User talk:SonofSetanta: Difference between revisions

About DPL bot - I always want to know when something goes wrong. In this case, though, the problem came from the tool you used to do the fixing - Dab Solver. I've dropped a note at Dispenser's talk page to ask about it. (The bug appears to have already been fixed BTW.) Cheers, --JaGa^talk 15:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In Black Watch, you recently added links to the disambiguation pages George II, Charles II and Gaelic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 17 December 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bill Bellamy (soldier), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Bill Bellamy, who was awarded the Military Cross for gallantry as a tank commander in 1944, raised £30,000 by trekking across Cuba in 2005, at the age of 81? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bill Bellamy (soldier).You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If what your claiming is indeed the truth I urge you to self revert on the article, if not you are aware of the troubles restrictions and the sanctions which cover them. Mo ainm~Talk 13:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See here Mo ainm~Talk 15:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Using caps to "shout" at another use is not appropriate. Neither is calling them an "idiot" like you did. Since that bad action was easily remedied I removed the caps and replaced "idiot" with "editor" so it won't inflame the situation. Please remember to stay cool even in the face of accusations of policy violations.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Hello. You have a new message at The Devil's Advocate's talk page.[reply]

Please read WP:OUTING, then Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive623#User Mo ainm's alternate account status. Specifically "His clean start is legit, and a Checkuser and Oversighter confirmed it. She also stated the previous account was connected to his real name, hence no public connection as that would defeat the entire purpose of the new account and would be WP:OUTING. If he gets into trouble with this new account, he will of course receive consequences, and the connection will be utilized by those aware of it if necessary. At this point, I recommend you stop beating the dead horse". I have redacted various uses of a username which may or may not be correct, and I strongly recommend you don't attempt to link Mo ainm to any previous account due to the reasons already given. Obviously you can't make any similarly claims about WP:OUTING, since you claim you're not a sock.... 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not give you authority to redact anything I have written. If you have assumed this authority based on precedent then be aware the privilege does not extend to you. I also ask you to cease the personal attacks and incivility you are directing at me. I am not a sockpuppet. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• SonofSetanta, just to make it clear. You post that information again, including undoing any of the redactions, and I block you. And I do have the authority to do that. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with me posting the information when it's true and has been admitted? Also, who had the right to redact anything from my comments except me or an admin? SonofSetanta (talk) 13:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where has it been admitted? Mo ainm~Talk 13:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am an admin (Arbitrator, Checkuser and Oversighter). In this very specific instance, if I tell you to stop, you stop. I have also said that others should drop arguing about whether you had a previous account - if you did, it's not blocked, and it stopped editing too long ago to be relevant. You're going good to get this account blocked even if it is new, so I suggest you calm things down a bit.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is asking for help going good to get my account blocked? I've come to you, genuinely with cap in hand, asking for help. I note your advice and will take it, as I hope others do. All I want to do is edit Wikipedia, I don't want any hassle. Advise me as much as you want and I will take your advice - that's what I want. I'm a littler bit slow to edit and see everything as it changes around me though because I'm not used to all of this page to page conversation.SonofSetanta (talk) 13:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick tip - Underpants of Doom is a sock of a banned user. Now there is a very strict rule about being banned and coming back as a sock.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I didn't know that. I'm afr4aid I still have much to learn. That kind of blows the theory about me being a reincarnation of an experienced user. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If any redaction is to be done in an AE thread, it will be done either by the author of that comment or by an uninvolved administrator; it will not be done by the subject of the complaint, period. Don't do it again. T. Canens (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing me because another editor did exactly that to me this morning and when I undid it I was threatened with sanctions (see post above yours). SonofSetanta (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI here Mo ainm~Talk 16:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block.

---

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

Per this AE decision on a complaint that you violated 1RR on 8 January at Ulster Defence Regiment. EdJohnston (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that you've not yet received a formal notice of the discretionary sanctions, I'm leaving one now.

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to The Troubles. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final decision section of the decision page. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page.

EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" 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

Example (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – ~~~~

Sanction being appealed

{{{Sanction being appealed}}}

Administrator imposing the sanction

Example (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.

Statement by {{{Appealing user}}}

{{{Reason for the appeal}}}

Statement by {{{User imposing the sanction}}}

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by {{{Appealing user}}}

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 (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by {{{Appealing user}}}

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