User talk:Erasmus Sydney

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
17		Steve Irons (talk)	Add sources
22		Sust (talk)	Add sources
824		German occupation of Czechoslovakia (talk)	Add sources
84		Lowy Institute (talk)	Add sources
612		Human rights in China (talk)	Add sources
6		Human Genetics Commission (talk)	Add sources
286		Stuart Robert (talk)	Cleanup
1,167		Xinjiang conflict (talk)	Cleanup
56		Reactions to global surveillance disclosures (talk)	Cleanup
324		Joshua Wong (talk)	Expand
215		Ethnic issues in China (talk)	Expand
174		Eddie McGuire (talk)	Expand
59		Katlang Tehsil (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
9		HIV exceptionalism (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
10		Cyber-dissident (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
38		Sentiocentrism (talk)	Merge
114		Han nationalism (talk)	Merge
377		Detention of Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig (talk)	Merge
119		Rushan Abbas (talk)	Wikify
20		Counter-recruitment (talk)	Wikify
96		2018 Liberal Party of Australia leadership spills (talk)	Wikify
4		Melanie Clore (talk)	Orphan
7		Ťhomas B. Ťayebwa (talk)	Orphan
3		Santiago Graf (talk)	Orphan
21		Ben Morton (politician) (talk)	Stub
50		James Hamilton (barrister) (talk)	Stub
6		It's an Honour (talk)	Stub
165		Semantic Scholar (talk)	Stub
31		Trevor Evans (politician) (talk)	Stub
58		James Paterson (Australian politician) (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Archive

Hello Erasmus Sydney. With this edit you modified the archive of the AN3 noticeboard. There is seldom any reason to edit an archive. Could you undo your change and make the same request on my talk page? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: okay, i've done that. I'm looking for support, but I now see that wasn't the place. My apologies.Erasmus Sydney (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

A quick look at the article talk page, Talk:John Anderson (Australian politician)#Determined effort to actually improve this article, suggests to me that the other editors think your language is too promotional. EdJohnston (talk) 00:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I've heard that. But I haven't heard a single suggestion on how to improve it. Not one. It's combative and really unhelpful. I'm just trying to improve things. Erasmus Sydney (talk) 01:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
56		Brendan O'Connor (politician) (talk)	Add sources
24		Malarndirri McCarthy (talk)	Add sources
42		Joel Fitzgibbon (talk)	Add sources
63		Australian Labor Party (Victorian Branch) (talk)	Add sources
4,502		United States Air Force (talk)	Add sources
153		Australian Strategic Policy Institute (talk)	Add sources
27		Eli Lake (talk)	Cleanup
31		Rudd Government (2007–2010) (talk)	Cleanup
23		Korea Development Institute (talk)	Cleanup
35		Liberal Party of Australia (South Australian Division) (talk)	Expand
724		Foreign relations of China (talk)	Expand
93		Opinion polling for the 2021 Dutch general election (talk)	Expand
948		KAI KF-21 Boramae (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
5,891		War of 1812 (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
129		COVID-19 misinformation by China (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
17		Medical diplomacy (talk)	Merge
13		Margaret Throsby (talk)	Merge
157		Eora (talk)	Merge
168		Legends of Oz: Dorothy's Return (talk)	Wikify
133		NLF and PAVN battle tactics (talk)	Wikify
53		Science diplomacy (talk)	Wikify
3		Imams Online (talk)	Orphan
1		Paula Goodyer (talk)	Orphan
4		Anna Cheney Edwards (talk)	Orphan
982		BAE Systems Tempest (talk)	Stub
64		Keith Pitt (talk)	Stub
8		Marielle Smith (talk)	Stub
18		Mark Coulton (talk)	Stub
17		Pat Conroy (politician) (talk)	Stub
10		Rick Wilson (Australian politician) (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission. Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I have just removed blatant copyright violation images you added to the Amanda Stoker, Zed Seselja and Kimberley Kitching articles, and nominated several of these images you uploaded to Commons for deletion. These are obviously taken from recordings of parliamentary broadcasts, and so are clearly not the property of the YouTube accounts you are sourcing them from. The Kimberley Kitching image had all the identifiers of a parliamentary broadcast still on it. As you present as being familiar with Australian politics, it is a certainty that you are aware of this. I note that you also uploaded an image watermarked as being from ABC News to Commons as the property of a YouTube account, which indicates that this behaviour is motivated by an utter disregard for copyright rules. Given this seems to be a significant problem with your contributions to Wikimedia projects, I have set the block duration as indefinite due to the risk you will post further copyright violation material here. I or other admins will consider unblock requests which demonstrate that you understand Wikipedia's policies towards copyright and will strictly abide by them in the future. Nick-D (talk) 11:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Erasmus Sydney (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This block is unnecessary. As can be seen from all the source pages for these uploaded images, they all come published under the required creative commons licence. I can now see that argument @Nick-D: is making, and, in that regard, I thank the administrator. I need to find the original source of the images and whether they were made under creative commons licence. I am upset by the language used in this statement above. I find it unkind to have motivation attributed to my actions, that I am "motivated by an utter disregard for copyright rules." If I may speak for myself, I can say I am motivated by a desire to have clearer information about the world I care about on wikipedia, which, I hope all can see, includes biographies of important figures in Australian history and contemporary political life, from both sides. I know what motivates me. I like to assume good faith wherever I can. I can see I have made an error. I am not an expert in copyright law, and I can see that, something that looked really easy to do, was actually a mistake. I have taken this opportunity to become more familiar with both the law and the policies on copyright. I am very sad about the tone of aggression in this matter. It's completely un-needed. A note pointing out the error would have been more than sufficient.Erasmus Sydney (talk) 00:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Unfortunately, as copyright violations potentially put Wikipedia in legal jeopardy, we must take copyright violations seriously. You will need to demonstrate your understanding of copyright and when and how copyrighted content can be used on Wikipedia before unblocking you. 331dot (talk) 08:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

From following up further on some of the images, I am also concerned about the Andrew Hastie article. You have edited this article very heavily (adding 53% of the edits and 61% of the content ever added there), and long-running concerns have been raised on the talk page about this material being balanced towards the subject. From looking at some of the edits, I tend to agree. I also note that you have uploaded images to Commons under ORTS releases and then added some to the article which can only have been taken by people closely associated with Hastie. In particular, File:Rep Mike Gallagher with Andrew Hastie standing with statue of Sir David Stirling at Campbell Barracks in Western Australia on 10 August 2019.jpg was apparently taken at Campbell Barracks, which as the headquarters of the secretive Special Air Service Regiment is most definitely not open to the public, and I am surprised that anyone was able to take photos there. Other photos depict Mr Hastie in his parliamentary offices or conducting electoral and parliamentary business, and are typical of PR-type images of politicians. I think it's safe to say as a result that these images must have been taken by members of Mr Hastie's staff and/or other people with an association with him. The photos you have uploaded are credited to multiple photographers which demonstrates that you are in contact with multiple people associated with Mr Hastie. Taken together, this indicates that you have a relationship of some kind with Mr Hastie and/or his office and/or other associates of him. Can you please tell me where you disclosed this relationship as part of editing the Hastie article as required by WP:COI? Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Nick-D: I have followed the advice of the Arbitration Committee in this matter, which I received on 29 January 2021.Erasmus Sydney (talk) 01:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your email. On the basis of it and some further checks of your edits, I think that you have violated Wikipedia's policy regarding multiple accounts. I also think that you have also violated WP:COI in a serious way. These issues are inter-related, and are quite serious. Given that you asked for privacy in your email, I will not disclose the details further here. Nick-D (talk) 07:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, I've tried to the best of my ability to be upfront with admins about everything, while trying to keep principles of privacy. I have followed the advice I have been given. If you decide to crucify me now, so be it.Erasmus Sydney (talk) 10:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

To respond to your email today, I will try to clarify the issues here. While you publicly disclosed a conflict of interest on one account, I can't see where you did so from this account (the diffs you have noted were from the other account). Unless I am missing something, there appears to have been no way for other editors to have known that the accounts were linked, and declarations of a conflict of interest need to be explicit anyway. Your editing from this account was then on topics with which you had previously declared a conflict of interest with (including one where you had explicitly done so), so this violated WP:COI. As you also implied that this account is separate from the other account on an article's talk page, and some of your edits from this account appear to have continued some disputed editing the other account was involved in, this violated the policy regarding the use of multiple accounts. I hope that this is helpful. I have also struck the comment above regarding motivations for uploading that image given that I, of course, do not know what your motivations might be and I shouldn't have suggested that I did. If you wish to discuss the matter further, I would ask that you do so on Wikipedia rather than by email. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Nick-D: Can I ask that you consider how this is playing out. You are - and fair enough - asking more about me. And the more I answer here, rather than in a private admin forum or an email, the more I reveal about myself. The more I reveal about myself, the closer we get to having my privacy compromised. That may be okay if the subject matter of the articles concerned was, 19th Century history, but it's not. And, as you know, I've already had the experience of being the subject of national media attention. Here in this place, we assure each other of our privacy and, more than that, of each other's safety. Along with that assurance, we promise to declare any conflicts of interest. I did that. I declared my interests on all the articles where there was a conflict. And then came the witch hunt by way of a trumped up sock-puppetry investigation, of which all were cleared; then, shortly after came the media outing. It wasn't safe so I asked admins about what to do, whether I should use another handle and, as I've shown in an email to you, they supported that decision. So that's what I did. I told them of my connections to the subjects and I asked them whether I needed to go ahead and disclose on every article, as I did before, knowing that that very practice is what lead to the both the intimidating, and false, investigation; and to my outing. I asked admins if that's what they wanted, and I received no reply. I took that to mean it was up to me. I had disclosed to them what my connections were. I am being open with you. And I am revealing more about myself. In so doing it is becoming less safe for me to edit here. I ask you to consider that as you judge whether I have done the right thing, step by step. I believe I have acted in good faith. I wonder if you might also be upfront with me. Is there another editor feeding you information to discredit me? If so, that feels creepy. Perhaps I'm being paranoid. Please be honest. I have been with you.Erasmus Sydney (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello Erasmus Sydney. It is unclear what you are expecting admins to do here. Since you have admitted to having a conflict of interest, that is something that has to be openly disclosed under our rules. You also seem to believe that the user name 'Erasmus Sydney' reveals your true identity to the media. If so, that is an issue between you and the media. Not much that Wikipedia can do in that case. Anyway, I agree with User:Nick-D that you seem to have made no COI disclosure regarding the present account. There is a COI disclosure by a different editor at the head of Talk:Andrew Hastie. If you somehow manage to clear up the copyright issues for which you were blocked by User:Nick-D, you would be expected to make an appropriate disclosure of any COI that you may still have at Talk:Andrew Hastie. If such a disclosure might lead the media to suspect who you really are, how is Wikipedia expected to fix that problem? I have not received any private information about you, I am just reading the talk pages. Your page is on my watch list due to a past 3RR case about Andrew Hastie. EdJohnston (talk) 03:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi there @EdJohnston: I'm really grateful for the support I've received from admins. At the moment I'm asking for three things. First, I am asking if admins would accept my apology for having made a stupid mistake. I uploaded images that had been published under creative commons, but I now realise that the people who published them didn't actually have that right. I didn't think it through. Second, I'd really appreciate some open-ness on how I have suddenly become subject to investigation from a number of admins. This has happened once before, with false sock puppet investigation, for which I and others were entirely cleared, and it all turned out to be be driven by one hostile editor. If that's what's happening here, I feel like I deserve to know, especially as I have been so open. Third, I ask for your advice about identity. I've heard from @General Notability: and others how, once identity is revealed, it can open the way to threats from people, even death threats. While I hear you say that matters to do with revealed identity are something between me and the media, I'm sure no one wants to see any editor experience death threats. This is why wiki gives all editors the assurance of privacy, so that sort of thing doesn't happen, or so it needn't happen. So, what do I do?Erasmus Sydney (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

Erasmus Sydney (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I respect the copyright policies and I have not breached them.Erasmus Sydney (talk) 03:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I respect the copyright policies and I have not breached them.[[User:Erasmus Sydney|Erasmus Sydney]] ([[User talk:Erasmus Sydney#top|talk]]) 03:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I respect the copyright policies and I have not breached them.[[User:Erasmus Sydney|Erasmus Sydney]] ([[User talk:Erasmus Sydney#top|talk]]) 03:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I respect the copyright policies and I have not breached them.[[User:Erasmus Sydney|Erasmus Sydney]] ([[User talk:Erasmus Sydney#top|talk]]) 03:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Two concerns have been raised and, after reflecting carefully on my actions, on the wikipedia policies, and on some thoughtful advice from an admin, I’d like admins to suggest the following.

I request this block is removed, as no copyright policy has actually been breached.

When I received this block, I really did get a shock, and I didn’t reflect on the copyright policies, or on my actions. I’ve since taken some time to look at both. Below I want to set out my understanding of the policies and some important details regarding uploading images published by Australian Parliament Fan (or AusSenateFan) along with a proposal of meeting COI concerns.

About the policies: The whole idea of Wikipedia is that material may be freely viewed, freely distributed, and free perpetually. That can only happen if the information that is placed on wikipedia—whether the written word, an image or other media—is free from copyright restrictions. It’s a founding principle of the community. But it’s also about keeping wikipedia safe from exposure to legal issues. So, it’s not acceptable to use copyrighted material if the original copyright owner hasn’t given their permission. All media on wikipedia must be available under a suitable free licence (such as a Creative Commons Licence). I can see that admins are 100% right in holding to these concerns.

About images sourced from Australian Parliament Fan: the images discussed above are all owned, in the first place, by the Australian Parliament, and then published by Australian Parliament Fan (sometimes calling themselves AusSenateFan) under Creative Commons Licence. What is being questioned, in the discussion above, is whether Australian Parliament Fan actually has the right to publish this material under the creative commons licence. So, I contacted them and they pointed me to where the Australian Parliament sets out its copyright parameters. What I can share here is that the Parliament (which owned the content in the first place, not Youtube or any TV network) makes its broadcasts available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence. However, there is only one type of image that may not be used under this licence — and that is an image of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, which, I understand, does not feature in any of the content we’re discussing here. I encourage all those concerned to read the details of the copyright information here: https://www.aph.gov.au/Help/Disclaimer_Privacy_Copyright#c

Addressing COI concerns by using one account. I propose that, from now on, I only use the user account being The Little Platoon (I had used this account throughout 2020, but had concerns about my privacy when it was mentioned in national media. When I wrote to arbcom about this on January 29 2021, they wrote to me, supporting my suggestion to start using Erasmus Sydney as an alternative account.) All the relevant pages edited by the Little Platoon have a COI declaration. I will go further and put a statement on each the userpage of both accounts showing the relationship with the other.Erasmus Sydney (talk) 03:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)