature of the subject of his edit-warring entries. And being an unregistered user is not a violation in itself. Parishan demonstrates a clear WP:BATTLEGROUND disposition. And User:Grandmaster too took part in the POV edit war against the IPs, pushing the same POV about the controversial Azerbaijani Muslim names that putatively exist for Armenian Christian monument in Iran [16]. This means that Grandmaster is also complicit in what Parishan was doing. The article Kachaghakaberd is the same thing. As mentioned above, Parishan's edits follow a pattern - he aggressively pushes POV edits despite the awareness that his entries are not supported by any sources. Zimmarod (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A note for Bbb23

Bbb23, thank you for your note. I noticed that you never arbitrated on Armenian-Azerbaijan issues, and thus may not be fully aware of the implied strictness of arbitration environment in that area. I encourage you to take a look at how other users were sanctioned for alleged misdeeds that were far less severe than Parishan's bold disregard of WP:NPOV. Zimmarod (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Parishan

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

I don't see any evidence of an clear violation. #1 is not continuing an edit war. The edit by Parishan is over a year later. #2 is way too old to worry about. #3-7 are all part of two edit wars with an IP (one is from mid-July), and Parishan wasn't the only participant. I don't know anything about the subject, but, generally, in the case of 1RR sanctions, reverting an IP is exempt, although there is no exemption for 3RR. Finally, the talk page request, to the extent it relates to Parishan, is from a year ago.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with Bbb23, except that I do not believe IPs are normally exempted from 1RR in this area. Still, the IP's conduct was rather egregious (implying reversion of Parishan solely because of what the IP believed Parishan's national origin to be), so I'm inclined to caution Parishan to be more careful rather than imposing sanctions. The edits from 2012 or which are related back to 2012 are too old to be actionable even if there was wrongdoing in them; that being the case, I'm not inclined to spend much time examining whether there was or was not. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by SonofSetanta

Appeal declined. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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 [17], 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.

Statement by SonofSetanta

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

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

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

Notwithstanding the above, which I believe clearly exonerates me from any deliberate disruption, I made a clear statement on the AE case here [18] 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."

Someone not using his real name

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]

Pop-up users

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]

Advice

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]

Outcome

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]

5 Years?

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]

Statement by Sandstein

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

The appellant's allegation that Someone not using his real name, who commented in the discussion about the request that led to the ban, "is in fact User:One Night In Hackney" merits closer attention. The appellant should provide evidence for this allegation. If they cannot, it may be grounds for further sanctions per the principle enunciated in 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]

Statement by uninvolved Black Kite

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

Statement by Someone not using his real name

The claim that I am some editor I've never heard of ("One night in Hackney") is ridiculous and unsupported by any evidence. Such a claim should be raised at SPI, not here, but Sandstein invited me to comment here. I have voluntarily disclosed the IP address from which I have made most of my edits (on my user page), you can probably see it's very far from anything related to Ireland. How good was One night in Hackney's Russian or Romanian? My first acquaintance with SoS was on ANI, in the threads about his repeated violations of copyrights. I have not made any substantive edits to Ireland-related articles. It doesn't take a content expert though to see that SoS' actions—4 CSDs [19] [20] [21] [22] of the same article and one PROD [23] plus some WP:VAGUEWAVE on the talk page [24] [25] 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 [26] [27], 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 [28]. 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 [29]. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lukeno94

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

Statement by One Night In Hackney

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

Statement by Mabuska

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]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by SonofSetanta

Result of the appeal by SonofSetanta

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

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]

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

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