Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Abuse of admin powers and Violation of WP:INVOLVED by User:Sandstein

Sandstein (talk · contribs) is currently abusing his admin powers against users who have been querying his actions. Both User:The Devil's Advocate and I have made polite queries about one of his actions. [1] [2]. His response to questioning his decision-making has been to immediately issue WP:AE warnings.[3] [4] This is clearly inappropriate in response to polite queries and a clear violation of WP:INVOLVED. I request a block of Sandstein as he clearly will continue to WP:DISRUPT Wikipedia by abusing his powers.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Additional information. I specifically warned Sandstein that I would be taking him to ANI if his reply was unsatisfactory. His reply was then to issue the bogus AE warning. Given that I had told him that I would take him here, I feel that this has to be a violation of any sensible concept of WP:INVOLVED. The reason I said I would take him here is that his actions are against the "consensus or near consensus" described in the closing summary in this previous ANI thread. Instead of over-ruling a consensus or near-consensus previously reached at this board in a discussion involving many admins, Sandstein should be seeking to change the consensus through open debate.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support, at least until Sandstein looks into the matter properly and recognises where he went wrong. As it is, we have an unfortunate situation where Sandstein seems to have decided that he will take admin action against any editor who tries to tell him, politely, that he has gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick. Being wrong is one thing, but issuing point-blank warnings or sanctions against editors who gently tap him on the shoulder to say "Look, mate, you've made a mistake here" is past the pale, and a violation of WP:ADMINACCT. (I'd settle for him undoing his misguided actions and apologising.) Andreas JN466 20:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support Unfortunately Sandstein treats AE as his own personal domain where he is King and his word is law. He has long been allowed to do whatever he wants to whomever he wants with mide dscretion and latitude. Its been a problem for a long time and has been brought up many times in many venues. It needs to be addressed. Kumioko (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• I'm not sure what the case for INVOLVED is, strictly speaking, in the sense that Sandstein acting in an admin capacity doesn't make him involved in that sense. Certainly, I would consider myself "involved" in the sense of generally not being allowed to issue warnings or sanctions for an edit that's questioning my judgement, but I don't know if that meets the hand-wringingly technical definition of INVOLVED in the strictest sense. That said, I'm not sure how this could be said to fall under the discretionary sanctions mentioned in the Arbitration case, as that's for Scientology topics, not discussion of previous accounts or outing or whatever, and I don't see how the "broadly-construed" electricity could be played out that far. In that sense, I don't see how Sandstein could use the Arbcom case as justification for sanctions. (As far as a block goes, I don't friggin' know.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• This doesn't make sense to me. Granted, everyone who wants to know who Prioryman is, although mentioning it is discouraged, but how this turned into an Arb warning....seems to be stretching that well beyond the original intent. It is big stick that can prevent other admin from directly unblocking, so it should be used sparingly, not so liberally, and this use greatly disturbs me. I would prefer to hear Sandstein's perspective and research a bit more before drawing any conclusions, however. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

isn't it par for the course that whenever prioryman is in a snit ARBSCI gets invoked somehow? John lilburne (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• I should note that Sandstein went further than just warning me, but imposed a discretionary sanction after I objected to his initial warning. I now see that his sanction says I am not even allowed to discuss the sanction on-wiki or "sanctions imposed in relation to this topic" whatever the hell that means. This is even more absurd than I originally thought. Such a restriction is completely ridiculous and should be lifted immediately.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. A block for some speculative unspecified future misuse of admin powers? I don't think you've made much of a case here, especially when it comes to WP:INVOLVED. Let's use this space to figure out what's going on here first. Gamaliel (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Warnings of AE sanctions, logged at the arbitration page itself, are things that I would consider a use of admin authority (even if not a use of a tool per se), and even if one doesn't consider warnings as such, Sandstein also summarily topic-banned TDA on similar grounds, as here and here. As an aside, I don't know what Drg said or didn't say to originally cause the block, but topic-banning TDA for making the connection between Prioryman and their previous account is ridiculous when the very Arbcom page at which Sandstein logged the topic-ban makes the same connection as seen here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Modified_by_motion_3. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
    • If the action in question is an inappropriate topic ban, then let's lift the ban and trout the admin. Gamaliel (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose It's hard to see how culling drama here can be a bad thing. It's not at all clear how this topic ban is meaningful outside of the realm of drama mongering. aprock (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose First, this is the wrong forum for actions against an admin, especially considering that oversighted material is involved. So, you were not happy with the answer ... and the answer was "cannot be discussed on-wiki". So that means you ask for a block? WTF?? Go to ArbComm, make a case, because they can deal with any unsuitable/oversighted issues in camera. Nobody jumps to block an admin for a judgement call that appears to be correct in face. Even if it's wrong, this is still the wrong forum, and the OP knows that. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

  I don't see a block coming from this, but this the right forum. Arb requires that the community has tried to solve a problem and is unable to. Admin can block other admin, we've seen it done more than once. According to one member of Arb (Salvio), the community can also topic ban an admin to prevent him from using his tools[5]. I'm not saying any of this is warranted, but I am saying the community appears to be empowered to take any action short of desysopping in regards to admin. So this is the right forum for a discussion. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Dennis, it's not possible to even dream of discussing the situation in ANI ... yet. The community does not have the ability OR authority to view the oversighted edits ... yet, the OP is asking for action based on Sandstein's actions following those very edits. There's no possible way for any of the community to have an intelligent !vote without the full picture. If someone wants to confirm with ArbComm that the edits were, indeed, outing (and NOT simply repeating something the community has already said is NOT outing) and come back here for further sanctions discussions, then awesome. Until then, we're shooting blindly and cannot make a decision. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Sounds like you should go ask ArbComm then. Arkon (talk) 22:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Not my job to go to ArbComm ... that's the OP's job to have done his homework before coming here. If the OP's actually wrong, he's now going to look like an Alexander and have to eat some of the most rotten crow imaginable for raising this level of drama. If he's right, then yeah, something's rotten in the state of Denmark. One never takes that kind of risk on a hunch or without complete information (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Bwilkins, saying "the OP's job to have done his homework before coming here." sounds like a long verion of "RTFM". Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

If you aren't willing to do what you believe is the correct course of action, I don't know why you bothered to comment. Arkon (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

That might be the most ridiculous and illogical comment I've seen all month. Congrats: you win a prize! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Bwilkins, you and everyone else can see Peter cohen (talk · contribs)'s edits to Sandstein's talk page. Nothing has been rev-deled or oversighted. What exactly did Peter cohen say there that was worthy of an ARBSCI warning, given that it is not even a topic area he has ever edited? Andreas JN466 23:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Based on the original complaint, the ARBSCI warning to Peter is not the part of the issue - he added that as an aside, not as part of the complaint. As such, I'm not investigating that aspect whatsoever, and that's tangential to the rest of the issues being highlighted (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

What it says at the top of this thread is this: Sandstein (talk · contribs) is currently abusing his admin powers against users who have been querying his actions. Both User:The Devil's Advocate and I have made polite queries about one of his actions. [1] [2]. His response to questioning his decision-making has been to immediately issue AE warnings.[3] [4] This is clearly inappropriate in response to polite queries and a clear violation of WP:INVOLVED. I request a block of Sandstein as he clearly will continue to WP:DISRUPT Wikipedia by abusing his powers.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC) For the avoidance of doubt, AE warning = ARBSCI warning. Andreas JN466 00:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• But if there was additional genuinely outing information, Sandstein could simply have told me that there was extra information beyond what was already known on WP and could have told TDA the same. Instead of giving a simple yes or no answer, Sandstein's response was to feel affronted that some non-admins dare question him and to start using his admin powers against them. The issue here is not anything to do with Prioryman. As Dennis says above anyone who wants to know Prioryman's name can find it out with very little effort. The issue is that Sandstein is an out of control admin whose response to being questioned is to abuse his powers against those who question him. You can see something similar at a current RFAR where, after Ironholds questioned another of his blocks in the past, Sandstein now demands that Ironholds's employers be contacted on another matter. Sandstein fails to assume good faith about me or TDA. My suspicion is that this is because he knows that many of his actions on WP are in bad faith.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The way I read Sandstein's comments and edit summaries, that's exactly what he's telling you ... then again, English was not my original language, and it's most certainly not Sandstein's (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Just because something is not that hard to find doesn't mean it's a good idea or even acceptable to make a big deal of it on wikipedia. And even if that wasn't your intention, it seems clear it was having that effect, even more so in the case of TDA. In other words, this is actually a lot about the editor concerned and how we should treat various information out there about them, as well of course as whether it's a good idea for those who make a deal about said information to be editing a troublesome topic area where it comes in to play. I would add I am and have been fully aware of some of the linkages involved here before this and as with Tarc, don't actually think much of the editor concerned so this isn't about me being totally blind nor favouring the editor in any way. Either way though, I don't see how we, who do not have access to all the information, may not be able to discuss it openly and are ultimately trying to interpret someone else's decision without asking them when they would likely to be fine with clarifying or probably even taking the whole thing can reach good decision. Nil Einne (talk) 23:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• My understanding is that Sandstein is sanctioning people for linking to an existing prior AN/I thread, and publicly viewable arbitration case pages. I am sorry, do we have no-go areas on Wikipedia now? This is not what WP:OUTING says: if the information is not redacted or oversighted, it is public. You don't sanction people who criticise a decision of yours for linking to existing public material on Wikipedia. Andreas JN466 23:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• I disagree. The problem here is we are getting in to revdeleted material, concerns over harassment and possible outing which relate significantly to discussion of various linkages on wiki, and interpretation and enforcement of an arbcom decision. I won't comment on the appropriateness of the original topic ban like whether it's appropriate to topic ban someone out of concern their insisting there's not wrong with making the linkages and in the process doing so suggests they cannot edit without undue problem in the topic area or whether that's too wide an interpretation, but the suggestion it should be appealed directly to arbcom is sound. If arbcom really throws it back to us then so be it, I find it highly unlikely this is going to happen considering the circumstances, at the very least I expect them to provide helpful clarification so that we can make a better informed decision. One of the big problems is that while there may very well be no problem in linking the identities etc, if there is this whole discussion defeats one of Sandstein's purposes of the restrictions. I would note I noticed this ANI before any reply, I didn't reply because I didn't see any good path forward and the ensuring discussion seems to have reaffirmed that. This comment was originally above Bwilkins 22:46 reply, I modified it slightly and resigned it. To avoid confusion due to the to new time stamping, I moved it below as it's clear from their indentation and content that Bwilkins is replying to Dennis Brown not me so the location is arbitrary but should ideally follow chronology. Nil Einne (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - The Wikipedia dramah boardz are a wretched hive of scum and villainy as it is, while AE is several circles below even that; Sandstein deserves a medal for being willing to deal with that shit day in and day out. I have no great love for the editor at the heart of this either, but when other editors are throwing that semi-known identity in his face in the midst of a historically troublesome topic area, that's just plain unnecessary and disruptive. Tarc (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• But why an WP:ARBSCI warning? Under WP:ADMINACCT, that is a reasonable question to ask, even if it didn't require the bit. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Tarc, accountability applies to all admins. People helping at AE are not exempt from it, nor are they allowed to use the threat of arbcom sanctions as a bludgeon to silence questioning. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

There are times when such concerns should be done privately rather than openly posted. I mean, really, how stupid does a person have to be to file a complaint with an admin action and in the process use much of the same verbiage that that admin just sanctioned someone for in the first place? It's like going over the speed limit on your way to the courthouse to contest your other speeding ticket. Tarc (talk) 00:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Sandstein is not WP:INVOLVED. The incidents mentioned here, including the warnings and topic ban, are consequences of commentary following an indefinite block of drg55 during an unsuccessful appeal at WP:AE concerning WP:ARBSCI (hence the templates). [6] The drama being created here is not very different from incidents concerning the account Russavia a few months ago. Since the oversight team has been involved, arbcom is already aware of some of these incidents. Any appeals or complaints should presumably be made privately to them and are not suitable for discussion here, as others have said. Mathsci (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• You are the first to actually provide a policy rationale, which helps, although it would be helpful if a Functionary would ping in. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• There is a difference. As far as I know, Russavia has never indicated what his real name is either on WP or any other Wikimedia project or related site. Prioryman has, just like Fae did. Also Cla68 actually linked to offsite information which I did not do and I don't think that TDA did so either.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Indeed. No editor should be warned or sanctioned under an arbitration case's discretionary sanctions scheme for doing no more than linking to that same arbitration case's publicly viewable pages, and/or an equally public thread in the AN/I archive. If an admin claims that posting such links on his talk page constitutes outing, and uses it as a reason to issue warnings and sanctions to editors, then he's simply overstepped the mark. What is particularly bizarre is Sandstein's exhortation that Peter cohen 'Please review particularly the parts of the policy WP:OUTING that provide: "If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia" and "If the previously posted information has been removed by oversight, then repeating it on Wikipedia is considered outing."' Neither the ANI thread nor the arbitration case pages where the disclosures were made ever were redacted or oversighted. If people want to make that information non-public, then they should remove the information from the arbitration case pages (I guess that would mean oversighting one finding of fact the arbitrators made, which I believe would be a first). But it's nonsensical to sanction people for linking to what presently is public. Cart, horse; get them in the right order. Andreas JN466 00:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support Sandstein is using his admin tools and sanctions to deflect criticism, all in pursuit of covering up a widely known identity.→StaniStani  00:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Andreas. Hillbillyholiday ^talk 00:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Andreas. Sandstein's gun-toting sheriff model for adminning is causing great damage to the project, with the departure of some of our best editors through his wild actions. Tony (talk) 01:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. Are you able to give examples of recent other outrages Sandstein has committed? Especially interesting will be examples of his going on the warpath against people who question his judgment as that is the issue I have raised. I know he has a lot of enemies but I haven't been watching his actions closely enough to know which he has made recently and why.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. How many editors are commenting here as a result of the recent post-block posting of Drg55 on wikipediocracy? Some posts in this thread will probably be oversighted with one or more accounts blocked (not Sandstein, however). Mathsci (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I've just checked and cannot see any mention of this ANI thread on Wikipediocracy.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Did you find the posting of Drg55? Mathsci (talk) 01:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

That's the thread I checked. I rather assume that if Drg55 actually knew any more about Prioryman than is already in the public domain, then he or she would have ingratiated his/herself to the Prioryman fan club over there by volunteering the information over there having failed to get it to stick over here. Unless the mods over there have been redacting things, then no such info has been posted. This is what gave me the idea that Sandstein had misunderstood the situation about whether there was any new information being provided.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support per Andreas and Tony. Sandstein should not be treating Wikipedia as though it is a fiefdom he has autocratic control over in the Game of Thrones --Epipelagic (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support per above. Neotarf (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• No In the past I have asked Sandstein to resign his adminship due to his confused approach to AE—the correct situation is that admins should be encouraging things that benefit the encyclopedia, and discouraging things that don't, and Sandstein is too rule-bound to see how some dramas should be handled, and that does damage the project by driving off good editors who have been sucked into a vortex of despair by prolonged disruption from others. However, this incident is one where Sandstein is perfectly correct—just because various past discussions enable a sleuth to work out that editor X is person Y, does not mean that everyone gets to go around saying "X is Y!". Any problem relating to a decision by an admin at AE can be discussed with claims of "the identity of X is common knowledge, so ..."— there is no need to parrot X is Y. I follow AE and fully endorse Tarc's comment above that "Sandstein deserves a medal for being willing to deal with that shit day in and day out". I just wish a judgment upgrade could be applied—is the proposed action going to help the encyclopedia?. Johnuniq (talk) 01:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment by an uninvolved editor. I have been concerned for some time about Sandstein's use of his administrative powers. He is too often arbitrary, autocratic and hasty. He needs to rein himself in before others do it for him. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC).
• Oppose. Whether or not one believes what has been oversighted truly was outing, one does have to wonder why certain people simply can't walk away from the issue in the first place. A lot of this reads as being quite WP:POINTy. Also, whether or not one agrees with Sandstein's judgment on the outing issue, I find the claim that he is INVOLVED because TDA and Peter cohen complained frivolous. Resolute 01:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Sandstein's actions here have been seriously inappropriate, but clearly do not warrant blocking. For an admin to impose sanctions in response to what appears to be good faith, reasonably based criticism of their actions certainly seems contrary to the policy concerns underlying WP:INVOLVED. To insist on a rigid and unyielding application of WP:OUTING, in circumstances where the goals of the policy cannot be well-served by doing so, is unwise, disruptive, and ultimately destructive to the fabric of this community. It is clear that the community has rejected the notion that only voluntary, on-Wikipedia, never-removed self-identification can justify conduct that would otherwise be WP:OUTING. Qworty never self-identified on Wikipedia, but his identity is reported, without any great dispute, in Robert Clark Young. The identity of the editor at issue here has been widely disclosed and circulated, and is easy enough to discern from various arbitration discussions. Sandstein's actions, despite their good faith, serve no legitimate Wikipedia purposes. Sandstein should undo their recent round of sanctions and recuse from this general dispute, construed with some breadth. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, what? Everything after "It is clear" is pretty unclear. Where did the community decide that? And the example you provide re Qworty does not appear to have any application here as that is summary information from a reporter. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Qworty never self-identified on-Wiki. Under the terms of WP:OUTING, his legal name, etc shouldn't be associated with the account name. But we clearly accept stating his real-life identity, because it's been disclosed in a sufficiently public fashion. While the instant case is not so widely disclosed, the real-life identity has effectively been disclosed in arbitration discussions, even if not stated so baldly. "A is B" and "B is C" lead inexorably to "A is C," and it serves no valid purpose to punish people for stating that third equivalence. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Qworty did self-identify themselves on Wiki. It was one of the last few of his edits. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 03:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per aprock. Moreover, I agree with Bwilkins — private things should never be grounds for a community-imposed block or ban or other sanctions. Make things public before using them as evidence for something like this, or if they shouldn't be made public, seek sanction through something like Arbcom, which can handle private information properly. This looks to me like a matter of "jump on the admin we don't like" more than anything else. Nyttend (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Wrong forum. Only Arb can take away adminship, and blocking an admin is pretty pointless, in most cases. If they actually warranted blocking for say, a lack of judgement, a far lower bar would be needed for a de-sysopping. The imposed topic ban, though, actually applies to everyone, as no one can discuss the outing of anyone. I would recommend to the admin in question that there are other forums other than WP:AE, and reasons for doing things that go beyond Arb motions. Apteva (talk) 02:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support Sandstein routinely has issues in this area and has for a while. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I do not agree with Sandstein's actions here, but a block makes no sense at all. This whole block proposal looks like WP:POINT. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

  I admit that its pointless to block him. He's an admin and could and probably would just undo it. Then what, nothing would happen. Even if he broke the rule we couldn't desysop him. That takes action by Arbcom. Taking this to Arbcom is a waste of time. Sandstein is the Arbcom's executioner and who would be willing to don the hood at AE if he didn't do it? So no matter whether we support or oppose here, the result is the status quo. There is nothing that can be done. Which to me, is way more of a problem than just having an abusive admin allowed to do whatever they want. Time and time again he has been brought before venues like this and nothing is done. Nothing can be done. It is a broken system. Kumioko (talk) 04:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

  Umm, what do you mean? Except for self-imposed blocks or egregious cases of block abuse (e.g. the innocent admins whom Robdurbar blocked), unblocking yourself is grounds for immediate desysopping and arbitration — besides the fact that you're wheel warring, you're abusing the tools to pretty much the utmost extent, so immediate desysopping and arbitration are inevitable, not just likely. Yes, you can do it, but it's tatamount to wiki-suicide. Finally, please indent your comment and mine — the current format makes it hard to tell that your comment is separate from King of Hearts' comment. Nyttend (talk) 04:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

  Something can be done if people are willing to stand together against the bully. I told him clearly that AN/I had reached a "consensus or near consensus" that stating Prioryman's name is not outing. His response was to piss on AN/I i.e. on all of you. AN/I i.e. the community need to show some guts and say that individual admins cannot overrule a community consensus. Only Arbcom, Jimbo or the community itself can overrule a community consensus not some bighead admin who thinks he's Judge Dredd. Sandstein is not the law and the imposition of ultra vires bogus warnings and bogus sanctions in violation of WP:INVOLVED does not make him the law. That's what the community needs to tell him. The proposed block is just a hook to hang sanctioning of Sandstein's willful defiance of the community's previously established consensus and willful abuse of his powers on. I did not want this thread to be about whether I was unfairly treated or to rehash the old ground of whether Prioryman can be outed or not, the community on this board have already expressed their view on that, I wanted it to be about Sandstein being out of control and proposing a block was the best way to do this. So people, whether or not you vote for him to be blocked make it clear to Sandstein that there are limits on what he can do and those limits are that he cannot overrule this board or anywhere else the community expresses its view and that he cannot impose sanctions on people for pointing out that he is acting against community consensus.--Peter cohen (talk) 04:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

  Not everyone believes that consensus applies to AE. [7] AE is a creature of ArbCom, but can you find anything that says what is in its remit? Or what is considered to be due process? Maybe I don't understand this--I am a relatively new user--but as far as I can tell, the AE admin is set up to be an independent Super Arb, with no checks and balances, no oversight. Neotarf (talk) 10:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

  AE is not a creature of WP:ARBCOM, it's a self-selecting WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of editors, most of whom happen to have the admin bit, who want to run WP:ANI with fewer checks and balances, specifically focused on the outcome of WP:RFARB cases (except where they inevitably scope-creep it to include more and more authority), and pretend that it's somehow magically immune to any form of community watchdogging or dispute resolution. It's Wikipedia's equivalent of the USA-PATRIOT Act's secret, unconstitutional tribunals to illegally detain and punish people accused of certain things. It's abuse, and the community's confused tolerance of this abuse, is one of the reasons I don't volunteer my time here any longer. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 09:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I have my gripes about some of his actions too, but I can also try to understand where Sandstein is coming from. Yes, he's officious and autocratic. He isn't averse to bringing out the truncheon to restore order, and also waves it around when he doesn't need it. If he wasn't, he wouldn't be so feared, and people will be gaming him like they game other admins. Yes, he has done damage and driven away good editors, but OTOH WP would be a more chaotic place without some strict policing. I'd say he was more often right but he also occasionally gets things wrong too. But when he does, he goes running to Arbcom for backup. Oh, I do wish he would apologise every now and again. It would complement the inevitable fallibility which is a human trait. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 04:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Sandstein has a function as the hangin' judge of Arbitration Enforcement but he should be cautioned that it is not his fief and that he is not operating in a vacuum or on his own authority. Carrite (talk) 06:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support He was just here days ago for a bad block and showed no comprehension of what he did wrong. He's habitually "ruling" like a one man Arbcom (lawyerly interpretations and "can't appeal" judgements), to the extent he is separating himself above fellow volunteers. The comment that no appeal could be made on Wiki was troubling. (Is he going to block this whole collection here now?) He won't get the message without some clip of the wings. I generally don't like blocking people (even "enemies" and we've never clashed), but I think a short block would send a message here.TCO (talk) 09:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm confused on what we are allowed to say and not say. Are we allowed to say Prioryman=ChrisO? The Noticeboard on Former Administrators says this explicitly: [8]TCO (talk) 09:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I think you're allowed to say that. The point of contention is whether you're allowed to give the ChrisO's full last name. Thanks to the Barbara Streisand effect, everyone now knows their last name if they didn't already. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Even if I would not have acted as Sandstein did (I would had preferred an attempt of discussion before the warnings), his explaination below appears quite convincing and I definitely agree with the block of Drg55 (especially as Drg55 was previously warned about that and ignored the warnings repeatedly publishing the assumed outing). Cavarrone 09:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support I don't know what this "complicated series of links and logical inferences" that Sandstein refers to is, when Prioryman identifies himself as ChrisO on his own user page, and there is an existing public statement by ChrisO of his real name. None of that is private or redacted information, thus explicitly permitted to be referred to by our rule on "outing". However, even though I'm protected by policy it's apparent that a number of people are acting completely out of control and ignoring policy - so I won't mention it. I have no desire to see myself on the end of a block from one of these self-appointed Judge Dredd characters, although that's doing a disservice to Judge Dredd, who always acts within the law. — Scott • talk 10:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• Semi-Support Not a block, but certainly prohibited from AE actions as per below. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose generally per Tarc (medal? not so much but AE discretion is appropriate) and a random AN/I thread that the OP points to is no substantive nor procedural hurdle. AN/I does not establish policy for all time, nor does it establish Arbitration Decisions, it deals with incidents (sometimes chaotically). Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban from WP:AE as first choice, and a block as a second choice In my opinion, this comment posted below by sandstein is the kicker, as it shows that he doesn't seem to understand when AE is appropriate and when it is overkill.

"where you (Dennis Brown) see AE as a giant hammer to be used only in exceptional cases, I see it as an ordinary screwdriver (or mop), as one of the many tools an admin may and should use on a daily basis to do their routine duty. " -- Sandstein, below

Tazerdadog (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose blocking is unwarranted. Discussing the issue and (possibly) overturning the sanctions is the appropriate thing to do when faced with a controversial admin action. WP:RFC/U and WP:RFAR are the place to go when there's a history of problematic use of tools. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. You don't block an admin just because some or all of the community disagrees with the admin's interpretation and exercise of policy (especially when it hasn't even been determined that there is a community consensus yet one way or the other). This is especially true when the said admin has not demonstrated any unwillingness to follow the community consensus. In fact, Sandstein has shown good faith by trying to explain in detail his understanding of the policy, and has gone farther by requesting clarification in a neutral manner from the ArbCom about how they interpret their discretionary sanctions to be applied - which shows that Sandstein is aware that some members of the community disaree with his interpretation and that a clarification is needed before further decisions are made. This is all what we expect an admin to do in a situation like this. Blocking Sandstein in these circumstances is a patently ridiculous suggestion. Singularity42 (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: Blocking would be too drastic. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support. If only Sandstein were just employing a "gun-toting sheriff" model, as someone called it. It's a Judge Dredd "I am the law!", judge-jury-and-executioner model, as my fate at his hands amply demonstrates (I cover this in more detail in a subsection later). This new case is just part of a long-standing, to-hell-with-the-consequences attitude of superiority and trigger-happy abuse of adminship on Sandstein's part. Overturning the sanctions? Definitely. Blocking? Given the damage Sandstein's been doing, it's about time, but I doubt ANI would ever go that far (when's the last time ANI ever took any non-wrist-slap action against any admin at all?). RFC/U? Pointless and toothless. RFARB? By all means, but who has time for that legalistic morass that almost always sides with admins and against non-admins anyway? Short of desysoping, some kind of defanging is seriously in order, like a topic-ban from banning, blocking, warning or otherwise sanctioning any other editors for any reason for a year, perhaps, including administrative participation in AE and AN/ANI where he does the most harm; there are lots of far less destructive and antagonistic things someone can do with administrator privileges, that are better suited to restraining Sandstein's aggressive, repressive behavior pattern. [Un-disclaimer: No one canvassed my appearance here; possible resolution of Sandstein's continued modus operandi of censorious, arrogant abuse of the admin bit is one of the loose ends I still log in occasionally for, after resigning as a regular Wikipedia editor in the wake of Sandstein's months-long campaign of pointed, personal harassment against me.] — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 09:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

  PS, as to the specifics of this case: Just because the "Church" of Scientology has lied to the IRS and falsely obtained tax exempt status as a presumptively legitimate religious institution doesn't mean it actually is one. There's about 15 mountains of proof that Scientology's founder specifically set it up as a scam, and it's been banned as a criminal organization under racketeering and similar laws by several countries now, as well as been continually embroiled in more US litigation, including criminal charges against it (up to an including murder), than virtually any other organization other than mob syndicates. We do not offer special deference out of "religious respect and tolerance" for people who think the earth is flat or that grown men having sex with young boys is right and a right; the fact that the Flat Earth Society and the North American Man/Boy Love Association are real organizations with members who really believe in their respective messages doesn't mean we have to start treating them like Buddhism or Episcopalianism. Scientology is not magically immune to WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, WP:CIVILPOV, etc., etc., just because they claim to be a religion. They're a patently fake religion, and everyone knows that. Censuring regular editors for not beating the bush out this fact is way off-kilter.

  So is trying to hide behind bogus privacy issues that don't really exist in this case. It's like corporate trade secret, or an elected official's sexual affair – when the secret is out, it's just not a secret any more; the information genie does not go back in the bottle, sorry. Don't treat Wikipedia's editorship like a pack of morons by playing infantile "let's pretend" games, much less harming good editors' reputations in the course of trying to force everyone to play them. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 09:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

How is "earth is flat" different from the belief that "God created the world in six days and consecrated the seventh after giving mankind his first commandment: "be fruitful and multiply"." Beliefs are beliefs, you cannot juxtapose them against scientific facts and ridicule them. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Anyone who proposes or supports promptly blocking an admin at ANI on the flimsy grounds presented here without an in depth look and discussion of the issues, and without looking at the issues is either 1. an idiot 2. has an axe to grind. I know several do have an axe to grind from certain off-wiki criticism forums ... IRWolfie- (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I've disagreed with Sandstein on occasions before. But disagreement is not a reason to take action against, certainly not at this level. I see nothing here to warrant such actions.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. If there is a problem with an AE enforcer, that is an issue that needs to be taken on by ArbCom. If they feel that Sandstein is overstepping his authority on that board, they should be the ones that tell him. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I wasn't around when the Scientology Arbcom case was being debated (apparently it is a hot potato still), but I haven't been able to find any indication that Prioryman has posted his own name anywhere on-Wiki, nor having consented to others using his full name. To keep discussions and article-writing constructive and avoid any conflicts, administrators may and should issue DS/AE warnings. This was correctly done by Sandstein in this case. LiquidWater 10:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Per above. Also, I seriously wonder when I can stop hearing about him making controversial/wrong actions and abusing his powers. It's been months already. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 10:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Sandstein is the one admin who actually has a thick enough skin to consistently use AE like it is intended to be used. If ArbCom wants him to do things differently, they are capable of refining the AE rules. Jclemens (talk) 05:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Response by Sandstein

Hi, everybody. I'll try to be as clear as I can in explaining what I think happened here as is possible in a case that involves private and oversighted information. Because of this, I think that this matter is not suitable for a noticeboard discussion to begin with.

A few days ago, another administrator imposed a Scientology topic ban on Drg55, as a discretionary sanction per the arbitration case WP:ARBSCI. Drg55 appealed this sanction to WP:ANI, from where it was moved to WP:AE, a noticeboard I often work on. In the course of the appeal discussion, Drg55 repeatedly published what they claimed was the real name of another editor who, it appears, is active in editing Scientology topics from a point of view opposite to that of Drg55. Drg55 continued to reinsert that alleged name even after being warned about it by the banning administrator. In my view also, publishing that name was in no way necessary for the purpose of the appeal, that is, for the purpose of discussing whether or not Drg55 should remain topic-banned for their previous actions. Consequently, I indefinitely blocked Drg55 for WP:OUTING, advising them how to appeal the block offwiki. I asked the oversight team to suppress the outing edits, which they did.

I was then contacted by The Devil's Advocate and Peter cohen. They argued that the actions by Drg55 were not outing because, they said, the alleged identity of the editor at issue had previously been revealed onwiki by way of a complicated series of links and logical inferences between old arbitration cases and other old pages. I disagreed: Even if the editor at issue had voluntarily published their (full) identity onwiki at some point in the past (which it seems to me did not happen, but I'll not link to the related material in order not to further this ongoing breach of privacy), this would not justify another editor repeatedly belting out the alleged name in public for no other apparent reason than to spite the other editor, who clearly does not want their identity to be made public, as is their right. That is WP:Harrassment, and prohibited. Additionally, the policy WP:Outing provides that "If the previously posted information has been removed by oversight, then repeating it on Wikipedia is considered outing." I take this to mean that by deciding to oversight the edits by Drg55 (and later also edits by The Devil's Advocate), the oversighters have authoritatively determined that repeating the information they contain is outing, which supersedes any previous discussions and makes continued discussions superfluous.

For these reasons, I warned The Devil's Advocate and Peter cohen against raising this matter on a community noticeboard - not to insulate myself against criticism, as my block remains subject to normal administrator review through the unblock process, but to prevent any noticeboard discussion from drawing undue attention to private information and from becoming a forum in which the attempts at outing would very likely continue. It appears that these concerns were justified, as at least one editor above has made what I consider another attempt at outing. Because of their insistence to the contrary, I banned The Devil's Advocate from any discussion of the identity of the editor at issue, as a discretionary sanction per WP:ARBSCI.

As concerns the specific charge by Peter cohen of acting as an administrator while involved, I am a bit puzzled. To my knowledge, I have had no previous disputes with Peter cohen, or any (non-administrative) involvement in the topic of Scientology. In fact, I was unacquainted with Drg55 and the editor who they were trying to out, or the previous discussions about this matter, prior to my actions described above. I even blocked (too hastily perhaps, in retrospect) another editor for harassing Drg55 because of their faith; this was previously discussed here. It seems that Peter cohen believes that I am involved because I warned him not to discuss the details of my block of Drg55 on a noticeboard. I can see how that might create the impression that I wanted to use AE authority to deflect criticism from my block, but I don't see how I could have acted otherwise and still prevented a noticeboard discussion from contributing to the realization of the very same privacy risks that the block was intended to address (as has indeed been the case with this discussion). Any advice on how to handle this better in the future, if possible, would be welcome. At any rate, as I said, the block remains subject to review through various non-noticeboard venues such as WP:UTRS and WP:BASC, and is in fact actively being questioned by another administrator on Drg55's talk page, so I don't quite see why an additional noticeboard discussion would be urgently necessary.

As regards the general concerns voiced above (mostly by people I sanctioned at AE or their friends, it seems) that I am acting too high-handedly, in a cowboy-like or authoritarian manner etc. at AE, let me first stress that I firmly believe that everybody, especially longtime editors and administrators like me, is accountable for their actions and should be ready to respond to any good-faith concerns about them. I attempt to do so as best as I can. However, in the context of arbitration enforcement and especially discretionary sanctions, it is important to understand that, by design, these processes do not work like most parts of Wikipedia on the basis of communal discussion and consensus-building. Rather, the Arbitration Committee has explicitly charged individual administrators to unilaterally react to policy violations in certain sensitive areas according to their own discretion. One may legitimately disagree with this system, but in that case your beef is with the Arbitration Committee which designed it, not with me. Of course, admins are no less fallible than any other person. It is possible (and statistically likely) that several of the AE actions I made were mistaken. But if that is so, the proper way to engage me in discussions about it and to hold me accountable is to submit an explicit appeal against a specific sanction to the community or to the Arbitration Committee, as provided for in the procedures linked to in every sanction, rather than to make broad allegations on noticeboards. To my knowledge, I must have made several hundred AE actions by now, necessarily angering many people in the process, but I can't recall even one case where an AE action by me was overturned on appeal against my objections, and exceedingly few that were appealed in the first place. But in general, I view AE as a support function for the Arbitration Committee, and, as I have previously said, I am more than ready to stand down from AE duty if even one arbitrator believes that I am not operating in accordance with the Committee's or the community's expectations.

I hope that I have addressed all serious concerns, and am of course ready to answer any questions that do not involve private information. Although that may have to wait a bit, because I won't have much more time for Wikipedia today.  Sandstein  06:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The block of drg is not the issue that was raised, but your invoking Arbcom warnings to the users who disagreed with it and telling them they could not complain about your actions on Wiki.TCO (talk) 10:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

+1 — Scott • talk 10:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I address this in more detail below.  Sandstein  16:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Prioryman gave up his rights to privacy RE scientology articles when as a prolific anti-scientologist activist off-wiki (under his full name), he transplanted his battleground to wikipedia under the username ChrisO. A cunning disguise you must admit. Given that he was sanctioned and banned from the scientology area - going back to it once his ban wore off while trying to suppress all mention of his previous and off-wiki identity is a joke. It would make a mockery for any sort of future COIN discussion for a start.

As for oversight - reporting something to oversight and then using the fact it was oversighted as evidence you were right is ridonculous. Oversight works on the principle of 'if in doubt, nuke it'. I doubt they would have checked Prioryman's history to see if revealing his identity is outing (Its not. And continuing to say it is, is provably wrong with no need to go off-wiki). When questioned on this, your response was to shut down discussion and sanction based solely on the fact that people disagreed with you. The proper response to a question of your judgement is to refer it to your fellow administrators, not to use discretionary sanctions in an attempt to silence dissent. AE exists to provide quick resolution of previously arbitrated cases. It is *not* there as a big stick to attempt to intimidate editors with as you have done. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not seem to have been clear enough: If the editor did not voluntarily reveal their full name on-wiki, as seems to be the case, they remain entitled to that full name being treated as private in all but exceptional circumstances (such as when it is relevant to decide a serious misconduct case), even if you believe that the full name is easily inferred. But even if the editor did at some past time reveal their full name on-wiki, they remain entitled to protection from harassment, and repeatedly trumpeting out (for no legitimate reason) a name, which the editor clearly (at least now) wishes to be treated as private, is sanctionable harassment.  Sandstein  16:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

OiD, the off-wiki activities by the person you claim to be Prioryman (has he said anywhere on-wiki that he is that person?) are totally irrelevant to his edits on WP, who have been, to my understanding, constructive and good. Revealing your first name and last letter of your surname does not mean that you wish to have your full name, including surname, outed. And how can we know that he actually is the person some claim him to be? Chris O is quite a common combination of names. LiquidWater 15:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

"As regards the general concerns voiced above (mostly by people I sanctioned at AE or their friends, it seems..." There you are assuming bad faith again. You have decided that people cannot simply decide that you are out of control but are rather doing it out of revenge.

I pointed out to you yesterday that the community on this page has within the last year reached consensus or near consensus that it is not outing to name ChrisO/Prioryman. You set yourself above them and tried to intimidate me into not bringing your decision to overrule the community back to the board where the decision was reached. You are not Jimmy Wales. You are not Arbcom. You are not WMF staff carrying out an office action. You have no right to overrule community decisions reached at this board but you have decided to do so even when it has been pointed out that you are doing so and you have attempted to use your admin powers to prevent someone from taking you to this board. However I don't care if I get topic banned from the scientology stuff. To the best of my knowledge I have never edited an article in that topic area. I consider them a dangerous bunch of cranks and actually think that Cultwatch and the likes have done a valuable service in highlighting the abuses by the Scientology hierarchy. If I read the interchanges between Prioryman and scientology cultists elsewhere on the internet, I will almost certainly find myself agreeing with him. My raising the issue has nothing to do with wanting to provide support Drg55, someone who I gather is probably a cultist, it is about trying to prevent an out of control admin, namely you, from setting himself above the community. You have violated WP:Involved because you have used your admin powers against someone previously uninvolved in the Scientology topic area simply for questioning your decision. I did not criticize Prioryman/ChrisO in the post I made to your talk page. I criticised you. How much more involved can you be than immediately taking action against someone who has directly criticised you and only you in the post that you object to? --Peter cohen (talk) 10:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

When you look at many of the names who rushed in to oppose Sandstein, it does not require an assumption of bad faith to realize that many of them do so because they have an axe to grind. Also, in light of your first sentence, your second, "You have decided that people cannot simply decide that you are out of control but are rather doing it out of revenge", is that absolute height of hypocrisy. Resolute 13:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I for one haven't had any significant interaction with Sandstein, TDA, or peter cohen, so take care that "many" doesn't equal "all". Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Quite right, and that is why I specifically did not say "all". Unfortunately, the suspect editors (particularly those with a dislike of Sandstein personally, and those who attack simply because he represents part of the 'system') makes it tougher on those, like you, who are coming at it from a neutral POV. I'm not going to opine on whether Sandstein's warnings are proper per the outing policy and the arbcom cases he cites, but I do have to ask why certain people seem to make a habit of going out of their way to equate one name to another. Many of them come from a forum where the blocked editor who started all of this rushed to whine upon being blocked. Resolute 13:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

@Writ_Keeper, I think Resolute was trying to point to me in his statements. Whenever I make a statement about an Admin on the rogue he makes statements like that. He seems to like attempting to discredit me to call attention away from the real problems. I have stated repeatedly that I don't have a problem with all admins and in fact only a minority. It just so happens that Sandstein falls into that minority population of admins that do whatever they want, whenever they want and are allowed to get away with it. Kumioko (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Sandstein, for God's sake, look at the facts.

1. User:ChrisO redirects to User:Prioryman. The very ARBSCI page where you logged your sanctions makes clear that they are the same person. If you think that information needs redacting, then you just haven't done your homework.
2. The "editor's alleged identity" had not "previously been revealed onwiki by way of a complicated series of links and logical inferences between old arbitration cases and other old pages". It was revealed when the arbitrators noted, in a public finding of fact, that the editor had cited his own works. The editor contested that finding on the Proposed Decision talk page. In the course of that he clearly, twice, referred to these self-published sources as his "own work", and posted two diff links of himself removing his name and the reference to his "own work" from an article. He has never asked to have that information redacted or oversighted. In fact I see no sign whatsoever that he asked you to take action in this matter to protect his identity.

You refused to read the links editors dropped on your page, and instead took admin action against them. That is the definition of "Shoot first, ask questions later." Please have the good grace to undo your warning and sanction of TDA and Peter cohen. In addition, while I would endorse your topic ban of Drg55 per my comment at AE, his indefinite block has no basis in WP:OUTING policy, which requires that any prior self-disclosure on wiki should have been redacted or oversighted. That requirement simply isn't fulfilled here, making WP:OUTING moot. In addition, there was an arguable conflict of interest, due to the editor's off-wiki involvement with the article subject, making it at least arguable that raising his identity was justified. COIs like that are routinely discussed in Wikipedia if there has been prior on-wiki disclosure, and I have never seen anybody banned for it. Please undo his indefinite block accordingly, so that justice is done. Andreas JN466 11:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

So back in 2009, Prioryman got accused – falsely, as it happens, and out of the blue, by an arbitrator working on questionable evidence cooked up in camera – of an act of COI editing, in such a way that he essentially had no option of defending himself without implicitly confirming the identity that the arbitrator had chosen to disclose. That is a very far cry from a "voluntary" disclosure. Prioryman has since repeatedly made it clear that he wishes his identity to be treated as non-public, and under our privacy rules he has a right to have that wish respected. Period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The finding of fact that Prioryman contested remained part of the final decision of the case. Its assertions are supported by diffs. And if the arbitration committee chooses to disclose an editor's identity in a finding of fact (which in this case was not outing either, as the editor had owned up to those being his own writings previously, on Wikipedia), you do not get to have an end-run around their decision by sanctioning people who refer to that decision. Your admin privileges do not give you the right to retrospectively censor public arbitration decisions. Andreas JN466 11:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom does not have the right to override the outing policy either. The "findings" Prioryman contested were those proposed by Roger Davies [9], which demonstrably contained several obvious untruths (as you should remember, since you were there). All the situation of "self-admitted" identity was caused by the debate that became necessary because of that slipshod attack piece by Davies. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome to your opinion of User:Roger Davies, but his finding (revised, with diffs added) eventually passed 10–0, with one abstention. You do not get to overrule arbcom decisions four years after the fact. You're supposed to uphold them. So instead, now you're accusing Arbcom of violating WP:OUTING policy too. This is ridiculous, and a revision of history. No one made that argument four years ago, as the identity was acknowledged on wiki well before ARBSCI. If you are so fundamentally in disagreement with this arbcom decision, I suggest a more appropriate response would be to recuse from all related arbitration enforcement. Your actions with regard to Drg55 were as much at variance with WP:OUTING policy and the ARBSCI decision as Sandstein's. Andreas JN466 12:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The above replies to Sandstein are stirring, but totally miss the point. Sandstein made it abundantly clear that he thinks gratuitously mentioning the real-life identity of an editor who does not currently display his name is at least highly undesirable. People can object to Sandstein's decision at AE without making a WP:POINT by publicizing the identity of an editor. FWIW, I hate Gibraltarpedia too, but pursuing Prioryman via Sandstein does not seem desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 11:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Well they kind of tried to do that in a manner more quietly with him directly. It resulted in Sandstein sanctioning them. So any further mentioning of identities is pretty much on him at the moment. Its impossible to have a discussion without at least skirting around the specifics (note most people above have carefully not mentioned the actual name). The only alternative would be to not make any reference to it at all, which is undoubtedly what Sandstein wanted in the first place. But not supported by outing policy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

For the record, neither Peter cohen nor TDA mentioned his name. They argued, based on the letter and spirit of policy, that it wasn't outing to do so, while themselves refraining from doing so. Sandstein still warned and sanctioned them. He needs to undo those actions. Andreas JN466 12:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that is correct because a comment by TDA at User talk:Sandstein (17:53, 8 July 2013) has been oversighted. Johnuniq (talk) 12:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

That is very convenient, isn't it? TDA has asserted off-wiki that he never mentioned the name, but merely linked to ARBSCI and ANI. Peter cohen made no such mention either, as you can verify for yourself, but still received the same warning. Andreas JN466 12:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

As I just pointed out "off-wiki" though, I happened to see the post in question last night before it was oversighted. To say that TDA is not being exactly forthcoming regarding its contents would be an understatement. Tarc (talk) 13:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I certainly did not name Prioryman and the only link I inserted was to the archived ANI thread which did not name him either. I also think that you are confused about the matter you mentioned offline as what you referred to was in a comment by a third party which I note has been redacted but has not be revdeled or oversighted--Peter cohen (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Facepalm As Peter cohen says, you are confused. First, the post you saw and quote off-wiki was not oversighted, it was redacted. Second, it was made last night, here in this discussion. Third, it was not even made by TDA, and's got nothing to do with what Sandstein sanctioned TDA for. So you've basically accused TDA of lying for nothing. Perhaps Sandstein or an oversighter could confirm what exactly TDA did say on Sandstein's talk page, two days ago, and whether it did contain non-public information. I believe it did not; it's pretty apparent what it did contain from the discussion on TDA's talk page: links to ANI and ARBSCI, much like Peter's post that got a similar reception from Sandstein. Andreas JN466 14:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

As I said over there, my mistake. There's lot of jerkish behavior going on today, and with all the pitchfork-waving and burning-Sandstein-in-effigy going on, it's hard to tell one jerkish behavior from another in this topic. Tarc (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reply Sandstein, but I still don't understand how you invoked ARBSCI in your warnings (and topic ban) to TDA and Peter Cohen. The general sanctions are for edits pertaining to Scientology, and I don't see how edits mentioning Prioryman's previous account (and the edit that you wound up topic banning TDA for did no more than that) could reasonably be said to fall under that scope; indeed, the creation of the Prioryman account didn't even occur until after the Arbcase, so I don't see how remedies from what seems to be a tangentially-related at best arbcase could be used to effect sanctions on peter cohen and TDA. The block on Drg is to one side, really; what I'm wondering about are the warnings and topic ban that happened after. Can you explain your thought process on that? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Certainly. The dispute in which the users at issue inserted themselves was about whether an editor appealing a Scientology topic ban may publicize the (alleged) real name of an opposing editor in the Scientology topic area who is (allegedly) active in real life as a Scientology opponent. This places the whole issue square within the scope of WP:ARBSCI. Now, my thought process about the warnings and topic ban was: I perceive (rightly or wrongly) that there is a outing problem where some people appear to be intent on outing another editor. There are people knocking at my door who (wrongly, in my view) insist that it is allowed to aggressively publicize the name and who seem to be intent on inviting just that by opening onwiki discussions about it. Now, how do I prevent this? By blocking these people? That would be excessive. I prefer a minimum-force approach: First I warn them not to open on-wiki discussions about the matter (because these would invite more outing actions, if only by virtue of the Streisand effect), and when they refuse to do so, I prevent them from doing so by way of a narrowly tailored topic ban. Of course I use AE authority to do so, because that is what discretionary sanctions are designed to do: to prevent editors from "seriously fail[ing] to adhere to ... any expected standards of behavior" in the Scientology topic area, such as outing.  Sandstein  16:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Sandstein, using a WP:ARBSCI warning seems massively overkill here but I'm trying to be open minded. It is a giant hammer that prevents review from other admin, and should only be used when there is no other reasonable choice. Using in this situation does look odd and I haven't seen you explain why it was necessary. There are a limited number of options here: 1. It was appropriate but you haven't explained why. 2. It was abusive and done to shut discussion down. 3. It was a bone-headed mistake to which you have yet to apologize. If there are other options that I haven't thought of, I would be happy to hear them, but I don't think you have explained your reasons for the Arb sanction warning adequately. That is my concern above all else. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• I hope that I have explained my approach in the reply above; if not then please let me know. The issue may be one of perception: where you see AE as a giant hammer to be used only in exceptional cases, I see it as an ordinary screwdriver (or mop), as one of the many tools an admin may and should use on a daily basis to do their routine duty. There is nothing in WP:AC/DS to suggest that discretionary sanctions should be used only exceptionally, sparingly or as a last resort.  Sandstein  16:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm taken aback that you would consider the threat of Arb authorized sanctions as "ordinary". When you use them, you instantly prevent every admin from reviewing that block. You place your judgement above the collective Admin corps. Obviously, these types of sanctions exist because there are times when this is the best solution, but this is still a drastic step that common sense says should be used with some hesitation and caution. By its very nature, it was designed to be an exception to normal process, not the rule. Perhaps because you work with Arb sanctions daily, your view has become jaded and you see them as "ordinary", but I doubt that the rest of the community does. They more likely sees them as a nuclear bomb: a powerful deterent that is necessary and sometimes used, but shouldn't be lobbed around so flippantly. I think blocking you is unwarranted, but I think that your view of "ordinary" is inconsistent with the community's. Whether or not it was justified in this particular case, the casualness you've indicated you will use them here is a bit disturbing. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Although I disagree with this view of discretionary sanctions as exceptional, I understand why you may feel differently. This may be a worthwhile subject of a request for clarification - after all, being a lawyer, I have a natural tendency to just follow the written rules, and if WP:AC/DS does not tell me that these tools are to be used only exceptionally, I will continue to use them as routinely (where necessary) as any other tool such as rollback or speedy deletion. I would like to point out, though, that these sanctions do not "place my judgement above the collective Admin corps". Even in the hopefully rare cases where another admin disagrees with my sanction and we can't find an agreement, a consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE can overrule me on appeal (or at least I think that's ArbCom's current idea: there's a long-outstanding unanswered request for clarification of the appeals procedure).  Sandstein  17:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The very fact that you can not define the method for overturning the appeal by fellow admin reinforces the reasons why this is an exceptional tool, and not an ordinary one. I would also remind you that "Best practice includes seeking additional input prior to applying a novel sanction or when a reasonable, uninvolved editor may question whether the sanction is within the scope of the relevant case;" [10] applies. The problem is that discretionary sanctions are easy to abuse, to allow an admin to maliciously place his own judgement above those of the admin corps as a whole by locking them out, which would be a textbook example of admin abuse as only admin can issue these warnings. This is why they have to be used as exceptions and with clear reasoning provided, as a safety measure. They are Arb rulings and procedures designed to be exceptions to community policy, thus used only when there is a clear and obvious reason to bypass the stated polices. There is no possible way for it to be more obvious they are exceptions to standard Wikipedia policy. Compare it to "exigent circumstances", which doesn't void the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, it only provides an exception where there is a clear and obvious need to bypass the checks and balances built into the system. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I did consider asking others per the clause you indicated, but determined that (a) there likely wasn't enough time considering that the users at issue might at any time decide to launch a privacy-breaching noticeboard discussion such as this one, and (b) asking for advice onwiki would have defeated the purpose of the sanction, and doing anything offwiki would be unaccountable. As to your other point, any admin abusing AE (like any other tool) to gain a personal advantage in a dispute is responsible to the Arbitration Committee.  Sandstein  18:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Not exclusively. The Arbitration Committee typically only becomes involved the community is asking for a desysoping. Arbs have made it clear that other remedies are at the disposal of the community. In a recent Arb case, Salvio commented (and no one argued against) "in my opinion, the community may ban a sysop from using part of his toolset, provided this is not a way to surreptitiously desysop him". I haven't seen anyone request a desysop here and strongly would recommend against it anyway. I'm hoping that it doesn't come down to sanctions, but I think you should be aware that the community does have that option outside of an Arb hearing. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I find myself concurring ... I'm currently unable to deal with a specific unblock request that I feel meets WP:GAB/WP:ROPE, but I feel unable to do so as it's marked with AE, and Sandstein does not agree with me (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, resolving such disagreements is what the appeals process is for, is it not? Though we haven't really talked about it except for a very brief exchange of messages.  Sandstein  17:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

There's an appeals process; so use it. If it wasn't an AE block, and another admin disagrees with an unblock would you have just removed it anyway? IRWolfie- (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I gotta agree with Dennis. AE sanctions may not explicitly set the AE admin's judgement over all others', but it effectively does so by formally restricting the ability of other admins to overturn it. Granted, AE areas are ones where these restrictions might be helpful, since they're contentious issues. But that's all the more reason to keep the scope of arbitration enforcement as narrow as reasonably possible. Moreover, while I see your reasoning for linking TDA and Peter Cohen's edits to the arbcase, I don't think I can agree with them; it's just too tenuous. If Arbcom really isn't in the business of setting policy, then its remedies have to be at least reasonably strictly interpreted (since otherwise, they really are just setting precedents and policy), and interpreting "criticism by unrelated editors of an action taken upon another editor who was involved in Scientology" as falling under Scientology discretionary sanctions is just too much of a stretch for me. You're probably following the letter of the law, but I think you've missed the spirit. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Note that the 5th Pillar's take on policy, ie: "Their principles and spirit matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception.". This must apply to all things here, as the 5P is the authority from which all policy flows. Discretionary sanctions are the exceptions to ordinary policy on dispute resolution. This clearly means they are not ordinary and do not trump policy, they just provide a useful means to ignore some of the rules of policy in very limited circumstances where the needs fits an WP:IAR exception. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment This is all rather complicated but it is worth focusing on a couple of points. First, it is unclear why it is necessary to use the real name of an editor, whether that editor has made it public or not. Short of a 'you must now call me this', we should err on the side of never doing so. Second, there may be cases where associating an editor with his/her real identity is helpful, for example when it becomes necessary to show that a particular editor has a real life agenda that they are bringing to Wikipedia. But, in that case, the revelation should be a part of a carefully constructed argument that is presented to ArbCom, preferably including the actual public disclosure of identity only after arbcom approval. In the situation at hand, it appears that the only reason for using the real name of an editor was that it had been previously revealed onwiki and that's not really a good reason. All this was done in the context of discussions on Scientology. While perhaps a discretionary sanction warning was on the heavier side of the admin action spectrum, I do think that Sandstein's actions are not outré enough to be actionable in any way. --regentspark (comment) 16:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - regardless of whether Sandstein deserves sanctions for this, it is pretty evident that this wasn't WP:OUTING in any way, shape or form, and nor does ARBSCI apply. Consensus is pretty much with that, surely? So drg55's block, which is solely for outing, and isn't for any other misdemeanours, should be lifted. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Evidently I disagree with that. Even if it wasn't outing (which I believe it was), it was at least harassment for the reasons indicated by RegentsPark above, and therefore sanctionable.  Sandstein  18:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Your block was based on outing. If consensus is that it wasn't outing - which does seem to be the case - then the user must be unblocked, or be reblocked for a shorter period with the new rationale. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • You warned/sanctioned two editors merely for linking to a public AN/I discussion and/or a public arbitration case page. Linking to past arbitration decisions and AN/I discussions is an ordinary part of daily community participation and communication. It is why these pages and archives are public. I find it hard to understand why you, as an individual administrator, with neither checkuser nor oversight privileges nor any other functionary status, should arrogate yourself the right to decide which of these arbitration pages and noticeboard discussions the rest of us should be allowed to link to.
  • Outing policy is absolutely clear: an outing can only occur if the self-disclosed information has previously been redacted or oversighted. In this case, it wasn't and hasn't. If you feel so strongly about this case, then please do the work to get that information redacted or oversighted from the arbitration pages concerned, by contacting the arbitration committee. If they comply with your request, and the information is redacted or oversighted, then everybody will be happy to comply with WP:OUTING in turn.
  • Lastly, while I do not think Drg55's article edits were appropriate, and expressed that view at AE, Drg55 was pointing out a very real COI issue, in that his opposing editor had had an active role in publicising the book the article concerned was about. This is the sort of COI that it would be permissible for an editor, especially a newbie, to raise in the case of any other constellation of a book and an online publisher or promoter of said book. Indeed this general type of issue (i.e. online activism) was part of what arbitrators looked at in this case, freely discussed in the case, and reflected in various individual findings of fact, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Hkhenson or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Tilman or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Touretzky – will you be telling editors next they are not allowed to link to those either, and warn and sanction them for doing so under your idiosyncratic interpretation of WP:OUTING?
  • Arbitration case pages are records of community history and lessons learned. You are not entitled to forbid any editor from linking to them in a discussion, or to warn or sanction them for doing so. You are supposed to enforce arbitration results, not censor or alter them. You are inventing your own rules, and that is beyond the powers this community has bestowed upon you. Andreas JN466 21:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Point of order: The community can and has overturned AE actions. In fact, the AE instructions specifically say this, "following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI)." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Clarification request

Many users have raised several interesting points above about which, I think, people can in good faith disagree. I have initiated a request for clarification by the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA#Clarification request: Scientology in the hope that this will help bring this drama to a reasonably clear conclusion from which I and/or others may be able to learn something.  Sandstein  22:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to vacate and overturn Peter cohen's and The Devil's Advocate's warnings/sanction

1. Peter cohen (talk · contribs) was formally warned by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) under WP:ARBSCI discretionary sanctions for linking to an archived AN/I discussion on Sandstein's talk page.
2. The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs) was formally warned and then sanctioned by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) under WP:ARBSCI discretionary sanctions for linking to a past AN/I discussion and an WP:ARBSCI case page, and for naming an editor's previous Wikipedia account (which redirects to his present account, and is identified on the WP:ARBSCI case page as that editor's previous account).

Neither editor mentioned any editor's purported real name in the posts they were warned and/or sanctioned for.

I believe both the warnings and the sanction were inappropriate and lack support in policy. Editors are free and must remain free to reference arbitration case pages and archived noticeboard discussions. I therefore propose that the community overturn the warnings issued to Peter cohen and The Devil's Advocate, and the sanction issued to The Devil's Advocate. --Andreas JN466 21:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Support

1. --Andreas JN466 21:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
2. For those opposed to blocking Sandstein, this is a gentler method to right a wrong and send a message. Shows his actions to restrict debate were wrong. Sends a warning regarding the frequent high-handed invocation of "Arbcom case law" and tendentious Wikilawyering. TCO (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Yep, and if for some reason Arbcom thinks the topic ban etc. should stick, they can always be reapplied. I see no reason to wait. Arkon (talk) 23:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Rules are there to help us produce an encyclopaedia, not as a cunning trap for unwary editors. I see no benefit from this sanction, and believe that it should be rescinded and a note placed on both editors' pages to that effect. RolandR (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Whether Sandstein likes it or not, the outing in this case was enshrined by Arbcom. Prohibiting the link to an Arbcom page (or some subsection thereof) in a dispute clearly about the topic covered by the same Arbcom case is even more absurd than the recent attempt to remove the wikipediocracy.com link from the Wikipediocracy page. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support - I agree that Arbcom needs to clarify but this case clearly identifies why the terms "broadly construed" need to stop being used. It isn't reasonable to assume that a blocking admin will be reasonable in their block, so we shouldn't give them unnecessary latitude to use their own discretion. This case also presents a shocking and dreadful example of the us and them mentality between admins and editors. An admin who makes a mistake that would earn an editor a block, should themselves be blocked. Period. We shouldn't be making exceptions for admins. I have seen several editors above mention that admins should be blocked, desysopped, etc. All these are completely wrong. Kumioko (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support—it's got out of hand. And I used to admire Sandstein's legal skills. Now I just see the damage; and why does ArbCom allow AE to proceed without let, given the departure of among our finest editors because of Sandstein's misplaced cautions, warnings, and blocks? Tony (talk) 02:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
8. Support Reading through this jumbo thread, particularly comments by JN466 & Peter Cohen, it is very clear that no outing has occurred. This situation could & should have been avoided by Sandstein explaining their position to TDA and Peter Cohen (instead of trying to stifle discussion by waving the blockhammer). I hope folks around here understand that it can be very depressing for users to have the blockhammer waved at them without explanation, and as an attempt to gag them.OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
9. Support a block at this point will not happen as it isn't preventing damage, I do think that this can be a valuable tool to let Sandstein know that AE isn't his private Fiefdom which he often behaves that way. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
10. Support, but I'd go further and vacate/reverse Sandstein's destructive warnings and blocks of Noetica and SMcCandlish as well; maybe we can get them to come back if we show that Sandstein's rampage can be curtailed. Dicklyon (talk) 05:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
11. Support - there is absolutely no valid reason, policy or logic based, for these warnings/topic bans to be applied. REGARDLESS of the validity of Drg55's block, it is plain to see that the warnings were heavy handed from an WP:INVOLVED admin, with no real grounds for them. Most of the oppose votes don't make sense, or aren't policy-based. ARBSCI wasn't oversighted, nor should it have been - if ARBCOM reveal an editor's identity, then it is NOT outing to bring it up again, plain and simple. And regardless of that, there is no way that either user mentioned in this proposal engaged in outing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

    Exactly specify why Sandstein is involved, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

12. Support What Dicklyon said. –Neotarf (talk) 08:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
13. Support -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 08:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
14. Support Discussion ought not to be stifled. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
15. Support per Dicklyon, and further vacate Sandstein's other similar false accusations ("warnings"), specifically against Neotarf and Ohconfucius, made at the same time as those against me and Noetica at AE. Correction: I was topic-banned for a month, not blocked (Dicklyon said "blocks", above, and I don't think any of us go blocked during or after that initial "Judge Sandstein" encounter). My topic ban from Sandstein should also be vacated, for the record; though it has already expired, it was a gross abuse of process and remains a bogus black mark on my record as an editor here. I'm going to say all of this, in detail, just once and go away again. I am not here to engage in a big argument with people about any of this, as the facts speak for themselves, and I'd rather eat my own feet that spend a week bickering over interpretational nitpicks with admin "brotherhood" types.

    My topic ban was made by Sandstein wildly un-recusing himself (has anyone else ever done that?!?), after recusing himself because too many others kept clearly said he was too personally involved; he just couldn't resist sticking it to me himself, after harassing me for two months. There wasn't even anything like a consensus for such an action against me; one of the few who suggested something along these lines said I had gone "too far" in successfully reporting a repeat topic-ban violation by someone else, at AE (i.e., other admins agreed with me that the user in question was being disruptive in direct violation of a topic ban after innumerable warnings and second, third, etc., chances, and the user was - get this - violating his topic ban specifically to disrupt AE of all places with personal attacks in a case that didn't involve him, just to personally pick a bone with me; I guess he found a friend in Sandstein). So, just to shut me up and make an illegitimate might-makes-right WP:POINT, I was punished, personally, vindictively, seemingly obsessively, by Sandstein for properly using Wikipedia's dispute resolution system! In the very AE thread Sandstein abused WP:BOOMERANG to censure and topic-ban me in (a later AE report than the one that generated Sandstein's accusation-warnings against me, Noetica, et al.), various other admins were agreeing with my report (about a pattern of blatantly, though sometimes evasively worded, racist attack edits by another user), and only declined to take action when they realized that some of my evidence was too old for their liking. Yet Sandstein simultaneously used evidence at least that old against me: It's a farcically obvious case of a double-standard. This (and there's plenty more - I'm just giving a few highlights from the entire first quarter of 2013, with Sandstein in my face again and again, at one point hyperbolically and psychodramatically seeking a year-long total block against me, simply for being disagreeable) is probably fertile ground for an RFARB case against Sandstein, but I have better things to do with my life right now that waste hours and hours and hours over many days or weeks, possibly even months, proving a case that ArbCom is liable to ignore because it's against an admin, and various people in the IRC in-crowd don't like me for rocking the boat with my loud mouth; I'm not part of the Good Ol' Boy club and never will be.

    I just hope this stuff is useful as an example of what Sandstein's been doing to other – long-time and genuinely constructive – Wikipedians and why this can't continue any longer. Noetica stated (several month ago; I don't know if this will stay true indefinitely) that he would return if his "warning" (false accusation) from Sandstein were vacated/voided as inappropriate/false. I have more than just Sandstein as an issue to raise before devoting any more significant time and effort to this project, so in no way should my comments here be interpreted as any form of quid-pro-quo demand or ultimatum. I am emphatically not saying "rein Sandstein in and I'll come back", but rather "rein Sandstein in because it's the right thing to do; I may not come back regardless". My abuse at Sandstein's hands was the final straw for me, not the first one.

    If anyone doesn't understand why Sandstein's "warnings" in our case (me, Noetica, Neotarf, Ohconfucius) were provably false accusations, it's in their wording. They were not neutrally worded warnings or citations to policy, but direct accusations of wrong-doing, namely of violation of WP:ARBATC's prohibition of making unsupported negative statements about the contributions of other editors in MOS/AT disputes. Yet: a) the statements (against a repeat disruptive editor, first at ANI later at AE - he was forum-shopping at AE to avoid a finding at ANI, and we alerted AE to this fact) were supported, by mountains of evidence at ANI; b) Sandstein refused to read any of it, even after being repeatedly directed to it at ANI, and refused to rescind his accusations even after being provided with this proof that he was wrong; and c) ARBATC cannot rationally apply to ANI/AE meta-discussions about whether particular user conduct patterns are appropriate, just because the underlying dispute somewhere had something to do with a MOS or AT page (otherwise this would be a massive loophole against any form of enforcement for disruptive editing - just involve WP:AT or MOS in some way, and you're immune from criticism as "personalizing style disputes"!)

    Hopefully it's clear how pointless and harmful this stubborn, prideful Sandstein reign of rage has become. His simple refusal to say "oh, yeah, I didn't see that you'd already documented all this at ANI, my bad" and revoking his accusations/warnings has already cost Wikipedia untold amounts of irreplaceable productive editing by multiple long-term, highly active editors, and further eroded many Wikipedian's faith in adminship generally, all to defend Sandstein's personal sense of infallibility and to perversely protect two inveterate, incessant disrupters. Now he's doing it again to people who dare to treat Scientology like the dangerous, fraudulent, criminal organization it is proven to be. It has to stop. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 09:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

16. Support I probably would also support the other matters listed by SMcCandish as he has a track record of harsh and idiosyncratic use of his powers and of not being receptive to questioning of his judgment.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
17. Support - The user self-identified and self-linked accounts on wiki. Bells can not be unrung, nor virginity restored. No actual outing = No warnings. Carrite (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
18. Support - I regret this because I have seen a lot of sensible and well-communicated activity from Sandstein in the past (and with some legal background understand some of the perspectives adopted by Sandstein), but began to question Sandstein's judgment on the hit a gnat with an anvil approach adopted to SMcCandlish for no discernable (or certainly no convincing) reason. I am not familiar with action to Noetica, Neotarf and OhConfucius - but am surprised with those editors that action of any kind be deemed necessary, raising another question mark. Even if Sandstein's interpretations of his remit are 100% correct there is also an onus to be able and willing to clearly explain rather than simply edict. Without these cases doubt I would comment on this new case - the warning to relation to User:Peter cohen's question in particular looks at best "idiosyncratic" and at worst capricious. The sanction on Devil's Advocate likewise. These should be [temporarily?] revoked on the merits of the case. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
19. support re-outing is perhaps the most asinine rule in WP, one must use the mythical unsend key. anyone who has ever been out-ed has but one choice, make a new account. closing the gate after all the horses are out then expecting to ride into anonymousville at first light is naive. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
20. Support to right a wrong and send a salutary message. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC).
21. Support as per Xxanthippe.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
22. Support. I have no previous involvement with Sandstein. Warning and sanctioning editors for linking to arbitration cases or ANI discussions or for mentioning a well-known, public, prior pseudonym (linked on-wiki) is capricious, arbitrary, punitive and serves no valid purpose. (It serves the invalid purpose of punishing editors who have the temerity to challenge Sandstein's judgment.) Invoking discretionary sanctions to justify the action and immunise it against immediate correction by another admin is uncool. This has all been made plain to Sandstein (and his supporters) and yet he/they obfuscate and splutter and refuse to acknowledge the impropriety.

    We need admins exercising the extraordinary powers attached to AE to be wise enough to inform law-enforcement with the spirit of the committee's decisions and the project's goals, and be more sensitive and responsive to the criticism of their peers and more empathetic than the average admin.

    Sandstein has not demonstrated these qualities (admittedly, not many do), and should agree to drop discretionary sanctions from his tool kit for a while, so that he may reflect on what his peers are saying here, and hopefully demonstrate he has actually heeded them before taking up this most exacting and onerous of all the admin responsibilities again. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

23. Support but as Salvio said, warnings cannot be vacated. They can be deleted from the Case page logs, and that's all, if it makes any difference. Now about that sanction, I agree that it should be vacated, and Sandstein should excercise a more precise and diligent discretion while enforcing arbitration decisions and sanctioning people. I share the views of Dennis Brown that discretionary sactions should be used sparingly, and only when extremely necessary, given that they provide a fast-track way of enforcement that is not easy to be removed once enacted. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 13:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
24. Support – This was a really bad idea, Sandstein. An apology to Peter and TDA would be nice. Peter cohen is an excellent, knowledgeable contributor. TDA seems to be in it for the drama more than anything. But in this case, his heart was in the right place. Draco^E 19:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
25. Support per Carrite. Edison (talk) 02:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Arbcom is specifically tasked with privacy related issues for very good reason that they are not amenable to public discussion (see eg, WP:BLP). Arbitration Enforcement had already determined this was a privacy related issue, in the Scientology matter (where issues of privacy take on even greater weight). Therefore, the appeal on behalf of another user for those who disagree with with Arbitration Enforcement is prudently and appropriately by private e-mail to the AE admins and failing that to Arbcom and not to public discussion to prove the information is not private as these users' attempted. Alternatively, they can appeal the AE warning and sanction to Arbcom in private, if they have to discuss potentially sensitive information. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

   • The blatant use of the Support section above to go after someone for all their perceived past sins is nothing but POINTY corruption of process. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

2. Per my comments given in earlier section. Tarc (talk) 23:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Just because an identity is public knowledge doesn't mean you get to name drop it on every unrelated page. We should not discourage admins from zealously enforcing WP:OUTING and ArbCom decisions. Even if you disagree, the response seems out of proportion to the alleged offense. All this drama over some warnings? Gamaliel (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Gamaliel's argument is one I share. I'd support vacating this specific AE warning for a community warning (or topic bans) compelling editors to step away from their habit of name dropping. Resolute 01:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

   If you are accusing Peter cohen and TDA of name dropping, please assure me and others that you could find a diff for that if called upon (for Peter cohen at least, as none of his edits have been oversighted). Failing that, please strike. Andreas JN466 02:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

5. If an editor doesn't want to be identified then you don't do it...regardless of past issues. Outing issues need to be enforced strictly.--MONGO 03:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Scientology is a hot-button topic, and it seems pretty obvious that mixed up all in there is a certain pointedness and battleground-mentality going on, if not outright gaming the system. Just because Prioryman's previous 'outings' weren't technically oversighted to comply with WP:OUTING, doesn't mean the deliberate referring to an editor by anything other than their username is warranted or appropriate. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 05:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
7. The warnings were sound. The whole fuss TDA and PC chose to make over the sanctions against Drg55 (and subsequently the fuss Jayen466 chose to make over theirs) was motivated by nothing but long-term agendas of hounding Prioryman. As for the legitimacy of applying the outing policy here, the current Arb request for clarification is giving some hints in the right direction. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

   Do not just blithely accuse me of having a "long-term agenda of hounding Prioryman", please, as that is a very serious claim to make.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

   It is indeed a serious one, and seeing you participating in that wikipediocracy thread, it is also a very well-founded one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

   No, it isn't well-founded. You have no standing to accuse me of having malicious motivations. You don't know my mind. You don't know my heart. Please refrain from further such attacks on my character.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

   "Malicious motivations" is a strong allegation, there has to be serious evidence in the form on objective diffs, Future Perfect ought to come up with it or withdraw it. As an admin since he has powers of "live and death", he ought to refrain from making such allegations. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

8. Arbcom makes the decisions here. Privacy policy is not decided case by case. I agree with Ohconfucious' analysis of what is going on. I don't see how the warnings can be withdrawn. The topic ban could be appealed to the arbitration committee or possibly directly at AE. This is not the place in these particular circumstances. Mathsci (talk) 06:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
9. The warnings are clearly justified and this looks like an attempt to intimidate an admin who has the guts to do a lot of the hard work that keeps wikipedia going. ----Snowded ^TALK 09:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
10. Should the sanctions/warnings be overturned? Most probably. Should that be decided here? No, I think ARBCOM need to step in ASAP. GiantSnowman 09:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

    The first two arbitrators who have replied there, Newyorkbrad and Risker, unfortunately failed to address the main issue at hand here, namely whether these sanctions should be overturned. But arbitrator Salvio Giuliano, who has just commented, said the actual sanction (but not the warnings) should be overturned. 10:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

11. This is clearly a case where an attempt to shut down drama mongering has backfired. This happens. The intent of the warnings and block are sound. The outcome is unfortunate, but it's not clear what the best route is from here. I don't see overturning anything as doing anything more than enabling the drama mongers. aprock (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
12. The warnings are justified, and that one of the supports for vacation includes the line "My topic ban from Sandstein should also be vacated" shows what a laughable farce this is. Please grind your axes elsewhere, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
13. I tend to agree with Wolfie, seems like a lot of grudges on display here. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
14. Per my comments above and with the caveat on the ban below in the comments section. --regentspark (comment) 19:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
15. I think Dennis raises some very relevant issues and I do think we should be careful with AE blocks and warnings. I've not looked closely (only the discussion here) but my initial reaction is that this is a case of hounding that was nipped in the bud. I think it could have been nipped better, but at the end of the day it was hounding and needed to be shut down. Hobit (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
16. Again, outside ANI's remit. Sandstein's interpretation is quite strict, but per Gamaliel it is by no means clear that he was wrong. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
17. I believe that Arbcom should have decided on the block in the first place, as this apparently is an AE issue. Once Sandstein did it however and the snowball was rolling, I believe that this block was correct. LiquidWater 14:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
18. Per Mathsci. ANI can't really decide privacy matters on a case-by-case basis, not should they try. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
19. Jclemens (talk) 05:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
20. Sanctions seem to be reasonably in order. Stifle (talk) 13:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments

I recommend holding off on this discussion pending the outcome of the clarification request linked to above. If the Committee concludes that sanctions of this sort are not appropriate, I will of course undo the sanction. But I think a previous clarification request concluded that it is not possible to undo warnings, in the sense that they are merely notifications of the existence of a case.  Sandstein  22:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with Sandstein's above position to wait for ArbCom. Agree or disagree with Sandstein's decisions at WP:AE or Sandstein's related interpretation, I think Sandstein has shown good faith by a) understanding, while still disagring with, the opposing positions, and b) requesting a clarification from ArbCom in a neutral manner. Instead of second guessing how the Committee intended for the discretionary sanctions to be imposed, we should wait to hear what the Committee members themselves have to say. That will then obviously influence whether Sandstein's interpretation and resulting decision was correct or not. I don't think anyone is prejudiced by waiting to hear from ArbCom, and it will certainly shed some light. Singularity42 (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is accusing Sandstein of bad faith. It is his actions made in good faith that are at issue. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC).

• I agree we should wait to see what arbcom decided to do first, they may of course vacate the sanction themselves while deciding. Nil Einne (talk) 23:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that the suggestion is in bad faith. ARBCOM usually abides by community consensus and Sandstein knows this. I think it's a way of hoping people lose interest, at this point I doubt a block would be preventative, that's the problem with trying to ask for admin blocks, they are admin for a reason and know how to game the system. I know not all admin do this, I know quite a few that are thoughtful individuals but Sandstein is playing a game here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

"I think that the suggestion is in bad faith", how could you think that if you were assuming good faith? You have no evidence of good faith vs bad, yet you assume bad. If anyone was party to a hatchet job at ANI like this one with the flimsy evidence presented, I wouldn't blame them for going to a venue which can look at the issues in a more balanced way, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Because he isn't acting in good faith obviously, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know there is issues with his conduct. If there wasn't we wouldn;t be here several days later. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I was involved in the user:drg55 topic ban AE discussion. drg was completely out of sorts there, user:Sandstein actually sanctioned another editor who was abusing drg's religion. Regarding the wp:OUTING issue, it is a little confusing, I tend to vacillate between Sandstein's statement, and then user:RegentsPark's and user:Jayen466. So if I were to err I would on the safer side, and I would oppose sanctions against Sandstein. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

If you want to be unconfused about the Outing issue, rather than just reading comments, you will have to go through various links given in various comments. Going through those links, things become very clear. Some things, (about three letters actually) have not been mentioned in this thread because of threats of sanctions. Things might have been clearer without that threat, but you can find it all through on site content. But discussing even that much seems to be controversial/anathemic/blockable to some.OrangesRyellow (talk) 10:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I was a part of the discussion during AE ban appeal, Sandstein actually made the place comfortable for drg55, please check the discussion. drg55 was given enough opportunity, he imo misused it. Now regarding outing, I too was a little surprised with Sandstein's deletions, we cannot speculate about it, as we don't know the contents. Perhaps those who have access to those edits could judge Sandstein, I give him the benefit of the doubt. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I am sure that Sandstein was acting in good faith and have the utmost regard for his integrity and neutrality. But that does not stop me from disagreeing from his actions. I did see some of drg55's comments before they were deleted. The ones which I saw did not contain anything that cannot be gleaned from this thread and the on wiki links in this thread. I think what drg55 was saying was an integral part of his defence. I suggest that you may follow the various links in this thread before dismissing drg55's actions too quickly. I know you were a part of the discussion during drg55's AE ban appeal and I wasn't. But it does not necessarily mean that you know more about the current situation.OrangesRyellow (talk) 12:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

You may be right, I said I was surprised by the deletion. Having said so, I still feel that drg55's approach was wrong, in that it wouldn't work, he said I've been in argument with Foo, so if you've banned me, ban him also that would make me happy. That isn't the right thing to say at your ban review discussion. (All this is my understanding of the situation, it isn't arithmetic so we can have many correct answers for the same problem.)Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• The previous clarification request concluded no such thing at all, though you posted your own inaccurate re-statement of Arbs' views in a bogus summary that implied such a conclusion. Several Arbs were quite clear that they were certain that "warnings" that include an accusation/statement of wrongdoing must of course be appealable/rescindable/whatever, because they are not in fact simply warnings, but are finding of alleged fact. Those that did not come to this conclusion simply didn't address the matter in terms that made any notice of the obvious distinction, and zero of them directly contradicted that view (i.e. recognized the distinction but said accusation-warnings couldn't be appealable/overtunable anyway). One of the two reasons I didn't get around to filing an RFARB against your (and a couple of other admins') abuses of me and various other good-standing editors was that I expected that the promised clarification on that would be forthcoming, and by the time it became clear that it has just fallen through the cracks my other reason for walking away from editing was ascendant (namely, too much to do in real life to bother with a project that's running further and further off the rails, due to abuses of administrative trust and privilege as a authoritarian conformity-enforcement bludgeon, by WP:CIVILPOV types running rampant and increasingly unchecked, by ingrained wikiprojects pretending that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy doesn't exist and getting away with it for years, by process wonks defending "career disruptor" pseudo-editors and castigating actually productive Wikipedians, by failures of leadership, etc.) — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 09:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I support vacating the sanction against Devil's Advocate provided he/she commits to not revealing the real identity of an editor without ArbCom approval. No comment on the warnings, they are merely for information purposes and everyone who edits in the area should be aware of the sanctions. Removing or not removing them is meaningless. --regentspark (comment) 12:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The "warning" is a de facto site ban. It is a fast-track invitation to block, and admins understand them as such. They have been used to sanction users on everything from talk pages to AEs to RFAs. Any user who edits after receiving one of these "warnings", edits with a target on their back. It was just such a "warning" that was used to sanction long-time contributor SMcCandlish, who kept editing after being templated with one of these.

The warning contains an explicit accusation of wrong-doing, and casts aspersions on the user's good name. It damages the relationship between the editor and the Project.

In this case it is being used without consultation with the community by an unelected Super-Arb who appears to have no remit, no constraints, and no oversight. —Neotarf (talk) 15:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

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 Scientology. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, 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 at the “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 before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee’s discretionary sanctions system.

Thanks for the clarification. Regardless, I'm not sure how the notification can be withdrawn. Can't really expect them them to 'forget' the contents of the notification? The ban on Devil'sAdvocate can be retracted as a good faith gesture if he/she commits to not using the real life identities of other editors (without the explicit permission of that editor or with the approval of arbs). --regentspark (comment) 19:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Utterly pointless as I didn't use anyone's real life identity in the first place. I just noted what was provided on the Scientology arbitration case.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Herein lies the problem I have been harping about for a while. When you have a vague message such as the one above or the oft used "broadly construed" and then allow any one of 1400+ individuals block, sanction and ban at their "discretion" you have recipe for disaster. The admins and arbs can keep trying to draw attention from that fact by saying I am just admin bashing but the fact still remains. The language needs to be clear and concise and the remedies equally so. If the sanction needs to be adjusted because the individual is wiggling around it then so be it. Its a lot better than giving the opportunity to Sandstein and others to just do whatever they want. Especially when several of them have been repeatedly identified as making problematic decisions....but above reproach. Otherwise we get into situations like this where one admin does whatever they want, whenever they want and then hides behind vague determinations and legal jargon. If an editor can be blocked to protect the project then an admin with a long hiistory of abuse is equally qualified to be blocked because they have far greater access. Abuse is abuse.Kumioko (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: The warnings in this case are logged at the ARBSCI case page, for reference by other admins. The presence of such a warning against an editor means that the editor may now be sanctioned without warning. If the warnings were inappropriate, they can be removed there, removing the target painted on the editor's back. No one is saying that the warnings should be oversighted and deleted from the users' talk page history. They should merely be struck from the ARBSCI case page, so that other administrators treat them the same as everybody else. For the record, two arbitrators have now opined that referring to the editor by his name is not outing. This is all Peter and TDA said, and if arbitrators can voice that opinion with impunity, so should ordinary editors. Andreas JN466 00:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, neither of us actually said his name except to the extent that his previous username included part of his name. I just noted the arbitration case finding where ArbCom confirmed his identity.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a similar list at the case page for Article titles and capitalization at WP:ARBATC. The above rough handling and snarks directed at the editors who have left the project as a result of these "warnings" speak for themselves about whether the community views such discretionary sanction actions as merely "informational". —Neotarf (talk) 05:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Elsewhere The Devil's Advocate has written, "Prioryman's identity is obviously relevant as it points to an ulterior motive for his edits regarding Scientology." Comments like that might be considered relevant if at any stage The Devil's Advocate decided to appeal his topic ban either in private or on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 06:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

For those who haven't figured it out yet, the key problem with these accusation-warnings is the wording "If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic", which does not just imply but specifically accuses the recipient of prior and/or continuing misconduct on the pages in question. Without proof (and in this case, Sandstein's accusation against us has been repeatedly disproven), it borders on blatant character assassination. Sandstein wants to convince you there there is and cannot be any form of appeal against this accusation, but that is complete crap. The Arbs who noticed that this is not just a warning already agreed that, as an accusation, an alleged finding of wrong-doing in fact, this must of course be appealable. Given that I've proven, on my own and on Sandstein's user talk pages, that his accusations against us were based on his failure to understand that the concerns we raised about a particular user's forum-shopping at AE were already documented in great detail at ANI, and Sandstein blatantly refused to read any of that, and rescind the false accusations (of casting aspersions without evidence, ironically), this constitutes actually a blatant, willful, and recalcitrantly maintained personal attack on all four of us. He should certainly be desysopped for this among many other abuses, as in this case, with two new victims, that raised this current ANI thread. But the bigger issue is that these accusations are STILL being issued (including by Sandstein, who very clearly knows better already) as if they're just warnings about certain topics being under discretionary sanctions, and ArbCom STILL has not clarified how/where they may be appealed, despite promising to do so by a date long since passed. The solution to any more such problems arising is obviously to take the words "continue to" out of the warning. Duh! The solution to the still-open problem of editors like myself and the others already mentioned in (at the least) these two cases of unjust accusations is to void/vacate/rescind them as accusations.

No one is asking that they be erased as warnings; of course one cannot be "unwarned" about something, and no one has ever suggested any such absurdity, only Sandstein and a few others engage in the farcical straw man fallacy that this is somehow the remedy being sought. To put it in legal terms by way of a comparison that Sandstein will have a hard time pretending not to understand: if party A publicly tells party B "I do not permit human sacrifice on my lawn, and if you perform another of your human sacrifices on my lawn, I'm calling the police", this is obviously defamatory if party B has not actually been performing such sacrifices. Party A must retract it and suffer whatever other consequences there are for the defamation, and that is the issue, and the only issue. No one cares that human sacrifices actually taking place on party A's lawn would surely be reported properly to the police - having that warning somehow "rescinded" is not even under discussion, and asking that the legitimate warning portion of the notice be somehow nullified isn't in anyone's interest or power. Let's stop pretending any of us here are morons, and quit acting like rescinding of the warnings, rather than the accusations, is even up for discussion at all or matters to any one in any way. Stop trying to confuse the debate by pretending it is, any/all of you. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 01:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not commenting at all on the specifics of this case, though it emphasizes an issue that has bugged me for a long time. The problem with "warnings" like {{ARBSCI}} is that they include accusations "If you continue to misconduct yourself...". This means they can't be used to officially inform someone of the existence of topic-specific rules, or to advise them against directions in which their editing might possibly be headed, without at the same time accusing them of past misdeads. This has many undesirable consequences, including that serious offenders who are obviously aware of the sanctions get off because they have not been officially warned. In my view, all editors who start to edit in an ARBCOM-sanctioned area of Wikipedia should be routinely and officially informed of the existence of the sanctions in a friendly manner, after which notice they are liable to sanction if they misbehave. It seems to me that there is no current way to do that in a manner that has official status. It's like not informing new drivers about the road rules until they are caught speeding. I know this forum is not the right one to get action on this, but I mention it here as it is relevant to the current case and to gauge whether there is enough support for my idea to start a discussion in the proper forum. Zero^talk 07:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the fact that the default warning template ({{uw-sanctions}}) has this accusatory language is a bit problematic. When I created the template in 2008 the accusatory language was not present. It was added later in 2008 by Anomie (talk · contribs), and because the template has since been maintained mostly by various arbitrators, I assume that it reflects their idea of how warnings per WP:AC/DS#Warnings should look like. This language can be reconciled with the rules, as the term "warning" implies that there should be a reason why the user is warned. But I personally would prefer to omit this language and replace warnings with neutral notifications, if only to avoid unhelpful discussions of this type about whether even the warnings were justified or should be retracted. My understanding is that arbitrators are discussing this in the course of a revision of the DS rules per an earlier clarification request, but I'd appreciate it if they could speed this up a bit.  Sandstein  07:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Editors who work with the MOS pages are well aware of the special status of MOS: we were the ones who asked for a remedy in the first place. We all participated heavily in that Arbcom case. It was meant to put a stop to two years of edit warring, first with the sock of banned user, then with an editor who was officially warned after a formal arbcom vote (and thousands of words of community discussion). Both of their names are listed on that document as having been warned, as a preliminary to blocking, and as far as I know, the warning doesn't expire until some time after the heat-death of the universe. I daresay neither one of them will set foot on any MOS pages very soon. Needless to say, the four of us are very confused about why our names have been put here alongside theirs with no explanation and no due process.

The special status given to the MOS pages by the Arbcom has been useful, for example, in RFCs, which, in the Manual of Style area can be a bit like herding cats, as everyone tends to show up at them, whether they know what a manual of style is or not. It's impossible to keep the MOS stable with 60 people making bold edits all at once, so various experienced editors will post a reminder of the restriction from time to time so that all edits are discussed and a consensus reached before any changes are made. I can think of one RFC in particular where it worked surprisingly well.

There is a similar "death list" for this article on probation here, with wide latitude of interpretation given to the admin guarding the list. Note the preponderance of red links, indicating summary executions.

—Neotarf (talk) 09:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Aside

• You know...this about the 9,896th (conservative estimate) thread I've seen about how abusive, rogue admins are running editors away and destroying the project, and how if something isn't done about it immediately then Wikipedia is extra doomed. I've been seeing this said ever since I joined the project way back in 2005. The sky hasn't fallen yet. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

  Yeah? Here's another aside: I've seen Sandstein's knee-jerk, almost random punishments result in the departure of three long-standing, hard-working, talent, trustworthy editors (and yes, these "warnings" are punishments). And the whole WMF movement is in the midst of an editor-retention crisis. Get it? Tony (talk) 11:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

  An "editor retention crisis" that I remain unconvinced is a crisis at all, but, rather, is the expected result of a mature and successful encyclopedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

  If you are interested in lists of military ships and aircraft, it may well be possible to regard WP as "mature"; if you are interested in things like coverage of the Global South, economic history, or the history of art and literature, "woefully and erratically incomplete" and "often containing very dubious content" are more likely to be the assessment. Johnbod (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, my approach to editor retention is that I'd rather retain the vast majority of editors who are capable of working with each other without engaging in harassment, personal attacks, edit-warring or obscure factionalism (Tony1, I think you were rather approving of my AE work until it happened to affect some of your friends or allies in the WP:MOS disputes, right?). Because every editor who engages in such conduct contributes to an aggressive, politicized and unwelcoming editing environment that drives many, many others away, particularly (I suspect) women. So, no matter how good their content contributions are, I'm glad to see any editor leave who won't comply with our basic conduct policies and who can't even stomach being called to order about it now and then. If a mere warning or a minor sanction makes them quit, then they're not here for the project, they're here for self-validation or other purposes of their own, which are not our concern. And their departure will help many more others find a place in Wikipedia who are just as good writers but who create less trouble for others.  Sandstein  12:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I still do admire your legal expertise; but that's not the point here. Perhaps there's a fundamental lack of empathy with what it's like to be a long-standing editor and experience the belittling effect of these punitive actions you've been taking. And all the while, you patently disregard bad faith—in some cases the feigning of non-involvement—by certain administrators in the same arena. It's all looking pretty one-sided, and what's more, unnecessary and even arbitrary, to the non-admins who faithfully keep this place running. These warnings or minor sanctions you refer to are better applied after you or other admins have gone to some trouble to mediate or at least calm ruffled waters. You use a hammer, and people walk out. Yes, I have gravitated to this discussion because some of my wikifriends have been unnecessarily hurt or damaged by your actions here; I really care about them and I care about the haemorrhaging of talent. Female editors who end up in your court are more likely to leave the project before you apply the hammer. Tony (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Admittedly, empathy isn't my strength, particularly in this text-only medium. And if I do perform my AE work in a way that comes across as belittling, patronizing or otherwise hurtful, then I'd appreciate any specific advice on how to communicate better. But at the end of the day, the fact is that, because of the way WP:AC/DS is set up, it is part of every individual administrator's job (yours, too!) to go up to people who we perceive (rightly or wrongly) to cause trouble in certain areas designated as sensitive and, yes, authoritatively tell them that they are in the wrong. This will hurt people's feelings, inevitably. Nobody likes to be publicly criticized or even sanctioned, particularly if they think that they are unjustly criticized (and sometimes they will be right). We can't help that. What we can do to mitigate the collateral damage is to ensure that the process is as fair and transparent as possible. That means a simple and fast appeals mechanism, an exacting adherence to our policies as they are written (yes, my "legalist" approach – no IAR), and, above all, no preferential treatment of anybody, whether newbies or veteran editors, whether admins or non-admins, whether social outsiders or people who are part of well-established cliques. If there is any other advice on how to approach this problem (that doesn't boil down to: "go easy on my friends"/"veteran editors"), I'll gladly take it.

But you can help, too. For starters, you yourself could help out at AE a bit and find out firsthand how easy it is to make friends there. And if you don't want to do that, you can talk quietly to your aggrieved buddies and tell them that yes, this Sandstein is an arrogant asshole, but throwing a screaming fit and rage-quitting Wikipedia will help neither themselves nor the project, and here's how to file a proper appeal. But what you should not do is participate in pointless ANI threads like this one (asking to block an admin because one disagrees with someone else's sanction, rather than just filing an appeal, seriously?), nor encourage others to, if only because you know that these threads produce nothing except drama and waste our time.

As regards your claim that I have "patently disregarded bad faith" or involvement by other admins, that doesn't ring any bells. Could you please tell me on my talk page what I should have done differently when and why? (But keep in mind I normally only read what's in an AE thread and in the linked diffs or discussions. I can't read minds and I don't examine the full editing history of everybody whose name I come across.)  Sandstein  15:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, you said above, "I am more than ready to stand down from AE duty if even one arbitrator believes that I am not operating in accordance with the Committee's or the community's expectations." Even one? Salvio has said, "Furthermore, Sandstein, in my opinion, your approach to discretionary sanctions is way too legalistic. Our decisions are not legal documents and cannot be interpreted using the same construction rules a lawyer would use to interpret an act of Parliament: as far as I'm concerned, I expect people to interpret and enforce our decisions using commonsense, never forgetting that IAR is one of the five pillars." You say above you intend to pursue "an exacting adherence to our policies as they are written (yes, my "legalist" approach – no IAR)". That's the exact, almost pointed opposite to what this arbitrator said, is it not? Roger Davies similarly seems to me to take an opposite view to yours on each of the three questions you asked the arbitrators. So I make that two arbitrators. Was this "if even one arbitrator" just rhetoric then? Andreas JN466 23:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

What I meant was: If an arbitrator tells me to quit AE, I shall. On the merits, though, three out of four who have commented so far concur that naming the editor at issue is outing or at least harassment. I'm waiting on hearing the opinions of the others before deciding what to do next.  Sandstein  05:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Roger Davies said, "referring to him by his real name is not outing". Salvio said, "Moreover, *in my opinion*, not even saying what the "O" stands for is outing because it was indirectly acknowledged by the subject and was the basis of an ArbCom's finding of fact." [11] WP:OUTING is the block reason you gave in the block log. This is what Peter cohen and TDA tried to tell you in good faith, just like these arbitrators are telling you. Are you going to warn and sanction them too? Admit that you were wrong to act as you did, and undo your warnings and sanction. Or at least go out in a blaze of glory, and warn the arbitrators too. Andreas JN466 21:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I think you will find Tony1 (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log) is not an administrator. Andreas JN466 23:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The Editor Trends Study ended in 2010. I believe that the figures have changed (hopefully positively) since then. LiquidWater 14:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Not so as you'd notice, no (link to WMF briefing last week). Johnbod (talk) 11:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Sandstein, I hardly need to defend the idea that my contributions to this project are about the project not about my personal aggrandizement (I don't edit topics I'm personally connected to, and even list on my user page ones that I should not ever be seen editing, like my former employers). Many of us are clearly coming to a different conclusion with regard to your own editing patterns, which seem to have very little to do with the success of the encyclopedia and all about you getting to be a lawgiver who specializing in telling people to shut up and go away. I'm on editorial strike not because I "can't even stomach being called to order...[with] a mere warning or a minor sanction", but because you have made character-assassinating accusations with impunity, false facts, and snide haughtiness, while wearing ArbCom's livery, and there's just been no slowing you down much less stopping you. Malicious prosecution does not magically become tolerable and unimportant if the punishment falsely meted out doesn't happen to be severe, but you continually seem to feel that such is the case. And as others have pointed out many times, you seem to be incapable of admitting to error in action, facts or judgment. While you're only one of multiple symptoms of the malaise here, you're one that more people are noticing, and a severe enough one, personally in your own right, that other serious contributors are quitting, because of you. You are driving long-term, productive, intelligent, mature editors away not because they're divas or assholes but because normal people have better things to do than to continue trying to donate their time and labor to a project in which they are systemically abused, with no clear path of recourse, by hateful Judge Dredds with badges, who are more concerned with imposing their idea of law and order than in paying any attention to why a dispute exists and how it should be resolved most satisfactorily for the encyclopedia. Your abilities in this are literally worse than nil – they're actively destructive. I second Tony1 in pointing out that you should step down even by your own words, since he's demonstrated that at least one Arb does not agree with how you are going about enforcement, and you've said you wouldn't engage in AE enforcement if that were that case. Has been for some time now. Even if you don't surrender adminship or get desysopped in the larger scheme of things, you should be nowhere administratively near dispute resolution and sanctioning. There are lots of other admin tasks, many with backlogs, that do not require you to have the kind of even-keeled temperament and empathy that you have been failing to demonstrate. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 02:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, I get it that you believe my sanction against you was wrong. But you chose not to appeal it during the month it lasted, and thereby accepted it, so continuing to complain about it here, or maintaining a "strike" (although it seems you're still editing), is in my view entirely pointless. You should try to work within the dispute resolution framework which rightly or wrongly has been set up by ArbCom, not against it, because that will get you nowhere.  Sandstein  05:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Chose not to appeal it? No, the extraordinarily worded terms of the sanctions prohibit, among other things, "engaging in disputes with other editors". [12] —Neotarf (talk) 06:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Neotarf! So it seems that at least two of the three "trustworthy editors" referred to by Tony1 haven't left Wikipedia after all. I hope that you will continue to do good work without getting into trouble again. If you mean to say that SMcCandlish was prohibited from appealing, that's wrong. Not engaging in disputes about the banned topic is a standard feature of any topic ban, repeated in this case only for clarity because the problem was SMcCandlish's overly aggressive and personalizing approach to disputes. The sanction diff you provide contains explicit appeals instructions and even links to WP:BAN#Exceptions to limited bans precisely to avoid any doubt that appeals are allowed (not that they could have been prohibited to begin with). I'm not aware of anybody being under the mistaken impression then that appeals were forbidden. SMcCandlish even announced an appeal, but for some reason did not file it. That's why I find this line of discussion rather pointless.  Sandstein  07:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Odd, this topic ban doesn't seem to contain that language. And I don't find SMcCandlish "aggressive and personalizing" but rather "flamboyant" and "willing to tell truth to power", in spite of the obvious risk he runs now in doing so.

But perhaps I should clarify my current relationship to the Wikipedia a little further. I am no longer interested in Wikipedia except for the issue triggered my retirement. While Boing and Drmies appear to have simply shaken the dust off their sandals and walked away, although I have disengaged from the Project--you won't find me in article space or on MOS, for example--I have tried to stay engaged with the process that led to my disengagement, if that isn't too meta an explanation. And I am well aware of my own risk in doing that.

But "getting into trouble *again*"???!? At this point, you appear to be the one in trouble.

—Neotarf (talk) 08:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

@Sandstein: How can it benefit the encyclopedia for you to poke two good editors who clearly are distressed by your actions? What is this nonsense about "getting into trouble again"? Revealing your character at Wikipedia is your choice, but please stop doing things that can only cause damage. Johnuniq (talk) 09:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The above thread contains some extraordinary, disturbing, and unsupportable accusations made against some editors.

• That they "engage in harassment, personal attacks, and edit-warring". That they "won't comply with our basic conduct policies". That they are "aggressive, politicized and unwelcoming". And that they are "driving many, many others away others away". Sandstein is answering Tony here, and specifically mentions MOS. Can there be any doubt he is referring to SMcCandlish, Noetica, OhConfucious, and myself?
• Also troubling is the implication that editors have to somehow prove they are editing in good faith by not objecting to false accusations against them, otherwise "they're not here for the project".
• Linking to the WP:DIVA essay, then characterizing those of us who have been chased away by the current toxic atmosphere of AE as "throwing a screaming fit and rage-quitting", is a particularly distasteful bit of gravedancing.
• Expecting Tony to tell other editors "how to file a proper appeal" is likewise misleading; according to the much-cited but little-followed WP:AC/DS it is the province of the admin making the accusations of misconduct to specify the appeal process (this was not done), the misconduct (this was not done), and the actions that would bring the editor into compliance with policy (this was not done).
• Sandstein's "glad to see any editor leave" and "their departure will help" statements renew my speculation about whether these "warnings" were meant to drive particular editors from the project.
• "Obscure factionalism" appears to be a euphemism for the Manual of Style. Yeah, I have MOS watchlisted. We all do.

—Neotarf (talk) 07:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

All right – I've attempted to reply seriously to concerns about my admin actions, as I think admins are required to. Apparently I haven't been successful in communicating my views such that they cannot be misinterpreted. Therefore I'll stop responding here and wait for the request for clarification to conclude before I decide what to do about the concerns raised here.  Sandstein  08:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

When you come back, you can take our names off of your death-list. -Neotarf (talk) 11:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I think Sandstein stops replying here because he is desperately hoping for something that legitimizes his approach. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

And the personal attack by Neotarf (death list is a rather childish comment) and this by Hell in a Bucket (Sandstein implemented what was a consensus) shows this up for what it is. An attempt to intimidate an admin in order to allow disruptive behaviour to continue unabated. ----Snowded ^TALK 16:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to make false accusations against another editor and you are not entitled to remove another editor's comments without their permission. I have restored the comments you removed. If you wouldn't call it a "death list", what would you call it? —Neotarf (talk) 01:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes clearly everyone here wants to continue the disruption. What exactly is your point? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

So when you think other people misinterpret you, you go off in a sulk, whilst if you misinterpret them you abuse your admin powers against them. You cannot become a decent admin unless you become capable of apologizing to people you have hurt. Trying writing a few sentences along the lines of "I am sorry that I misjudged...", "I realize that sometimes I should think more carefully," and "I apologise for not being open to good faith criticism." Everyone makes mistake. It's the mature people who apologise for theirs. You choose instead to make sarcastic remarks about people not really quitting to try too deflect from the fact that you are driving people off from making as many positive contributions to Wikipedia as they used to.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The one I made and you were pretty obviously seeking out another recruit in a couple of weeks time when the latest block on a long term disruptive editor comes off ----Snowded ^TALK 16:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I do have a long standing dispute with Sandsteins cowboyish antics just as Brews does. You are more then welcome to assume whatever you wish but the mere fact that you are expecting this to still be going in a few weeks shows how week Sandstein's and your own position is, if you consider canvassing to notify another person who has a grievance with this administrator over his AE enforcement so be it I admit it freely. I'll even take it one step further and offer to post anything Brews posts to this board on his behalf. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

QED ----Snowded ^TALK 17:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out what I said above, I was worried I wouldn't follow through.

Not to mention your own history, come on its obvious what this is about ----Snowded ^TALK 17:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

You're bringing up my block log? Really is that all you have? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Making rather imprudent posts about an admin who blocked you 11 days ago comes across pretty badly. It makes it look like you have an axe to grind, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Either I'm blind, or the last block Hell in a Bucket received was 3 June 2010, which is not 11 days ago. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

You're not blind, if they did proper research they'd realize that block was a civility block for using the word fuck, not as in fuck you or a purposeful attack but saying the word fuck on someones userpage when they asked me not to curse there. It was a minor block for sure but if they think I hold a grudge that far back for a small block they couldn't be more wrong, I'm talking about the other cowboyish antics Sandstein has exhibited around AE for a few years now. My blocks have involved comparing the old Arbcom committee to the SS, and then HangingCurve (formerly Bluboy, who thankfully was removed as admin) extended the block because he thought I didn't have enough time to think about it. Prior to that I had just started on Wikipedia and it was a very bad entry, I can't deny that except the block by Hanging Curve that was indefinite which was also unjustified (he called apologizing to the user I had the dispute with harrassment). The point they were trying to make is a fallacy in their logic though because none of them have anything to do with what we are talking about here. Alerting a user that has a history of enforcement from Arb canvassing just got my goat a little. I've spoken with Brews and he is not going to comment on this anyways. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I am linking to this [13]. Admins like him have for too long asked editors to excuse adminship bad faith under WP:AFG because Admins can 'make errors of judgement' but users cannot. I am not sure why these Admins persist in behaving the way they do. Badanagram (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you meant to link to this section where you fall out with three experienced admins of whom Sandstein is one. Again QED. ----Snowded ^TALK 22:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes that section. QED is probably the best phrase that could be used here. I didn't actually fall out with Sandstien but it is apparent that lately he has come to the conclusion that because decisions have not been overturned by fellow Admins, that he is doing a 'good job'. I make 'Admin decisions' (no internet involvement whatsoever) in my job and I am glad to have proper oversight unlike WP:ANI. I am choosing not to respond to the comment below - except to ask if there is such a thing as an adminpuppet. I like how the person who started this conversation is gloating that the project has survived despite the actions of certain admins. That does not mean that their prevalence as admins is still necessary. Badanagram (talk) 03:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

What is wrong with you? In that link Sandstein is asking that Toddst1 assume good faith for your actions ("Do you think that we could WP:AGF and write off this whole issue as a misunderstanding"), i.e he is assume good faith for your actions, and here you are misrepresenting it, and trying to throw it back in his face. You should be thankful, not here bitching about it, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

This is really sad. It looks like Badanagram is an Aspie who believed in Wikipedia enough to have contributed to WMF. When Badanagram tried to write an article about a musician, admin Toddst1 labeled the edits "nonsense", and hatted some painstaking research about where the song had been used in popular culture, with the label "detritus". [14] I realize the popular culture sections are sometimes controversial, but you see them all the time, but that was just plain rude. When Badanagram tried to find another person in authority to complain about it, Sandstein, BWilkins, and Toddst1 stood around in a circle looking down their noses. Banadangram couldn't show what he was complaining about, as he said he didn't know how to form diffs, but did they help him? No. It looks like Badanagram also might have logged out in order to argue with Toddst1 as an IP, so after getting Badanagram to edit as an IP, the admins made some sockpuppetry accusations, put some templates on his user pages, then said (incorrectly) that these accusations (of cowardice!) could not be removed. There's more. The article Badanagram wrote about the musician was up for deletion, but the person who gave him the deletion notice said the musician was notable enough to have an article. Badanagram again asked for help, not knowing what to do, but there was no answer.

This diff is from three years ago. In all this time, Badanagram has not forgotten how these admins treated them. "I am not sure why these Admins persist in behaving the way they do." Indeed. This is the kind of thing that gives Wikipedia a bad name.

Badanagram, don't waste any more of your time here on this noticeboard, listening to more insults from more bad administrators. "Adoption" might be what you are looking for. You can ask about it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.81.67.123 (talk) 03:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Being an Aspie I'm not sure whether the comments above are taking the mickey or not. I didn't write the article above. I objected to an admin removing important info from the songs article, but did it in an uncivil manner. From then on they went on a warpath deleting an article about a journalist that I had created and monitored my userpage. I'm not even sure why I have suddenly remembered what happened three years ago, punitive admins certainly put people off contributing though Badanagram (talk) 03:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not even sure why I came on here yesterday. I guess I was a little peeved that the ip page still had a notice on there, when I have had nothing to do with that IP for quite some time. I've moved four times in that period Badanagram (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I've taken your username off the IP, per WP:REMOVED. Some of the above comments were negative, yes, mostly saying they didn't want to take time to listen to anyone who is not an admin. Some people are like that. That's why I suggested asking about adoption--it would teach you how to do stuff so you don't irritate people for not knowing how to do things, and you would also have someone to ask when you run into a problem, like with the IP thing. The admin on that page is busy and hasn't taken any new adoptions for a long time, but some of his former adoptees watch the page and sometimes answer questions. If you aren't interested in adoption, you can just ask a question on the page. For instance, they might be able to advise you about your article.

• Proposal. Per Bushrager, we should immediately resysop all admins who where desysopped at some point. Also, we should reinstate all bad blocks, perhaps starting with the one that Sandstein gave to Sædon in the same incident. Because Wikipedia would survive anyway; none of this is going to change any article contents. As Bishonen put it here "Sandstein can block the rest of the community and there will be no more trouble, ever." Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • And the July "completely missing the point" award goes to... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: make Sandstein enforcer of WP:IAR

• Support. Count Iblis (talk) 11:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

arbitrary section break

• I suppose it's not unreasonable to do a tit-for-tat request for a block of an admin who just applied an indefinite block on another user. Yet, after reading several of these linked discussions and explanations, I fail to see how this proposal could possibly be productive. Sandstein is clearly uninvolved; perhaps he wields the axe in a bit of an overly enthusiastic way, but he does not pick the direction he wields it in. That's the core idea of the WP:INVOLVED policy and it has not been violated. Indeed, it's ironic to see this request so soon after the Saedon block discussion. In both cases, I'd say the solution is to get Sandstein to raise his bar on block lengths, in order to avoid the appearance of being draconian, to better attune his criteria with the community consensus on the matter. Blocking him is hardly a solution to anything. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Asking him to ease up a bit maybe even take a break is likely the only thing that will happen here. I'd be personally satisfied to see him ease up a bit, maybe take a break from AE for a while. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • All of this is pointless. Nothing will ever get done to an abusive administrator. They can call someone a 'narcissistic piece of shit[15]', clearly violate[16] WP:Involved, and commit a horrendous block[17] for just three examples and face no sanction....William 13:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • That's three things of apparently zero relevance to Sandstein. Can you please stay on topic? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Administrator's getting away with anything is on topic. It is a reminder that if policy isn't upheld against administrators we should be asking ourselves why WP:CIVIL is used as a reason for blocking anyone. You asked for something concerning Sandstein. Try this[18]...William 19:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Do you plan to let the 3 administrators you've just accused of wrong-doing know you've done so? Because I think you're being abusive; I mean, since you've clearly relaxed the meaning of that word and it's so easy to throw around.--v/r - TP 20:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
          • TP, you make me laugh. Two of those three links are to ANIs where nothing was done, and the third says 'let an uninvolved administrator close it', clearly telling the administrator he violated WP:Involved. Who was it who wrote those words I just quoted and 'Toddst1, you've got to be kidding me if you think you get to close a sanction discussion that you opened'[19]?...William 20:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
            • And in each case, those three were aware they were discussed. Now you've brought them up again, are you going to notify them? I'm not trying to stir up trouble, but I do not like seeing terms like abuse get thrown around willy-nilly nor do I like discussions that did not have anything to do with abuse get used to support that allegation. In my own diff, where I myself ask Toddst1 not to close a sanction he started, I do not think Todd was aware that WP:CBAN's can only be closed by administrators. Now he's aware. Those other two administrator's should not be accused of abuse here without regard for their defense. Especially when bashing another administrator and the issues are unrelated. For one, it does stir up bad blood. Two, the issues have their own caveats.--v/r - TP 20:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Welcome to Wikipedia SomeGuy1122 (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Nothing to add on the merits, but I have to toss in my own random numbers. Is anyone else sick to death of these threads every goddamned day? What is it about this website that gathers such overwhelming drama? Editors aren't leaving because finding sources is hard, or because the admins are drunk with power, or because the arbcom is heavy handed / worthless / devious / deviant / etc (depending on the day). They're leaving because they seem to be surrounded by children. There's 6,896,334 articles and counting on this site, surely there is something else we can be working on? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Not to argue by exaggeration—rather than being "drunk with power", a minority of admins overstep the mark, whether occasionally or regularly, and that is worth speaking up about. ArbCom is occasionally heavy-handed, or at least needs to be more nuanced in its remedies. I know quite a few departed editors who haven't chosen the "surrounded by children" lifestyle; they've left because they feel aggrieved at admin action against them. It's the sense of injustice that drives people off. Tony (talk) 03:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It's having people with all the sophistication and maturity of school prefects bossing it over adults which drives people away.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I was involved in the AE discussion during which Saedon was blocked. Saedon had said many unpleasant things about another's religion, whoever is attacking user:Sandstein for that particular case is being unfair. In my opinion Sandstein was fairly enforcing Wikipedia policies. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

User Consiliul use of internal links

User:Consiliul is an avid editor of articles concerning Romanian popular culture, including Teo Trandafir, Paula Seling, Delia Matache, and others. In his/her zeal, the user frequently adds internal links to common words such as music, woman, or various years, as well as multiple links to the same article. Some of these links go to disambiguation pages, which is how I became aware of the editing pattern. (I often disambiguate links to a number of DAB pages.) I asked the user on 17 June to be more careful with links, and asked again on 12 July and 14 July to stop adding certain links. Nonetheless, the user continues (example diff) adding links to years, common English words, and the like. Perhaps a word from admins or additional users can be more effective. Cnilep (talk) 00:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Both the username and the user's common subjects of editing show that Consiliul is from Romania, not from an English-speaking country. How good or bad would you say this user's English is? Whenever someone (1) racks up lots of file-permissions warnings on his talk page, (2) persists in minor problems like this one despite warnings, (3) appears to be editing in good faith, and (4) is from a country where English isn't much spoken, I'm very very hesitant to levy further sanctions for fear of a language barrier. Nyttend (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The text added by this user (e.g. here or here) is understandable, but contains some vocabulary and grammar problems. On the other hand, the edit summaries are usually missing or strings of nonsense characters. I assume the user can understand English as well as she/he writes it, but is making considerable effort to do so. I agree that "sanctions" such as temporary blocks are probably not called for. What is needed is someone who can communicate the problems to the user. Cnilep (talk) 03:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

@Nyttend, you are hesitant to sanction an editor if there is a language barrier?? Excuse me while I go over to the German wiki and cause all kinds of disruption and then expect no reaction because my german sucks(my English could use work as well, and I am a native). Sorry for the sarcasim, but this doesn't seem right, maybe I am misunderstanding(not the first time). --Malerooster (talk) 03:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to ask one of the users listed at Wikipedia:Local embassy#română (ro) to have a word with the user in Romanian. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Malerooster, I was addressing a situation (like this, seemingly) in which the problems are minor and seemingly being done in good faith — I'd be very surprised if anyone saw WP:OVERLINK violations as reason for serious sanctions, and nobody's shown reason to believe that Consiliul's trying to cause all kinds (or even one kind) of disruption. Language barrier is no excuse for vandalism, but it's a good explanation for small-scale problems done in good faith, and it's a good reason to hold off on blocking until we've tried everything else. Nyttend (talk) 22:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I have contacted User:Consiliul about the problem of adding copyrighted media, unsourced data, edit summaries and the need to communicate on wikipedia. That are the problems I have noticed from his talk page. I hope this will help this user. If there is another problem I haven`t addressed please direct my attention. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 08:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that User:Consiliul is the indefinitely blocked User:Mateescu. At Commons both accounts have done nothing but upload copyright-infringing photos of Romanian celebrities, here both accounts often use strings of nonsense characters in the edit summaries, and Consiliul has repeatedly identified himself as "Mateescu" (e.g., [20] [21]). The block log gives no indication of the reason for the block other than that it was a checkuser block, and I can't find any SPI reports or other pages referencing the Mateescu account. I have asked the blocking administrator, Timotheus Canens, to comment here. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Looking at my logs, I blocked Mateescu for being the same as Beleiutz (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). T. Canens (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll also say that while the technical data is not strong, I will say the connection between the two accounts (Consiliul & Mateescu) is  Possible. Tiptoety ^talk 21:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the contributions for all three accounts, I'd say the behavioral evidence is rather conclusive. I have opened an SPI report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beleiutz. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear Nyttend,Tiptoety and others users who try for this months to blocked my actions

I am the director of Shepperton International, dubbing director, my WORK IS TO CREATE THIS ARTICLES, this think you don't understand, and you're attitude is the problem, not mine. When I search thousands of time to every talk page NOBODY wants to help, you're work was only to deleted my pages, my articles, i work for this pages, are from the Romanian celebrities, and their managers. YOU,WIKIPEDIA DISTROYED A WORKD THAT COMES FREE, we never ask for money to do this thing.

Yesterday, i want to search help again, I simply want, somebody to find a photo with Delia, and uploading on the article with the same name. WHAT YOU DO HERE IS A VIOLATION, FOR THE ROMANIAN ARTISTS!!!!

I work with rights, but when somebody doesn't undersatand this policy, SOMEONE, try to explain this facts. So people, we are humans, not only persons who are here, the ones who do the games. If you do the same with all the new users, I am sure that Wikipedia's credibility will be losed in few years.

!!!! I ask you, for the last TIME, to help me contribute at Delia Matache article, with a image with her, yesterday, I notice, that it's not a problem, we will pay your actions. Despite of this, I will give up, because I didn't want to say the things clear: BUT I HAVE A FAMILY, AND KIDS. I do this actions, for the Romanian managers, but now I let YOU to have lack of informations, about Romanian artists.

If you think, you can repair what you destroyed about our Romanian culture, by blocked a user who wants , only to help, but HE NEVER KNOW HOW!!!, I am happy to help again, since now, I will never do anything to Wikipedia!

All the best, and thank you for your "cordial welcome" --Consiliul (talk) 07:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Consiliul. I think it has been explained to you several times now, in both English and Romanian, that Wikimedia projects are for hosting free content—that is, material for which the copyright holder has granted others the rights to redistribute and modify the work. As far as we can tell, the files you have been contributing are not "free" in this sense of the word. This is why they have been deleted. If you want to contribute a file, you need to provide proof that the copyright holder has released it under a free licence. (On Wikipedia and some other projects there are some "fair use" exceptions for non-free content, though they don't usually apply to photographs of living people since these could in principle be replaced with free photographs.) If there's anything in particular you don't understand about this please ask and we will do our best to explain things further. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I see now that Consiliul has reached out for help on several user talk pages (including my own) and on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#WIKIPEDIA USERS PLEASE HELP the article Delia Matache, please help me and Delia managers ,we need your help. I've suggested to him that he confine discussion related to his uploads to the latter thread. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Although he has probably been acting in good faith, I think Consiliul/Mateescu is unfortunately lacking the required WP:COMPETENCE to contribute to the English Wikipedia. It is evident from their post above that his English is pretty poor, which probably explains why they have been ignoring the advice he received on topics ranging from wikilinks to image licensing issues. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we can assume good faith any more. He just uploaded File:Delia Matache 2013.jpg, claiming in his own words that he took the photograph himself, and providing the supposed date and location of the event. However, there's ample evidence on the Web that the photo is much older and was taken somewhere completely different. It's also been previously published on major Romanian entertainment websites, and on the subject's own Facebook page. Nonetheless I've given him the benefit of the doubt one last time and have listed it on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files rather than nominating it for speedy deletion as a copyvio. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why Consiliul thinks I'm out to get him. We've all been trying to help, and I in particular was saying "no block, unless things get worse". That being said, I'm in agreement with Psychonaut on File:Delia Matache 2013.jpg (especially because of this edit, and also I see the socking issues. No block coming from me right now (I'm about to get on the road for the day), but perhaps it should be coming from someone else. Nyttend (talk) 12:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm leaving a note here pointing to their departure ("I quite") message without further commentary [22]. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Darkness Shines

This is about user:Darkness Shines (DS):

(1) DS has accused me of hounding, DS reverted my edit with the summary "Rv, do not follow my edits again."[23]] he has called me disruptive[24], he is indulging in repeated base remarks: "I have already added a little about how the Hindu right wing extremists are afraid of babies, It seems the facists are unable to get it up enough to pop out as many kids as their Muslim counterparts, that has also been cited as a reason for the mass rapes during these incidents, they are actually afraid that Muslims are more virile, and the rapes are done to prove they are not, prety sick heh."[25] (2) When discussion was sought on DS's talk page regarding his remarks, he drove me away with the comments "I have >< that much interest in your opinions."[26] He disparaged me and my edit at DYK discussion as "waffle".[27] (2.a) I sought user:RegentsPark's (RP) third party mediation, there DS retorted: "YK I will say what I want, when I want, and were I want, and quite simply there is sweet fuck all you can do about"[28] (2.b) "Are you fucking shitting me?"[29] (3) DS says that certain pictures upset him, and that he has the right to use Wikipedia to express his disgust.[30] (4) He claims that his behaviour is appropriate and that Wikipedia is "NOTFUCKINGCENSORED". (uppercase in original) [31] (5) RP advised that I bring the matter here,[32] he censured DS for calling me disruptive,[33] however he said that he couldn't "block" DS in the matter as he was not allowed to do so by community consensus,[34] (6) Since the edits have occurred in ArbCom sanction areas and as DS is on the warning list, having put himself on it,[35] and considering that the sanction area requires higher standards of editing behaviour than other areas I request him to change his editing behaviour to comply to the standards as expressed in 8.1.1 and 8.1.3 to 8.1.5 of the decision. (7) I seek appropriate coercive measures to ensure the same. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Are the measures you seeking regarding his way of handling content disputes, or his conduct? MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Darkness Shines has a bit of a history with civility issues. I think we should look at the overall conduct here on wiki. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• WP:RFC/U? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Good news. I am generally indifferent to civility problems in talk pages, but deem Darkness Shines’ indiscriminate twinkling against any edit he doesn’t agree with as a pattern detrimental to the collaborative environment. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? You think an RFC/U is in order cos I reverted your addition of unsourced content? As for the actual complaint from YK he is taking stuff out of context here. To begin with, my comments on right wing extremists raping women and children are, I will admit very blunt, but can be backed by RS. I will also point out what YK forgot to mention, another user already bollocked me about that comment, and I said he was correct and have not said anything like it again. On RP's talk page I admin, ya I was angry, and explained why to YK, and for those not bothering to follow a diff it was becasue while researching for an article I saw some images which were very upsetting. I have not claimed he has hounded me, I told him not to follow my edits. What I say on a user talk page is up to the user to decide about, RP has yet to complain over my being upset on his talk page. And that really is the lot. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I forgot, the reason I said he was being disruptive was for these reasons, removing the views of one of the most prominent human rights activists working to get justice for the victims for the 02 Gujarat pogrom. [36] YK thinks she is only "incidental" source misrepresentation removes academically sourced content, YK seems to think it is "undue speculation " Suggesting that an article with 79 sources, be turned into a list And he is still at it BTW YK sseems to think that adding balancing content for NPOV is excessive detail, personally I find this disruptive. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

..one of the most prominent human rights activists working to get justice for the victims for the 02 Gujarat pogrom... The prominent human rights activist is a propagandist [37][38][39][40], has a dubious reputation [41][42][43][44] and does not even enjoy the trust of riot victims [45] to put it mildly. You are only exposing your bias and ignorance by insisting on using her name in the article. Yogesh Khandke is not the one who is disruptive here.OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• DS, we have, for not just once but on multiple times for now, have seen you, not accidentally but deliberately, misrepresent sources, use inferior unreliable sources and state half facts in articles. So don't try to change the topic of your attacking editors to article editing, because that box if opened is only gonna bring in more worse for you. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• I have always advocated that these kind of ANI reporting has been due to conflict between two groups of people and many times useless or just forum shopping, and have seen that most of these ANI's end up with a comment/reprimand on behavior or to take it somewhere else etc... (which was reasonable too). But at the same time the non-actions seems to have induced a new confidence in the editors involved to do more harm than good to the project. If block are preventative in true terms then there needs to be some here. A topic block (india-pakistan/hindu-muslim) is needed on all the notified editors in the india pakistan arbitration page which includes me (and I am not going to defend this either to prevent any more drama). There is nothing more preventative than this - if any admin(involved or not) is ready to do this. Most editors are pretty productive within the project, but a break for atleast 3-4 months from these topics would give them cool-down time (this should include block from sandbox/userpage usage to create india-pakistan/hindu-muslim related topics which would just mean that the editor is not taking the block seriously and just preparing to create more drama).  A m i t  ❤  15:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Taking your proposal to its logical conclusion, let us ban all eds from Wikipedia. That should put down all drama on Wikipedia.OrangesRyellow (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Most editors have no problem interacting with one another and can resolve issues without running to AN/I every other day. The problem is not limited to a single editor, so that solution is certainly logical. All I had to do was read the section header to know which editors were going to show up in the discussion, because this is a recurring thing here at AN/I and it's always the same few editors. - SudoGhost 16:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The eds listed there are supposed to be listed there simply because they have been served with a notice regarding the existence of discretionary sanctions on this specific area. Not due to any wrongdoing. If getting getting informed of the discretionary sanctions is logical reason for getting banned, what should I say...? These people are getting into trouble with each other--BAN THEM ALL. Pretty simple and beautiful solution, I must say. Why not implement it on all of Wikipedia, as I have suggested above? That should end all of the troubles here?OrangesRyellow (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I have removed my name from that list because of your and a.amitkumar's comments. You have edited in that area and also know about the sanctions. You too have the qualifications necessary to have your name there.OrangesRyellow (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

To my knowledge I have not edited in that area and know nothing about the sanctions other than what I've read during the multiple AN/I discussions in which you and the same few editors resort to petty bickering over and over. Despite all of that constant attention at AN/I you seriously think anyone is suggesting that you be blocked for doing nothing more than editing in a topic? No. It is the disruptive way in which you and the same editors are going about it. - SudoGhost 17:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure you have not edited anything related to India/Pakistan/Afghanistan/Hinduism/Islam/Buddhism etc. ? I understand all of it is under the sanctions if it comes under the Wikiprojects India/Pakistan/Afghanistan. Do you think making sourced comments/ being on their talk pages/ having edited those articles is evidence of disruption? Yes, I seriously think you are suggesting banning for nothing more than having edited in that area. You are suggesting all eds listed on there should be banned and being listed there is evidence on nothing more than having edited that area and knowing about those sanctions.OrangesRyellow (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

If you're going to so critically misrepresent what you've done then you should re-read your comments on the previous AN/I discussions. Thank you for telling me what I was suggesting, but I think I would know better than you. I am not suggesting you should be topic-banned simply for editing an article. That should clear up your confusion. I am suggesting you and others should be topic banned for, among other things, the disruption that you are causing regarding the topic, as indicated by the countless AN/I discussions that find the same few editors bickering at one another to no end. Since you all believe there is a problem serious enough for that many AN/I discussions, and those discussions have not solved the issue, there is a solution that would - SudoGhost 17:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• OP's claims are not accurate

1. No accusation of hounding was made. A request not to follow his edits was. Hounding is persistent. Please do not put words in people's mouths. That's intentionally misquotation and malicious paraphrasing.
2. Saying someone has zero interest in you is not a personal attack (neither were you "driven away" which is not a violation of a policy anyway), neither is criticizing your DYK.
   1. He's right. There is nothing you can do about it.
   2. Using language is not a personal attack. Context matters, so please don't throw a fit every time someone drops and F-bomb.
3. "and that he has the right to use Wikipedia to express his disgust" No mention of any right is in that diff so again, intentional misquotation and malicious paraphrasing.
4. NOTFUCKINGCENSORED if I recall used to be a redirect, though it no longer exists and I see no log entry. Perhaps it's that folks have used it as a piped link but I couldn't even find that (*curiously wonders if there has been censorship of it*). However, the way it's used is just like when we quote policies of which WP:NOTCENSORED is one. My guess is that the capitalizing of this, which does not contain spaces and is the only bit which is in caps in that quote, was a play on Wikipedia's WP: shortcuts and introducing the "fucking" element is emphasis of the point. Again, all of that aside, don't cry over an f-bomb.
5. RP did not tell you to bring it here. He told you to take it elsewhere. Again, do not misquote people. It's hard to trust you when you continue to do this. Say what people said, not what you want them to say.
6. You're also aware of the sanctions and so,
7. Given the misquotes and malicious paraphrasing, I suggest that any sanction that Darkness Shines receive also apply to Yogesh Khandke. The number of times Darkness Shines has been brought to ANI is irrelevant and I suggest the folks who keep doing it stop. The number of times he is sanctioned at ANI is all that matters. When you bring him here, you need to display the poor behavior in diffs. When your diffs do not support what you said, you do not get to write it off as "Another ANI for Darkness Shines." It is a failure on your part to substantiate your claims. Further, when you go as far as to misquote, intentionally, then it becomes a matter of your poor behavior to lie. I suggest the OP close this thread before the boomerangs start coming back.--v/r - TP 17:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• As Sudo sas, the usual suspects. However I am responding for the last time here. DD says "we have, for not just once but on multiple times for now, have seen you, not accidentally but deliberately, misrepresent sources," Fucking diffs please, otherwise you are just blowing smoke. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

@TParis. YK has provided diffs for everything so that you can readily see what he is paraphrasing. Paraphrasing anything is never easy, and paraphrasing accurately is near impossible. You are suggesting sanctions on YK for nitpicky and unconvincing reason. If he wanted to be dishonest/malicious about anything, he would not have provided diffs.OrangesRyellow (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Quoting is easy, paraphrasing is tough, creating new meanings for things people said is bad, and saying that someone said something they didn't is outright lying. If in doubt, quote it out.--v/r - TP 17:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I have myself frequently told YK that I have considered him to misrepresent my views in discussions and views of sources. Perhaps a bad habit.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Paraphrasing will always have some new meanings and miss some meanings. Different people paraphrase things in different ways. It is not lying, particularly when the original is being made immediately available by the paraphraser. If the paraphraser wanted to lie, he would not show the original.OrangesRyellow (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Paraphrasing is saying the same thing as someone else in a different way. If you're not saying the same thing, you're not paraphrasing. Further, YK has, at least in the "rights" paraphrasing, deliberately introduced an idea that Darkness Shines was no where near. That's not paraphrasing. That's attributing something to someone that they didn't say. The thought originated with YK and he attributed it to DS. Clear as day. Your defense on these terms is rather pathetic. It's as if I said "OrangesRyellow says that sometimes quotations are not exactly what people said." That's clearly not what you said at all and it's not an accurate paraphrasing. It's lying, you said no such thing. But the way you describe paraphrasing, it could pass and it would make you look foolish. That's what YK is doing and it's unacceptable and is a personal attack. This is a moment for you to realize that and distance yourself from YK's comments so the boomerang doesn't smack you as well.--v/r - TP 18:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You can attack YK, and nobody should defend him? Very fair. YK is presenting his reading of things, and it will always be different from other people's interpretation. As long as diffs are there, there is no problem. People can see the quotations for themselves. As long as diffs have been given, you cannot claim any dishonesty or lying.OrangesRyellow (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Well you just called me a liar [46]. Did you even read that diff before reading this sentence? If not, that's how easy it is to misuse diffs. YK can defend himself, although none exists and you're not doing that well of a job yourself.--v/r - TP 18:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I called you a liar? I did not know that. Well, you gave a diff, people can see whether I did it or not.OrangesRyellow (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

That's the point. If you read the diff I supplied, you clearly didn't. In fact, if you read my comments I even said as much, "Did you even read that diff before reading this sentence? If not, that's how easy it is to misuse diffs." But your lack of attention to detail is exactly what folks like YK expect when starting these threads. They're bluffing and when someone like me starts pointing out the factual inaccuracies, they're bluff has been called. YK has lied and hoped that folks would gloss over the diffs and not see it. According to Maunus, he's done this before.--v/r - TP 19:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

What point? Of course I read the diff and also the remaining three sentences. I replied to you that giving diffs is enough to find out the quotation. Nothing more to it. Why do you think I could not even read four sentences and a diff. If other people do not read diffs, it is not YK's fault. YK has done his part, if other people did not do theirs, it is their fault, not YK's. You are blaming YK for other people's fault. And why do you seem to believe Maunus even when he makes diffless accusations? In dispute situations, it is very common for people to accuse each other of misrepresenting their views. Wikipedia Talk pages are full of such accusations. Why is it that you are nitpicking to make accusations on YK? Even a diffless accusation by Maunus seems to be sanctionable offence by you.OrangesRyellow (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Whatever, YK flat out lied and no amount of coverage by you will change that. You can get the sanctions right along with him since you appear to be just as disruptive. I don't need to believe Maunus, I've seen YK's actions for myself. I was convinced based on my own observations before he agreed with me based on his own experience. You want to WP:AGF exhaustively because he's on your side? Fine, I'm done.--v/r - TP 19:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

YK never lied. If he wanted to lie, he would not give diffs. In fact, rather than what users say, diffs are supposed to be the means from which others find out the problem. See the top of this page. Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting. If we do not even expect people to click through diffs, why request diffs in the first place? You want me sanctioned because you did not want anyone to contest your nitpicky accusations[47] and I would not allow that? Mighty fair reasons.OrangesRyellow (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Tp, nitpicking is what you are doing here, I feel that you should be sanctioned for calling someone a liar just because you did not like their paraphrasing.DS wrote Rv, do not follow my edits again what does that mean? it surely means that "DS feels that YK is following his edits" which almost sounds like hounding.Saying someone has zero interest in you is not a personal attack YK never said that it was a personal attack it was just a part of the sequence of the edits where he tried to engage DS in a proper discussion. DS did call YK a highly disruptive editor, given the DS's history calling someone disruptive is like kettle calling back the pot. Also TP, your impartial examination of this thread is out in open, you are calling YK a liar just because of his paraphrasing, did you even check the diffs provided by DS, he wrote YK sseems to think that adding balancing content for NPOV is excessive detail, personally I find this disruptive and provided this diff [48].-sarvajna (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Ya, sorry about that wrong diff, thing is, one is as bad as the other. All anyone need do is look at the talk page of Anti-Muslim violence in India and no doubt they will make the same mistake. I would also appreciate anyone looking at that talk page then looking at edits to the article, see who is actually being productive there. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Not interested Sarvajna, you 'usual suspects' as SudoGhost as so aptly put it (I call you POV warriors), can all get the same sanction for all I care. YK has not paraphrased anyone, unless you have no knowledge of the meaning of the word. Paraphrasing, as I've already said, is saying the same thing differently. That's not at all what YK has done. He has created new constructs and attributed them to DS. He hasn't just manipulated or changed meanings of words DS has already used, he flat out created new sentences and claimed DS said them. Find any mention of rights, privileges, or any other variation of that term that can be 'paraphrased in this diff that supports "and that he has the right to use Wikipedia to express his disgust" or stop arguing with me.--v/r - TP 20:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course he is saying the same thing. He is giving his reading of the same thing and you are giving your reading of the same thing. Paraphrasing is not an exact science which always gives the same results. Even well qualified scholars give wildly different readings of the same words and sentences. And at ANI, while reporting behavioral issues, it is natural that different sides of a story will gravitate in certain ways. That is why diffs are requested and diffs have been provided. You are just making mountains out of molehills.OrangesRyellow (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I've asked Sarvajna, or if you want to, to show the exact words he is paraphrasing to mean "and that he has the right to use Wikipedia to express his disgust." Which words is he paraphrasing? Which word has it's equivalence to mean "right" or "privillage"?--v/r - TP 21:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I could easily explain why I say that if it was my comment. But it is not my comment, and I will let YK explain it. But You do not accuse DS of lying even when he accuses YK of disruptiveness by giving this diff [49]. You think you are being a fair observer there?OrangesRyellow (talk) 21:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not my job to be neutral, I'm not closing the thread or taking administrative action. Similarly, you haven't been neutral either and I don't expect it of you. However, I have a feeling the closing admin is going to see the truthfulness in my words.--v/r - TP 02:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your honesty is in accepting that you do not consider it your job to be neutral. But when I log onto Wikipedia, I do consider it my job to be neutral. I do not think I need to talk with people who do not consider it their job to be neutral, whether admin or non admin.OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood TParis. However, if you consider contributions such as this, which I have amended to this, to have been a neutral contribution then we have different definitions. - Sitush (talk) 10:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• And now DS is accusing me of hounding. Why is it so difficult for him to understand that he doesn't own anything here? He blindly keeps removing my edits once and then again with no policy based reason at all for such removal when i am simply tweeking the sentences and mending references. As a side note one should see how many reverts he keeps doing on various articles. Not that all those would be wrong, but he does have problems when others edit the articles he has created or edited. Admin Magog the Ogre says its write about DS that ""I'll let you get away with it this once but not next time" remedy is not appropriate, as it has been used many times before to no avail." And Amit agrees that "non-actions seems to have induced a new confidence". §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• He didn't accuse you of hounding, and if "non-actions have induced a new confidence", it is because you and the four or five same editors keep bringing this baseless nonsense to AN/I and big surprise nothing comes of it. So if anyone is to blame for this "new confidence", it is you. Stop acting like children running to AN/I hoping if you sling enough mud something will stick; the more you do it the less others are willing to listen. If the problem is only Darkness Shines (it isn't) take the advice given multiple times before and open an WP:RFC/U, but if AN/I didn't solve your issue the past dozen times why would a subsequent thread be any different, when what prompts the visit to AN/I hasn't changed? - SudoGhost 05:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

At the very least, he did threaten Dharmadhyaksha to accuse him of hounding. I have already demonstrated how DS's edits are biased and ignorant. It is also obvious that people supporting him are self-confessedly, undeniably non-neutral. It is not the 4-5 people which is the problem. The problem is that their complaint is being opposed by blatantly, unabashedly unfair and non-neutral people.OrangesRyellow (talk) 06:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)People like you want to solve a dispute by banning off one side of a dispute (the one which is your pet hate). How do you not-sabotage neutrality by banning of the side which you hate? Do you think Buddhism/Christianity related articles would be non-neutral without **any** input from Buddhist/Christian eds? Do you think we should ban all Buddhist/Christian eds from Buddhism/Christianity related articles and hope that Muslims/atheists will write those articles in a neutral fashion.OrangesRyellow (talk) 06:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

If a small group of disruptive editors keep bringing up every little baseless thing at AN/I, it doesn't matter what topic their editing since it's the behavior that is the problem; going on a rant about Buddhism/Christianity is a strawman argument that completely misses the point. You're making quite a few assumptions "people like you...pet hate" that don't pan out when you actually look at the discussion, which seems to be why you're having such a problem at AN/I. - SudoGhost 15:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm completely flabbergasted now, ORy. An issue is brought to ANI - a venue that you have contributed to quite a lot - and when things don't seem to be going your way it is because their complaint is being opposed by blatantly, unabashedly unfair and non-neutral people? So why bring it to ANI if that is the case? And are you really saying that this, surely one of the non-article space pages most frequented by a wide-ranging group of experienced people, is somehow biassed? - Sitush (talk) 09:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is. You can't say it with a certainty that it isn't. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

You can say it is. It easily means that minority POVs can be not-appreciated, can be discriminated against, and even hated, occasionally.OrangesRyellow (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

"Yada yada yada, I don't get my way so I'm going to throw around accusations." You're not long off from an indef, I see.--v/r - TP 13:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• (1) DS used "don't follow me" in an edit summary, as his justification for reverting, I see this as an allegation of malicious following, allegation that I had no other interest in the subjects, but edited to follow him. He refuses to "assume good faith" (8.1.1 of the sanctions,) which is the cornerstone of editing, I tried discussing this at his talk page and at user:RegentsPark's page in order to get my concerns across to him, he refused to discuss on his talk page, on RP's page he indulged in profanity, I ignored it, I pointed out that Wikipedia is not a medium used to express disgust, yet he continued to bad mouth me, the admin closed the discussion and suggested I bring it here. user:TParis suggests I am being malicious, I ask them what I ought to have done in their opinion. (2) This appeal is not about content, this appeal is that action be taken to ensure civility. We may disagree with each other, we should not forget that we are partners and not opponents in the context of this project. Especially when the subject is a controversial one. Editing needs to be done with a clinical detachment. DS's arguments seem to suggest the subjects of his editing cause him emotional turmoil, such a state is good in leading a campaign but bad while editing an encyclopaedia that requires scholarly balance. The above is my analysis of the situation; I would respect any community opinion. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• What do I expect you to do? Say what he said, not what you think he said. I have no patience or sympathy for flair and drama. If he said not to follow him again, do not make it out to be an accusation of hounding. If he said something pisses him off, don't accuse him of saying he has a right to share his pissed off opinions all over Wikipedia. He didn't say those things. Next time, God forbid you actually think another ANI is going to be helpful, either paraphrase exactly what he said or quote it. Do not exaggerate or misrepresent his words. Frankly, the fact that ya'all work in a contentious area, if you paraphrase sources like your paraphrased Darkness Shines, you all should be topic banned. I hope that your definition of paraphrasing isn't as moronic as OrangesRyellow's is. If it is, I think we've found the source of the problems in this topic area.--v/r - TP 13:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • "Please explain this comment: " If he said something pisses him off, don't accuse him of saying he has a right to share his pissed off opinions all over Wikipedia. He didn't say those things." Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I've struck the "hounding" statement and replaced it with the quote, mentioned in case it isn't noticed. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks for removing that. You said "DS says that certain pictures upset him, and that he has the right to use Wikipedia to express his disgust". The part about the pictures upsetting him is in your diff, but the part about him claiming any sort of right to express how pissed off he is cannot be found in the diff provided. In fact, I reviewed that whole conversation and didn't find it there either.--v/r - TP 21:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
        • "YK I will say what I want, when I want, and were I want, and quite simply there is sweet fuck all you can do about"[50] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC) Actually this diff (no 27) and the statement was there in my original statement, I'm sorry for misplacing sentences. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
          • Ahh, I see. That makes a little more sense. He's still not claiming any sort of right, no body has rights on Wikipedia. There is little you can do to stop him from having an opinion unless his opinion is racist, pro-pedophilia, or illegal. But you still should not mis-represent him by saying he claimed to have some sort of right.--v/r - TP 21:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec)DS's above remark was in reply to my comment and request: "DS I'm glad you're talking. You've every right to be disgusted by whatever disgusts you. However Wikipedia and its talk pages are not the forum for expressing disgust. Doing so is abuse of editing privileges which tends to disrupt constructive editing work. Please undertake to desist from doing so. Also undertake to desist from making personal attacks. RP: if DS makes such an undertaking I'd be happy to leave this here, as I'm not a pro-sanctions fellow.[51] I offered to discuss he bad mouthed and refused, I ignored his repeated profanity and continued discussing, RP closed the thread with to the effect, "I can't un-block him so I can't block him", I was forced to bring it here. Where is my malice? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I requested DS: please don't use Wikipedia to express disgust, don't write comments like the one I quoted above, he said he will. I see DS actions quite undesirable, and bad, so I brought the matter here after due process, it is for the members of the community to judge. I'll abide by the consensus. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The malice is in saying that DS said things that he didn't say. You need to state exactly what he said and leave your own flair out of it.--v/r - TP 22:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I've erred, why isn't it an honest error? Anyways I hope I've addressed issues with my presentation. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it is an error, but if it is then I think it's an error of the anger-mind-filter. It's tough to take it in good faith when you paraphrase your opponent in a way that takes their remarks to their most extreme interpretation or interject your own comments as theirs. I'll accept that perhaps this was a learning opportunity. However, when you paraphrase an editor here, you need to be as careful as if you were paraphrasing a source. Darkness Shines isn't an easy editor to get along with, they are pretty set in their opinion. But ANI threads should not start out with misquotations. In any case, you've corrected it and I've got nothing else against you or your complaint so that's enough out of me.--v/r - TP 22:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I wish the concerns I've raised be addressed. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Archcaster

I - and others - have clashed with this editor on numerous occasions, and they seem unwilling to engage in positive discussion, and have even resorted to improperly using warning templates (Cause, Effect). Archcaster has been blocked in the past for edit warring, and they have gotten into situations with other users before. In the case of the Fairy Guy article mentioned previously, Archcaster is well aware not to create articles WP:TOOSOON (as is the case here). Archcaster has previously attempted to apply for Reviewer multiple times, the last time trying to suppress information which they then improperly warned me for, before practicing incivility one final time. They then suppressed my information a second time (all it really was were links to his past submissions). Ultimately, Archcaster was denied Reviewer permissions. While going through their edits to list here, I noticed Archcaster was the subject of a previous discussion, so there's that too.

The reason why I'm opening a discussion here is that I'm at a loss of what to do. Obviously Archcaster is not willing to edit collaboratively, so I'm curious as to what the next step should be. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 02:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I do edit collabratively, I just don't like users like you always stalking my edits for no apparent reason. Ok really, how can the article Fairy Guy be WP:TOOSOON? It was just announced on the San Diego International Comic-Con, like I mentioned before on your talk page. Also, do not tell me that I'm abusing the general/warning templates, if I put a general warning on your talk page, and you don't like me doing that, you don't have to be like your so important just because your a admin and tell me that I'm abusing my position working with TW. I tried talking to you about this, and the other discussions we had, but it seems you want to take this what ever this is to a new level, I don't mind, because I was just wondering how can a admin just report a user without even discussing what was the problem? --拱連鑄機談話 03:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator. In this case, you warned me for not using an edit summary and blanking the Fairy Guy page without reason (which there was a summary and a reason for both of my edits). This would be improperly warning someone. I'm not reporting you by opening a discussion here. That's what this is for. Discussing. With administrators. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 03:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

First of all, it was not a warning, it was just a general message saying about the blanking of Fairy Guy, not telling you that you didn't edit the summary. Second of all, I did explain to you why I send the message, it was because the episode was announced at the San Diego International Comic-Con 2013, as well as other episodes from different shows that I will be creating if it's official, I don't know yet. As well as last's year comic con, Family Guy creator Seth MacFarlane announced a episode called Into Fat Air which was the season premiere of Season 11, which is going to be the same as Fairy Guy as the season premiere of Season 12, or maybe not because Comic-Con isn't even over yet, they'll probably talk about more episodes that will be premiering on Season 12. --拱連鑄機談話 04:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

"It was just announced on the San Diego International Comic-Con, like I mentioned before on your talk page." is the very definition of WP:TOOSOON. Archcaster, you may want to consider toning down your abrasive attitude. Your treating this like a fight that can be "won". GSK is a pretty established, and fairly reasonable, editor around here and can be a source of advice. I suggest you listen.--v/r - TP 13:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I have had massive problems with Archcaster as well. He repeatedly tried removing cited information from List of American Dad episodes for no legitimate reason. I reported him for breaking the three revert rule, and he was promptly blocked. He then opened a request for unblock, which paints me in an incredibly negative light as opposed to showing reasons why he should be unblocked. I posted a comment, where I thoroughly analyzed his claims. However, he immediately reverted my comment, using the logic "not an admin" which reeks of censorship. He also later reverted a comment by Bbb23, who is an admin, so I'm unsure of his logic here. In short, it seems Archcaster is unwilling to edit collaboratively and is uncivil. Something should be done. Beerest355 Talk 02:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: behavioral issues, see Archcaster's contributions from today alone. I'm inclined to side with Beerest355 on this one, especially given my previous history with Archcaster. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 03:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Werieth

I have come across another editor User:Werieth as a result of his work on copyright enforcement. I believe he has become hostile to me as a result of my efforts to make my work comply with copyright and he sees me not as a hard working Wikipedian but as someone who is out to thwart his best efforts. I believe he is now being deliberately disruptive to the wiki by stalking me, making spurious objections regarding an image I have uploaded and threatening to block me. Noting Werieth's opening statement I should add that he was advised of Arbcom sanctions on articles relating to The Troubles by me and a sysop when he engaged in editwarring by breaching the WP:1RR ruling at Ulster Defence Regiment on several occasions. As a result of my interaction with him over the last 36 hours activity by copyright enforcers on the few images I have uploaded has increased dramatically with multiple requests for deletions of files. Whilst wanting to extend WP:GOODFAITH the evidence would suggest that the user is abusing his position and encouraging others to do the same.

To support my application I submit the following discussion pages where I have attempted to engage the other editor.

There are two discussions here: User_talk:Cailil which are the most telling.

One here: Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#Proposals

Several here (some archived): User talk:Werieth

And here:Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion#File:UDR_Join_70_47r.jpg

There may even be more. There has been so much it's getting confusing but it remains that the content on Calil's page is the most informative as per this case. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Evidence of the activity of copyright editors on my images can be found here: [52] SonofSetanta (talk) 13:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you need to calm down and take the advice you've already been given by multiple editors. You'll not find different advice here and this thread is not going to go the direction you'd like it to. Your understanding of copyright law is mistaken, to put it nicely, and you can learn the proper way by listening to others who have more experience.--v/r - TP 13:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I am perfectly calm, thank you. My application for assistance here is made in good faith. My conduct has been guided by a sysop. I agree that I have little understanding of copyright law but the images I have uploaded give ample evidence that I am trying my best. I am currently involved with "permissions" over the licencing of three files which I made application for, properly. I am not attempting to evade copyright issues, I am trying to learn, but being treated in an apparent WP:BADFAITH manner is frustrating. My intention here is to have the conduct of Werieth and his fellow copyright enforcers looked at because my own intellect and logic tells me there is something amiss and that it can be sorted out by experienced administrators with the end game being a workable and collegiate attitude by all. I would be obliged if you would treat my application as per WP:GOODFAITH. I have not been given advice by "multiple editors" as you suggest. Only one has advised me. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

No, many have advised you. The difference is whether you see it as advice or not. Here, for example, you were advised by Stefan2 that when the copyright is unclear, we must assume all rights are reserved (the strictest form of copyright). Scanning an image does not transfer ownership, nor does your derivative work at commons. Both should be deleted. Calili said, you are "persist[ing] with inappropriate use of non free images." That's a warning. Even if Werieth is rude, he's not breaking the law and putting Wikipedia in a potentially legal issue. It's your behavior that is the bigger concern because of the legal implications. Being rude hardly compares to that.--v/r - TP 14:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

(EC) Am I missing something? I don't see any comments from Werieth in Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion#File:UDR_Join_70_47r.jpg. I also see Werieth was advised by Cailil on Cailil's talk page to improve their behaviour. So even if we ignore the substance of the dispute and just assume Werieth has done things which would warrant administrative intervention like blocking, I'm not seeing any of their recent comments go that far. And speaking generally, if you have problems complying with our copyright policies, regardless of whether these errors are made in good faith, you should expect people to follow or check your contribs to make sure it isn't an ongoing problem or a problem elsewhere. They still can't harass you or make it a personal vendetta and should make sure their challenges are fair and reasonable but there's nothing wrong per se with checking the contribs of an editor who's edits have been fairly problematic. Nil Einne (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion regarding the file File:UDR_Join_70_47r.jpg is at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#Ulster_Defence_Regiment SonofSetanta (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

But you already linked to that earlier in your first message, so why link to the FFD? Nil Einne (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't follow you. Have I made an error somewhere? If so, I apologise. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm saying I don't understand why you linked to Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion#File:UDR_Join_70_47r.jpg as there were no comments from Werieth there. Werieth did comment at Wikipedia:Non-free content review#Proposals but you already linked to that. Werieth can't be responsible for the actions of others and you didn't name anyone else in your comment and in fact the only person besides you who did comment at the linked FFD is Stefan who you have now indicated you don't have a problem with and in any case you didn't notify. Nil Einne (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I can only apologise if I have become confused. In my mind the actions of Stefan2, Stefan4 and Werieth are all linked because of what I see as a with-hunt of images I have used, and uploaded. Perhaps that's what was in my mind when I provided those links. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• This is yet another example of this user harassing people who enforce NFC in regards to their images. The user doesnt understand NFC and wants to ignore it. Werieth (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I need to address this comment. I am not harassing you Werieth. I do not want to be like the strident idiots who make threats on your talk page. I understand what you are trying to do and the importance of the work. I do not want to ignore anything. what I am suggesting to you is that, perhaps because of previous experiences with rude and harassing editors, you are maybe (as your comments suggest) lumping me in with them incorrectly. Whilst I may be ill-informed about some aspects of copyright I am a genuine and hard working editor with a neutral POV on some very turbulent subjects. Your comments do show how wrong you have been in your assessment of me and I appeal to you to take the opportunity this discussion gives to resolve our differences and to be helpful and collegiate with each other. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

This diff shows my approach to the situation: [53]

It is Werieth's behaviour which is my primary concern and also the apparent witch-hunt of images I have uploaded and others I have used being nominated for deletion. Just half an hour ago I had to restore another image which was wrongly deleted. I do not suggest for one moment that Werieth should be blocked. All I want from him and his colleagues is an end to the witch-hunt, politeness and a collegiate response to issues which includes them providing advice on how to properly overcome a problem. I'm fed up with the "delete, delete" delete" mentality and I think the guidelines are being misused to enable Werieth and his colleagues to put improper pressure on me to score some kind of moral victory. "You dare to challenge us - we'll show you"!

@ TParis. Stefan2 is part of the problem but I have engaged with him on multiple occasions, politely and requesting advice where necessary. My approach to the issues of copyright have been correct. When I have been advised a non free image cannot be used I have, where possible, substituted a free image. My free images then come under scrutiny with some being improperly nominated for deletion and even deleted.

I accept that learning copyright is one of the things a Wikipedian must do. It is time consuming and takes away from what I am here to do - write copy and improve articles - but I accept it as a necessary obligement. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I am not on a witch-hunt against your images, I am an equal opportunity enforcement of NFCC. I have done thousands of non-free image enforcement edits so please dont think I am singling you out. Your lack of understanding of NFCC is the reason we keep butting heads. Werieth (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

But I do feel I have been singled out and it has caused me no end of inconvenience and prevented me from working on my current project. I don't want to butt heads with you. I am a very friendly man and love discussion. You saw from my comments on your talk page that I have a sense of humour too. I feel that some of your comments to me have been very rude however and that's partly why I think there is a witch-hunt going on. Your views on on of the badges too were simply that you "didn't agree with it" because it was inaccurate and if it was proved to be accurate then it was a copyright violation. Why didn't you raise that on the article talk page to get the views of other involved editors? Although I respect the fact that you know about copyright I don't feel you have shown respect for my knowledge of the British Military and the Ulster Defence Regiment. I could have explained to you how the insignias are portrayed. I feel that if you tried to engage with me as a person and not as an enforcer then you and I would get along very well. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, let me try to calmly explain this to you. There is no moral victory and if you see it as "You dare to challenge us - we'll show you" then you are looking through a battleground mentality. Set that aside. When an editor such as yourself is found to misunderstand copyright law and has created derivative works using copyrighted images, such as here, it is common and appropriate for editors to check their other contributions because of the legal concerns and not because they want to score a victory. There is no witch-hunt, there is a copyvio-hunt which can cost Wikimedia Foundation hundreds of thousands of dollars if an active effort is not made to detect and remove such content. Although you feel Werieth's behavior is a concern, at this moment it is the legal implications which can have real world financial impact to this project in the hundreds of thousands of dollars caused by you that is the bigger concern. That is why we all are telling you that it's your behavior and not theirs that must be changed first. Good on you for trying to learn, but you should make an active effort to work with Werieth to find your previous copyright errors and correct them first before continuing on and not be a hindrance to their effort.--v/r - TP 14:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate every word you have said and I'm sorry if you think my behaviour pertains to WP:BATTLE. I don't believe it does. Take for example the nomination for deletion at Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Arthur_Denaro.jpg. Another webpage has copied my file so they list an image which I have copyright over (subsequently released under Wikipedia commons licence) for deletion. Look at my response. 24 hours later where is Stefan4's response? Where is the advice to me to show how I can prove my ownership of the file - obviously my original being digital, it has Meta Data on it. Why has the nomination for deletion not been removed now that I has confirmed ownership of the file? I can easily upload a larger portion of the file - I can send the original to Commons for scrutiny - why am I not receiving advice just nominations for deletion? I am trying to learn but to me this lack of response suggests something is afoot. Which is why I think Werieth and his colleagues are being petulant with me. To me as a Wikipedian it is the collegiate thing to do to discuss issues, not attack them with a sledgehammer, and I've learned that the hard way! SonofSetanta (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Unless any of the images involved were undeleted, it's difficult to argue the deletion is improper. You should take it to DR first. Nil Einne (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

With so much of it going on I have felt that, rather than argue, simply reupload the file again from the original and put as much information in as possible about how I can prove ownership, such as I did on File:UDR Soldiers in South Armagh.jpg. That way the image is restored faster and I don't have to spend more time discussing the issue and sounding hurt that it was deleted. It's difficult to file a case like this. I have only done it because I believe that discussion will give both parties closure and lead to a friendlier, more collegiate, working relationship. I'm not always very good at explaining myself however, often realising hours later what I should have said. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

First, if you have issues with on commons, you should take those to the appropriate place at commons not bring them here. Second, you can't fault people for nominating images for deletion when there was reason to question the copyright status of the image like it was found externally before it was uploaded here and the uploader has a history of copright problems. Third, if you were unable to provide sufficient evidence to assuage concerns over who owns the copyright, before a file is deleted, the deletion is not improper just because you were later able to provide such evidence. Nil Einne (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't exactly "bringing it here", just explaining myself and looking for resolution to the perceived problem with Werieth and, judging by his comments thus far I am not wrong in doing so. He has interpreted my actions as me trying to evade copyright when in fact all I am doing is trying to work within it and understand what I am doing, within his guidelines. I don't expect to be treated as a recalcitrant schoolboy for doing so. I expect collegiate discussion, advice and suggestion - not just deletion. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

BTW Einne, are you suggesting that DR might be an appropriate place to get closure on the issue surrounding Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion#File:UDR_Join_70_47r.jpg and others? SonofSetanta (talk) 15:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Um no. Why would you take an ongoing discussion where the image has not been deleted to deletion review? Nil Einne (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I apologise. I thought DR meant "Dispute Resolution". May I ask though? How can I possibly achieve a positive outcome for my opinions in a discussion forum where all the editors are copyright enforcers? At the moment all I can see are comments from others trying to prove that the image has no significance on the UDR article, whereas I and Calil think differently. I do not want to ask Calil to become involved as he is a sysop and has declined other requests to comment on these issues. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Copyright enforcement is a part of the job of everyone in Wikipedia. If your intention is to shop for a forum to garner support then you wont find any. Also it is best you understand copyright is something taken very seriously in Wikipedia. All images/media should follow the copyright rules and make sure Wikipedia is free from legal issues. If you are not following this rule and not listening to advice to follow the same, then you might be better off not editing Wikipedia.  A m i t  웃   17:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

(EC) Apologies as well I normally link to pages I mention but neglected to do so this time. That said, for someone who's has come and opened a discussion here asking for administrative intervention and who is complaining about improper deletions and nominations, I would have expected you to be aware of deletion review and to be aware that if you wish to contest a deletion or to ask for a file to be undeleted, you should take it to deletion review. It says so right in the header of FFD. So I would have hoped it would be obvious when I'm referring to DR in the context of undeletions I'm referring to deletion review. While you're not expected to know all the shortcuts, processes and pages on wikipedia, you should be willing to read, learn and discuss with other editors. And if you're bringing deletion related disputes to ANI but don't get the connection between DR and deletion review in the context of undeletions, it seems to reenforce the view that TP expressed above that your behaviour is more problematic. The rest of your comment particularly reenforces that view. Everyone on wikipedia should be a 'copyright enforcer', if you're not willing to comply with our copyright policies, you shouldn't be editing, since it's something editors are expected to comply with and take seriously. Of course, intepreting our guidelines and policies on copyright and understanding how they apply to a specific file is not easy and people may have different views but diverse views within reason and based on policies are welcome at FFD. If a consensus is usually against most of your images, this most likely indicates there's a problem with your understanding and intepretation and you should be willing to read and discuss to learn why or at least stop uploading problematic files. Nil Einne (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Nil Einne, WP:DRV *is* deletion review. WP:DR *is* dispute resolution--Cailil ^talk 13:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

In retrospect I don't think my follow was necessary or helpful but I do stand by my conclusions. For clarification, you're right the shortcut points there and as I said, I apologise for the confusion. However since I did not link to the page and note I never said WP:DR, I did not check the shortcut, and shortening 'deletion review' to DR is in my opinion a fair even if unfortunately confusing call and this is reflected in the page it self mentioning deletion review. If this was happening elsewhere, I would simply have apologised for the confusion but I'm always of the opinion if you want to request administrative intervention on ANI against other editors some understanding of what you're requesting and the policy and guidelines surrounding it is needed. (And I've seem enough stuff which clearly does not belong on ANI to last a life time.) While people offering help should aim to have sufficient experience to avoid giving bad advice or causing confusion, I don't think people occasionally making such mistakes means they should avoid ANI. And I stick, by my believe that while my mistake and the confusion it caused was unfortunate, the interpretation from SoS (combined with their response above about just reuploading photos which I saw but couldn't be bothered commenting on at the tome) suggests to me an lack of understanding of the policies, guidelines and processes in this area of their complaint, minor compared to the other problems I've seen (for example, I'm still not sure what administrative intervention SoS actually wanted) but reflective of the fact there was no point bringing anything here yet and that while others may have fault, SoS appears to be the biggest contributor to the problems described. Nil Einne (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Reading through the above there are some misrepresentations of my position as a sysop. Wereith made a claim (a totally wrong one) that an image upload by SoS was "nothing like" the UDR badge. That is both obviously and since the file seems to taking work from an actual RL source, patently incorrect. I ahve pointed SoS numerous times to PD images and advised he make one using specific elements that are free on commons. See here[54]. Ultimately I advised SoS to contact Sodacan who is one of the hugest contributors of British Insignia on Commons. He has not done so. When I did Sodacan pointed me to a PD image that fits the bill precisely[55]. SoS has refused to engage with PD sources and has instead uploaded an image with a misleading license. Thsi image is taken from here[56]. He has also misrepresented my discussion with in order to appeal to aouthority. I have to admit to being very disappointed and I agree with TP, this has to stop--Cailil ^talk 13:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Calil you are mistaken. I did contact Sodacan, on the day you first suggested, see here: User_talk:Sodacan#Ulster_Defence_Regiment. I did not feel the image suggested by him was close enough to the UDR insignia because of the shape of the "Maid of Erin" harp, so I didn't use it preferring to use the free image which is now in place. There is no misleading licence in place, it is indisputably a free work. I also politely requested, as you can see from the link, that Sodacan draw up an insignia. I have not intentionally misrepresented our discussion. I provided a link to your talk page so that anyone becoming involved could see exactly what had transpired. I have been thankful to you for your advice throughout and I have gained a better appreciation of the situation but I still feel I am the object of a witch-hunt which could have been avoided if copyright editors such as Werieth had approached the issue(s) in a more collegiate fashion. My intention in starting this discussion was to clear the air, put a stop to the WP:BATTLE and to establish better relations between all parties. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:20, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

No SoS. No it is not indisputably free work. Even if you own that badge. Even if you took the photo. Somebody else made it. It's like taking a picture of a Damien Hirst and claiming that the image is royalty free. It's not. The thing in the photo is somebody else's intellectual property. You need to starting owning your own behaviour and actions. This is getting serious. I asked you where the harp came from - you didn't answer me. A free image like Sodacan's is the only way you will be able to use the image in the way you want to. You really need to stop. Even if these images are yours they all need to be properly licenced. As I said to you the otehr day - this is black and white. Your actions either fit with policy or not. There is no grey area, no debate. You need to go back over all the file sunder question and bring them up to standard. The other users are responding as is mandated when in there's a copyright violation question--Cailil ^talk 15:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

No Calil - I made it. Under a different identity mayhap but I made it nonetheless. I do not underestimate the seriousness of this situation and I have constantly engaged in discussion over the last week or so. Discussions where I have opposed the deletion of some files and others where I have accepted deletion for a variety of reasons, or simply not opposed them. FYI I have many representations of the Maid of Erin harp. Some official, some drawn by me and some drawn by others. I made the decision, and I think rightly so, to use a free image chosen by me, rather than the one recommended by Sodacan and, as detailed in my above reply to you I also asked Sodacan would he be interested in producing an incontestable free image. I have also found another source for these since that request but simply haven't had the time to lodge a request there as these discussions are taking up all my available working hours. I am attempting to resolve the question of existing images, having asked on several discussion forums how the copyright editors would like me to prove ownership of the original files in my possession. No-one has bothered to give me a reply to that question although how anyone can call into question the metadata on digital files is beyond me. I have the original prints of all the images in question sat in front of me and am prepared to rescan them now for the perusal of any person who can resolve this question. Likewise I will supply the original images from my digital stock to any administrator who wishes to act as a scrutineer. I have made a specific request to Einne below and am awaiting a reply. This case was made to attract discussion and RESOLVE the issues we are discussing. Once I am able to prove my images are mine I expect the witch-hunt to stop and normal co-operation between copyright editors and myself to resume. Do you have any specific objections to the way I have suggested to resolve this? SonofSetanta (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Unless you are the original creator of the harp image, any works that you may have created based on it are considered derivative works for purposes of copyright and are copyrighted, in part, to the original harp creator. Your photos and drawings of it may be your property but because they contain that harp, they are not considered "free" for purposes of Commons. --MASEM (t) 16:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Acknowledged. I have approved deletion of this image at its talk page. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:51, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

SonofSetanta Topic Ban

Given the large scale of this problem and the fact that the user continues to upload files to both here and commons that either have copyright issues or have been deleted due to those issues, I think a topic ban from uploading/inserting media should be put into place until such time as it is no longer needed. Werieth (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

PS This is what prompted me to file this request. Werieth (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I own that file and it has been uploaded again today with a new scan of the original. I also have the negative, unsurprisingly as I own it too. What more proof do you need? If I have the original and can rescan it - that establishes my ownership of the copyright and I am entitled to upload it, here or anywhere else. I would have engaged in discussion regarding the file but as far as I can see no opportunity was afforded me to do so. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think he has uploaded anything new after yesterday (he did add the image to the page today). More over a little patience with the user will help. I will put a note on the editors talk page and see how it goes.  A m i t  웃   17:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The file that was added to the page was actually uploaded today albeit on commons [57]. While as I said above, we can't generally sanction someone for their behaviour on commons if they're adding it here they are bringing the problem here and of course copyright problems for files uploaded to commons are one thing which can easily cross over. And it doesn't exactly give confidence that they're likely to comply with copyright here either. Their comments above about this specific file also don't give confidence as they suggested they just plan to upload files again and although they were referring to a commons file it doesn't sound like the intend to act differently here. That said, I'm not sure if it's time to topic ban yet. Nil Einne (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

That file was previously uploaded as Commons:File:South Armagh.JPG, where it said that the photo was taken by User:The Thunderer. The original upload was in 2008, but I found that the same image appeared in a forum post somewhere else which predated Commons by a couple of years. This was suspicious, so I marked the file as a copyright violation, and it was soon deleted from Commons. Later, User:SonofSetanta reuploaded the file as Commons:File:UDR Soldiers in South Armagh.jpg, but now it said that User:SonofSetanta was the photographer. User:SonofSetanta also wrote that he had published the file elsewhere, although he didn't specify where. This seemed even more suspicious, so when I noticed this, I immediately marked the file as a copyright violation, citing the other file. At Commons:File talk:UDR Soldiers in South Armagh.jpg, User:SonofSetanta stated that he owns the negative (amongst other things). I don't know whether User:SonofSetanta intentionally is trying to lie about the copyright status or whether he actually owns the negatives. An administrator, User:INeverCry, decided to delete the image from Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but if I may, SonofSetanta, was at one stage, and I emphisis when brought to notice it was dismissed, accused of being a sock of The Thunderer and an other editor GDD1000. He has denied this and it was, as I stated above, dismissed. So it is quite possible that SoS does have the pictures and the negetives, and that The Thunderer and GDD1000 do too. As for GDD1000 his reason for leaving wiki was to qoute, "Several days of research and ard work resulted in two overkeen editors deciding that badges, historical information and quotes from cited publications - all concerning the regimental history of two cavalry regiments, breached copyright". Murry1975 (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The picture appeared here in 2006. The earliest Commons upload was in 2008. It is of course possible that user GDav on that forum is the same person as User:The Thunderer and/or User:SonofSetanta, but that would need to be verified if the image is going to be restored. Or the user could send a picture of the negatives to OTRS. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

About the sockpuppet issue, see this diff where User:SonofSetanta claims that he had previously uploaded the image "under a different identity". Unclear whether User:SonofSetanta refers to User:The Thunderer, the forum user or both. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• This edit where the user states You get the badge deleted and I will upload another one is what has me concerned that there will be an issue in the future. Werieth (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Since it has been stated in deletion discussions here that a free-use badge/emblem for the UDR can be created based on the apparently pd blazon, is it unreasonable that SonofSetanta may have been saying that he was going to upload a correctly licensed free image?Nigel Ish (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Given their past I dont think free/nonfree issue came into play. It was more of a "Im getting it my way regardless of what you or policy says". Werieth (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Some times new users do get a misunderstanding that Wikipedia is "completely" free to edit with no rules or regulations and hence it can be filled with anything and when other editors show up with rules "they feel" are not logical they react to it. Sometimes patience to explain the rules around here helps, sometimes they are just pure vandals, I would tend to lean to this editor being unaware about rules and slowly getting a hang of it.  A m i t  웃   19:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Note that the example an image created from suitably PD content mentioned by Stefan2 appears to be a copyvio Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Badge of the Ulster Defence Regiment.jpg from a badge sold on ebay, despite SonofSetanta claiming it was their own work from Photoshop (well that point may be true) not previously published (whether they meant generally or on wikipedia isn't I guess clear) and uploaded very recently, which doesn't give confidence whatever they upload will really be an image with a clear copyright status. I don't know of the OP is going to say they are either the ebay account holder or it was taken with or without their permission from somewhere but I'm starting to get suspicious. It would be helpful if the OP at least clearly specifies where they've contributed images to in the future (and clearer responses that just 'forums') and be more clear in their wording, rather then these comments coming after we find their images elsewhere. Nil Einne (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

For crying out loud. As a sysop patrolling the WP:TROUBLES area I spent significant time explaining to Son Of Setanta that Wereith is correct and that PD images are the only way to go. I pointed SoS to PD content (as well as an existing PD emblem by User:Sodacan that is under a free license) for teh UDR badge. When I saw the image SoS uploaded I asked 2 or 3 times where that harp came from. I was never answered. There is no reason at all for SoS to be uploading non free images at this point. I have to say that I think some measure might be needed here until SoS understands WP's image policy--Cailil ^talk 11:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

However this seems to me to be a commons issue. So what we can do here is limited--Cailil ^talk 12:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Or perhaps this is something we should request cross project assistance with as actually it effects both en:WP and Commons?--Cailil ^talk 13:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I confirm that I am the copyright owner of a number of files previously uploaded by User:The Thunderer and User:GDD1000. I was also the "GDav" who formerly posted on arrse.co.uk and elsewhere under that name. I possess around 1000 pictures, taken by me, of various aspects of military life and other subjects. My intention now is to rescan these images as proof that the original is held by me. I regret I wasn't given the opportunity to do this before all these shenanigans started. It would be helpful at this juncture if copyright editors were to contact me on my talk page about any concerns they may have over images currently attributed to the users mentioned or in my name. I should add that there are also a number of free use pictures attributed to me which are owned outside of Wikipedia, for example: File:UDR_Greenfinch.jpg, I believe this shows a willingness on my part to work within the guidelines for copyright. I do find it frustrating that a team of copyright editors are passing such spurious comments and judgements on the images I have uploaded, for example, a stock image File:Tannenberghindenburg2okt35ba.jpg from Wikipedia Commons which took ages to work out the copyright for, has been nominated for deletion. I can't see the logic in that. Also, I have agreed, after discussion, to support the deletion of File:Cpl Eric Glass, 4 UDR and have removed the image from Ulster Defence Regiment. There may have been some frustration in some of my actions, along with a dedicated willingness to work within image copyright rules but my intent has been genuine and for the good of the wiki. I suggest that copyright editors work with me to find a method whereby I can prove ownership of a file before deleting it. I respect the work that copyright editors do but suggest they show the same respect for my best efforts. After all, we're all supposed to be on the same side. Instead of butting heads lets work together. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to be over dramatic but may I also suggest that open links showing the faces of UDR soldiers, including myself, is not good policy. Our lives are still under threat and personal security is paramount to us. It would be a shame if dissident republicans were able to kill me because I was identified by my academic work here. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

THIS is what my presence here on Wikipedia is about, giving my time to improve articles on subjects I am interested in. Understanding of copyright is part of that and anything which assists me can only be good. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

You do realise the image 'which took ages to work out the copyright for' is still incorrectly tagged right? In future, consider seeking help andlistening if you can't work it out yourself. And there's no such thing as 'wikipedia commons', do you mean the wikimedia commons? If so, what on earth is a stock image of wikimedia commons? And actually can describe how exactly the image came in to being, did you modify an existing image that ou downloaded from somewher, upload an image you downloaded without modification or what? In any case the image you're talking about there is available in much better quality and your version has no clear advantages or improvements over the better quality image nor have you offered any reasons to keep it, so it's hardly surprising that the discussion is heading towards delete. Nil Einne (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

No I didn't realise it was incorrectly tagged. I took time over that image. My memory tells me it was a stock image from Commons and much of the licencing information was contained there too. I simply followed instructions and when I was finished was quite confident I had it right because all the information from the stock image was contained within the licence. If that now proves to be incorrect then the fault lies with the originator of the image, not me. I worked on that article to get a break from the trauma of what was going on at Ulster Defence Regiment at that time. I thought it was an interesting subject and took out several library books to assist me. I have no particular enthusiasm for the article however and because I am involved in a long term project on the Ulster Defence Regiment and related articles I no longer want to work on the Tannenberg Memorial. It served its purpose and I learned a lot by improving the article but that's it for me. If the image gets deleted then so be it. I'm more concerned at the moment with proving ownership of files which the copyright editors want to delete - wrongly. Would you like to act as a conduit for that and receive new scans of the original images? SonofSetanta (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Also to help your credibility, even if you now support the deletion of Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Badge of the Ulster Defence Regiment.jpg, I urge you to explain somewhere the circumstances surrounding that image. Why does it look like it was cropped out from the photo of the badge on ebay and depending on what you say, what did you mean by it being your own work and never previously published? Nil Einne (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of what I say regarding that image my credibility is already in question over images which I own. Even images which have digital metadata on them from one of my cameras are under suspicion which is why I want a meathod of proving my ownership of these images. I have no interest at the moment in File:The Badge of the Ulster Defence Regiment.jpg because I created an indisputably free image which I'm using instead. What I suspect however is that the image I used to make the new file will have its own copyright called into question, even though it was created from scratch, and then the insignia I'm using now will have a "suspected copyvio" tag attached. It seems like a concerted effort to undermine my credibility and I can do more to restore that by proving ownership of the files which matter at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SonofSetanta (talk • contribs)

Metadata can be altered, which is why it is not a good source for credibility. This is why some are asking you to email ORTS with evidence of the negatives to show that you are the likely copyright owner. --MASEM (t) 15:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I did not know metadata could be altered - hence my faith in it as proof. The files with metadata are all digital images with no negatives. I believe the ones in question to be part of a series however and supply of the full series would indisputably confirm my ownership. I wasn't aware that anyone had asked me to contact ORTS but if you tell me how to and what is required I will do so. With regards to the images taken by 35mm film cameras - I have them all in front of me ready for rescanning. Negatives will take a little longer as I will have to identify them amongst approximately 1000+ others but I am prepared to do so. They are conveniently located in my study ready for such an eventuality after much poking about in my garage yesterday amongst storage boxes. You tell me what to do and I will do it and perhaps then my credibility can be restored once and for all. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

BTW, you're quite welcome to avoid dealing with copyright issues yourself as much as possible, but this would mean not uploading any content whether to here or wikimedia commons, not taking part in deletion discussions or otherwise contesting deletions for copyright reasons and not adding or reverting/contesting the removal of images only available under our WP:NFCC to/from articles. Since you've already contributed some content you probably should discuss these first rather then completing withdrawing. Nil Einne (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. I have no intention of withdrawing. I'm quite happy learning about copyright. I see it as an integral part of the academic work I do on the wiki. Apart from my own images I have access to others through various sources, some of which I've already used, with the correct copyright, such as File:UDR Greenfinch.jpg and File:UDR Memorial - National Arboretum.jpg. The people at copyright permissions are very helpful and they have (and are) guiding me and my sources through the copyright procedures. That's why I refute any suggestion that I am trying in some way to avoid copyright because I was doing this before any of this nonsense started. That's why I'm continually croaking on about WP:GOODFAITH - because there seems to be a significant absence of it towards me by copyright editors and even some of the people who've commented on this case. Given the manifold discussions I've been involved in over the past several weeks I am appalled that you think I've not been engaged in proper collegiate and enquiring behaviour in an effort to resolve issues and improve my understanding of them. I don't want you or anyone else to lose sight of why I started this case - to resolve issues and improve relations with copyright editors. I'm also quite upset that anyone would think my hard work on this subject and attempts to reconcile myself and everyone else involved would warrant any kind of topic ban. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It's good that SoS has finally admitted that he is both Thunderer and GDD1000, maybe the problems this latest account had at the beginning of editing would have been avoided then. Mo ainm~Talk 19:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, apart from the fact that he should have done so originally. All three accounts need to be linked as per the rules for legitimate alternative accounts (see WP:SOCK). It also seems that this person has been having run ins with Wikipedia's copyright policies since 2008 which only makes this instance worse. 5 years is a long time to not understand our copyright obligations and non-free image rules. I see lots of ways SoS can contribute positively to bringing the UDR article to the highest quality but at this point I don't think edits relating to non-free images are of net benefit to him or the encyclopedia. My advice to SoS is stop making ANY edits relating to images. Go and read and parse the copyright and licensing rules of Commons and this site. Do all the other edits that need to be done to the article to raise its quality.
If further inappropriate additions or uploads are made we will have no choice but restrict you SOS. We have to protect this site from copyright violations--Cailil ^talk 22:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

This user had problems with images with all their accounts and it was ignored more or less. Playing dumb, each and every time. While I don't edit anymore, I do still view watch lists, and can't understand how a single purpose account (for all intents and purposes) who has both an ownership and point of view issue in relation to this subject has not been addressed. They have a clear conflict of interest its that simple.Domer48_'fenian' 08:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Kingstowngalway

Kingstowngalway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a longtime editor who for at least the last month has been adding numerous inappropriate categories to Wikipedia articles, and adding inappropriate entries to categories that he did not create, creating numerous BIO and BLP violations. I can do diffs, but there are many, and my contribs for today are almost all reversion of this user's activity. Therefore, I think it's reached the point where it needs to be addressed by admins and tools. There are several "police misconduct in <X country>" cats which are all about Gestapo officers and Nazi actions, which is not the same thing. KTG added "Catholic priests convicted of murder" to priests who were stated to have been defrocked prior to their crimes. He created two defamatory "Freemasons convicted of crimes" cats, and the majority of the people he added to those cats were objectively provable to not be members at the time of the crime by dint of the information in the article. He also added police misconduct cats to bio articles where the article indicated nothing was proven. I went back a few weeks of contribs, and I'm still finding issues, so this is probably too big for me to continue to work at individually. MSJapan (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Just for context this really relates to only two categories that came up on the Project Freemasonry board where a number of Wikipedians who also happen to be Freemasons co-ordinate efforts to combat what they perceive to be hostile edits on Freemasonry. Playing the man rather than the ball is a pretty typical MO for MSJapan (I've had this treatment myslelf). I'd recommend that this discussion be closed and MSJapan politely pointed back to category discussion pages, which he has already started. This is simply an attempt to besmirch a blameless editor, Kingstongalway, and should not be encouraged. JASpencer (talk) 07:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, while this spins out of two categories (which are being taken care of at CFD), the extent of the problem is much larger than those two categories, and relates to categories as far-ranging as Category:Police misconduct in Germany, Category:Police misconduct in France, Category:American police officers convicted of murder, Category:Catholic priests convicted of murder, and a few others. MSJapan (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I might also add that JAS is not here accidentally; KTG directly asked him for help rather than respond here on ANI. However, to allay any fears of "playing the man", here's some evidence of "the ball":

• The main CFD, where I have outlined every issue with every article in the cat, which was created and populated entirely by KTG.
• cats added without proof in article: [58], [59], [60], [61]
• cats added incorrectly based on article information: [62],[63],[64]
• Overall category issues - Category:Police misconduct in Nazi-occupied Poland is nothing but articles on Gestapo officers, none of which is police misconduct. Category:Police misconduct in France and Category:Police misconduct in Germany are exactly the same, nothing but Gestapo officers. In short, the category doesn't even follow its own function. Category:Catholic priests convicted of murder, as noted above, contained many entries of priests who were clearly defrocked before they committed their crimes, much less were convicted of them.

In short, the editor in question is not editing based on the information in the articles, and is often editing contrary to the cited information presented (meaning that subjects are in cats they simply don't belong in), and this is a pattern that has gone on for at least a month, if not more, in disparate areas. MSJapan (talk) 13:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

A look at Kingstowngalway's user talk page is instructive. It is full of CFD notifications related to categories he created, and complaints about placing people in categories inappropriately... It's clear that his concept of appropriate categorization is at odds with the rest of the community. There is cause for concern here. Blueboar (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

No Blueboar, his talkpage is full because he is an active and longstanding editor who does not archive his talkpage. Your talk page would be far worse if you did not delete without archiving all warnings and other talkpage activity against userpage guidelines. We can see that in comparing his block record (no blocks) with yours (3 blocks for disruptive editing). ANI is simply not the correct forum for this handbags at dawn behaviour. JASpencer (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) A few more items:

• One person placed in three different "police misconduct by country" cats: [65]. When a cat was removed by someone else as being inappropriate [66], KTG created a new one and put it in instead [67]
• Large questionable edits: [68] reverted for lack of sourcing. A block of text in George Sayer's bio that's a personal recollection of Sayer's about Tolkien [69].
• POV edit and blocktext without established relevance: changing "death" to "assassination" when the article indicates it was not, including a wall of text that appears to have no relation to the article subject or his death. [70]
• unsourced inflammatory material introduced, or language changed to POV, mostly in Death squad: [71], [72]
• changing cited material: [73]
• POV edit changing "alleged" to "known" and implying false pretense: [74]
• BLP violation with no citation, removed by a later editor [75]

I don't believe I've gone back more than a few weeks of edits on any of this. MSJapan (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Dispute over POV-section tag at Detroit#Decline

I consider this restoration by User:Thomas Paine1776 of a POV-section template to be disruptive behavior. What can be done?

We have discussed the complaint on the talk page at Talk:Detroit#Decline but Thomas Paine1776 and User:Lance Friedman, who agree with each other that there is something wrong, have not proposed an actionable solution. User:NeilN, User:Rjensen, User:Rmhermen and myself have pointed out that the arguments against the section's text are not strong enough. I pointed out that the POV tag is not to be used as a "badge of shame" for the section, which is exactly what it says at Template:POV-section.

Thomas Paine1776 has been posting walls of text, making repeated references to WP guidelines which do not apply to the situation: WP:FANCRUFT, WP:SOAP and WP:COATRACK. When challenged, he has not been able to quote the applicable portion of these guidelines (there is none), yet he continues to argue them. His complaint hinges on personal observations about how Detroit has lots of money, how it has a strong revitalization effort in progress, how its larger metro area is rich and populous, how Marxists, leftists and "Detroit bashers" have poisoned the media against Detroit, and so on. This has become tiresome and disruptive.

Among the notional POV complaints were ones that reflected on the article Decline of Detroit, and how its name is perhaps not neutral. Discussion of this naming issue spilled over to Talk:Decline of Detroit where a requested move is in progress, one without a snowball's chance of changing the name, specifically to anything suggested by Lance Friedman or Thomas Paine1776. In light of the all-but-assured failure of the requested move, settling the name "Decline of Detroit" as an appropriate one, I consider their POV arguments to have run out of steam. There were no "specific issues that are actionable within the content policies." I have twice removed the POV-section tag but Thomas Paine1776 has twice restored it. I am out of ideas here; I need to kick this dispute upstairs. Binksternet (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Its the other way around. The complaining editor postures, complains, has a history of causing problems noted by multiple editors, reverts POV tag posted and discussed by another editor, is a behavior problem reverting efforts to present a neutral point of view, reverts efforts to place relevant parts in their respective section to mediate the issue, or even balance the section which is controversial, etc.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem is with Thomas Paine1776, who seems to think that depictions of Detroit's problems are vastly exaggerated by POV editors. Rjensen (talk) 22:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

There's no justification for wiping well-sourced information on the economic decline of Detroit from our page describing the city. Even if the decline had stopped or reversed, the historical phenomenon would merit documentation. In this case Binksternet has been correct in protecting the page from section blanking and preserving an accurate description of the city. - Darouet (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Content disputes go to DR/N. Binksternet may well have a problem with wanting to shut down WP:Consensus discussions, as just recently he/she put an entirely bogus "warning" template on my talk page for seeking to promote discussion. He/she is the one who nominated the Decline article for a move to mutliple different titles (which is certainly unusual, and maybe out of process) while discussion was continuing. It is not disruptive to disagree with Binksternet, although apparently he/she thinks it is. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

If the results of the proposed name change are any indication, however, Binksternet's position supporting the word "decline" is clearly supported by the wikipedia community. -Darouet (talk) 23:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I just saw you voted there, but of course voting is a poor way to achieve consensus. It's also odd that no one discusses article title policy in that discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I saw the vote and added my two cents after following the link you gave, but you can see that with or without my vote, most other editors agree with Blinksternet on the title, which they consider to be neutral. -Darouet (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I did not link anything, except WP:Consensus. Well, it would not be the first time that users don't adhere to policy in a vote. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Alanscottwalker, I brought the issue here because it is now about behavior rather than content. Thomas Paine1776 is being disruptive, insisting upon the badge of shame without an actionable suggestion in play. Binksternet (talk) 03:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Your continued use of phrases like "disruptive" and "an actionable suggestion" to mean "discussions you don't like" is a problem. No one is ashamed by the tags. Discussion is ongoing, try to reach something you can both live with. In good faith (meaning you're actually willing to listen), find a way forward with him (and he with you). Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

If you are saying that someone here is in WP:IDONTLIKEIT mode, you have the wrong guy. I like Detroit—I would be happy to see the city rebound and thrive. On the other hand, Thomas Paine1776 has demonstrated IDONTLIKEIT by his utter disregard for the weight of scholarship, his continual repetition of the same irrelevant arguments, and his dismissal of highly reliable sources such as Time magazine. He disparaged those who disagree with him, and the reliable sources, as "left leaning", "Marxist", "media hype", "outdated 1970s pessimism", "fakery", "pushing to create a false impression", "so called sources and blogs", "school papers", "obvious bias", "slant", "Detroit bashers", and "hysterical authors." Binksternet (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Guidance for Uncooperative User Theinsidefacts on Death of Shane Todd page.

On Death of Shane Todd, Theinsidefacts keeps adding self-published pdf documents in his edits, then claims that these were "independant report in the public domain. Under WP policy there is no requirement for a source to be referenced specifically by a news agency. The source is quite clearly the author of the report and that has been cited."[[76]]. Looking at the original source documents (even assuming it is genuine), one can clearly see that it is in fact some form of personal correspondence between the doctor and another party rather than an actual report (such as [[77]] in his edits [[78]] on pg 4 and pg 10 which show the correspondence) and not some professional report as he claimed. The document seems to have been edited to mask the identity of the party the doctor was corresponding with, which means there's no way to be sure if anything else in the document had been edited prior to uploading.

Additional points:

1) Assuming the article is genuine, there is a potential conflict of interest as he/she is publishing some confidential material that no one except the parties involved would have access to.

2) The editor seems to be a single purpose account, as the account seems to be created solely for the purpose of editing this article.

I have tried repeatedly to explain to the user the inappropriateness of using self-published sources, but he just keeps reverting and claiming that I have some form of bias; My only "bias" is that because I had been following the case closely and contributing content to it so I just want to make sure the article stays neutral with clean sources, and just want to hold off including dubious sources until it can be verified to be reliable. I posted this yesterday on WP:RS to question the use of the pdfs of dubious origin, but have not had any replies yet.

Not asking any punitive measures to be taken against him, just that some neutral party other than me try to explain wiki-policy to him since editor in question seems to think I have some form of vested interest in the article. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The pdf documents being used by Theinsidefacts are from this website. Click on it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

IPs now editing warring over this materiel.Suggest article be semi-protected. JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

IPs welcomed and warned. No further edit warring. JoeSperrazza (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm more worried about Theinsidefacts as the IPs just appeared today, but the reverts from him seems to have stopped. Hopefully this is the end of it and not just a weekend break. Zhanzhao (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Isn't there a rule which says that any Wikipedia editor with a name including "truth" or "facts" is almost certainly going to end up blocked for violating WP:NPOV and/or WP:OR? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved review requested

Hi, it's really none of my business, but having been alerted to an indeff that seems to be insufficiently explained, and may be rather harsh, I've taken an interest in it. The blocking admin, Toddst1 has agreed that an uninvolved review is in order. There's an unattended block appeal of two days' standing, too. Aren't they centrally logged? I don't know much about the history of this, and I don't want to—but here's an editor in distress about it who might be saved. I hope in retrospect I won't be seen to have stuck my neck out. Tony (talk) 02:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• What a piss poor block this was. The stated block reason was for "multiple instances of IP sockpuppetry", but nothing provided by the blocking administrator can actually link an abusive IP to his account, through CheckUser or any other means. The only evidence is an old IP used back in 2010 that was self-admitted (where the user says they also no longer is associated with that IP), and a couple edits that were not abusive on another IP showing support for Badanagram. Overturn it. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 04:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
• Sockpuppetry blocks are rarely, if ever, undone except by checkusers. Even when no checkuser is run before making the block, one is typically run before performing an unblock.—Kww(talk) 05:20, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
• Does anyone have a link to the ANI discussion where 203.81.67.123 (talk) was blocked by Toddst1? I've seen this mentioned but can't find it myself. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

  No, but I found something related: user talk:Dennis Brown/Archive 26 #Proxy servers. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure we can trust Toddst1 with the tools anymore. He has a long habit of blocking people on the smallest pretexts, this being one example (i.e. accusing somebody of sockpuppetry). He also has strained relations with quite a few editors, and a list of ANI complaints a mile long. As such, he should resign his tools. His block violates the definition of a good block in a myriad of ways, the two most obvious being that the sockpuppetry is unconfirmed and that Toddst1 is an involved admin. It should be undone and Toddst1 should be admonished for doing it. pbp 05:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

  Could you give a few choice links to the evidence which you believe substantiates your claims? Making accusations without evidence is actually a violation of policy - see WP:WIAPA point five - and posts backed up by links and diffs will be given a lot more weight than those without. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

  Also, could you explain how you think Toddst1 has violated WP:INVOLVED here? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

  • In matters unrelated to this, I have also found that blocks made or block settings changed by Toddst1 have been very poor, especially related to blocks on school IPs. I did not bring the matter up because bringing things up on this board or any others usually fall on deaf ears considering the rampant number of "administrator abuse" claims. Personally, I may seek a review of this block extension, considering how long he extended it for, and for the single edit the shared school IP made. [79] Regards, — Moe Epsilon 06:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I did not bring the matter up because bringing things up on this board or any others usually fall on deaf ears considering the rampant number of "administrator abuse" claims. LOL you think someone up there will eventually clue in to how bad PR, mysteriously leads to, bad PR? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedians! I found the following facts:

1. Badanagram (talk · contribs) and Toddst1 (talk · contribs) had a long history of strained relationship. In July 15 yet another their clash occurred.
2. In July 16 Toddst1 indefblocked Badanagram with the substantiation “multiple instances of IP sockpuppetry”.
3. In the ensuing discussion the only “IP sock” named (and labelled by Toddst1 as a suspected sock) was 203.81.67.123 (talk · contribs) with one edit in articles and two posting at AN/I.
4. At Toddst1’s talk User:Tony1 pointed that the block lacks a substantiation and deviates in many aspects from the established practice. There was no substantial response (sarcasm not counted).
5. Me, User:Incnis Mrsi, pointed two times that a formal investigation was not started (that is a standard practive for any acc with noticeable positive contributions) and no IPs with WP:signs of sock puppetry were demonstrated. Again, there was no response.

Whereas Toddst1 now departed for a vacation, I ask the community to assess this situation. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding text originally posted on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (diff)

BTW I now regret that provided Toddst1 with some moral support during the 76.189 campaign. Such admins have to be restricted from dealing with users, and especially from using the tools for it. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a long history of problems with that Admin. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to stretch things too far, forensically, but as a result of the comments above I flicked through Toddst1's contribs for the past few days. Could someone attend to this problem, please? Tony (talk) 11:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

IMHO a sysop who blocks IPs of an ISP’s NAT pool for 3 months without serious and persistent problems from there, without any signs of negotiation with affected ISP, demonstrates a rampant incompetence. It now the time for a motion of no confidence? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Why not? pbp 15:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

FYI Comment I received this request on my Wikivoyage account which seems to be connected to all this. --regentspark (comment) 15:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• I am commenting as partially involved, I think, due to initially blocking three open proxies in Burma. see [80], User talk:203.81.67.254, and User talk:203.81.67.249. There is a block of 6 IPs, the other three were inevitably blocked by another admin as confirmed open proxies once the block appeals were looked at. As far as I know the original block does not apply to any particular user (per WP:PROXY). I am aware of the high risk of collateral from this block, as an ISP proxy in Asia, and find the block of all 6 IPs regrettable. I recommend a checkuser take a peek and help out with IPBE, and that the IPs are regularly checked to see if the block can be lifted. I have not fully looked at this current block by Toddst1. The IP address appears related, however "Confirmed proxy server" is not a bad thing, and not a plausible basis for a block. Neither is evasion of any block I have applied, nor as far as I'm aware the blocks of the other three IPs. Other IPs challenging this block have previously checked negative for open proxiness. It's only the six IPs as far as I can tell. There doesn't seem much argument about the open proxiness of these 6 IPs, nor any problem avoiding the technical block :), so I return to my wikibreak. If in doubt ask WP:OP or a checkuser. I consider there to be excessive collateral from all these Burma blocks, and would lean towards not having them there, or minimally softblocked. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

  zzuuzz, can you specify which ports are open for proxies at 203.81.67.254 and 203.81.67.249? Possibly by Email. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

  Please see the 254 talk page where I confirmed it myself. I confess I haven't checked it since I last checked. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

  I see the specified IP:port open and speaking HTTP, but I do not see a functioning open proxy. It apparently broke before July 14, see http://proxylist.org.ua/?v=203.81.68.203 Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

  Works for me. I just got .249 on my first throw and .250 on the second. Does someone have a link for instructions? Someone else confirm it? The IP is right, it is a pain to edit your own talk page from the affected IPs. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

  Yeah, I can confirm it's still wide open, albeit godawfully slow. 203.81.68.203:80 is the entry and I exited onto 203.81.67.250. Sailsbystars (talk) 19:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

  Aaaaand my second attempt landed on .251..... so I think it's a fair bet that the 249-254 are all still exits for the same proxy. Sailsbystars (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

  I would also add that 203.81.67.123 does not appear to be an open proxy, but I would assume good faith in terms of "Confirmed proxy server" because there are certain websites that seem to label almost everything a "confirmed proxy server" and many wikipedia users and administrators mistakenly assume these websites are authoritative. Sailsbystars (talk) 20:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

  I'm not sure where to ask this, as the thread is getting rather long, but what about these "open" IPs. From what I have seen, about two-thirds of the internet cafes and WIFI spots use them. It is amazing to see people sitting under thatched roofs with dirt floors, using their android phones. The government-sponsored power goes off, a generator is started, the remote internet connection is lost, and there is a huge amount of down time, but they still love the internet. In the meantime, Skype is illegal (but they all have it, maybe not on the desktop though) and so is a USB modem, not to mention the difficulties in getting a SIM card. The country is on the cusp of ...something. They are doing as much as they know how to do, and I wish WP would do everything possible to remove even small obstacles, especially for IP editing. 203.81.67.123 (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

  I’ll try to bring some order to these things. First, there are several legitimately blocked open proxies in 203.81.67.248/29 (i.e. from .248 up to .254), and there are IPs .123 and .114 blocked illegitimately: they are not open proxies and are likely (although not certainly) NAT exit points. Second, an IP or an account, but authorities in Myanmar in any case have sufficient clues to identify who of the country’s subjects edits which articles in Wikipedia: I’ll not make it public, but can explain by request from WMF. To some extent the use of IPs instead of accs disrupts (primitive ways of) surveillance, but I’d not rely on it to outrun a state censorship. Third, registered users may enjoy some forms of protection that are denied for IPs. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion deviated towards the question whether Toddst1 should be trusted in principle, but there is less said about the initial question except Sailsbystars’ opinion that 203.81.67.123 unlikely is an open proxy. Note that for 203.81.67.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Toddst1 provided no compelling evidences at all. And nobody provided a single argument supporting an alleged policy violation by the owner of Badanagram account. What to do with blocks? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion the blocks of User:203.81.67.114, User:203.81.67.123, and User:Badanagram should be lifted immediately. The sockpuppetry tags should also be removed all round. These blocks appear to be baseless, unsupported, and being generous, like a big fat mistake. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Comment Perhaps not a sock, but Badanagram's behaviour has been significant enough to warrant a block on their own (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

  Do you mean his behaviour of 2010? Perhaps. But I do not see serious problems recently. If you’ll examine each editor with a magnifying glass, then you ever find something inappropriate. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

  • The confession that was extracted in 2010 was obtained with the promise that it would not be used for a block.203.81.67.123 (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Based on a CU done by User:T. Canens ("On a more detailed look, I'm convinced that they are most likely Unrelated."), I have unblocked Badanagram and the two IPs. I have removed the tags (there were two - one IP did not have a tag).--Bbb23 (talk) 11:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your quick attention to this. I wasn't sure if I would have to file a new request. There is still the matter of the strange open Myanmar IPs, and I'm not quite sure how to go forward with that. Is there a way to get them unblocked? 203.81.67.123 (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

BWilkins Do you really want to get involved in this again? I made a bad faith comment on Toddst1's page and apologised afterwards from a mobile and that was difficult to edit wikipedia from. I have seen behaviour under your account including calling wikipedia editors 'commoners' that doesn't seem to be in good faith. Calling for yet another block against me seems incredibly vindictive, especially considering how close you are to that admin.. Can I go now???? I have things to do this weekend. Badanagram (talk) 11:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Pardon me? Did you just accuse me of calling any Wikipedia editor a "commoner"? Either provide a diff to me ever saying such a thing, or retract your accusation immediately. You are also accusing me of being "close to that admin" (say what?), calling me vindictive ... in fact, you're doing the exact SAME things that led me to suggest that your block should NOT be lifted (note: I never called for a new block - I commented before this one was wrongly lifted). If this is your way forward, then perhaps Wikipedia is not for you .. and indeed, it won't be for you for long (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

OK retracted, only because I cannot immediately find the reference. .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badanagram (talk • contribs) 12:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Now that I am free to edit here thanks to the unblock by Bbb23, I really don't think that any sanctions against admin Toddst1 are called for. He was only doing his job, but in the circumstances it would have made more sense to get another uninvolved admin to do whatever what was necessary in the spirit of the community. As I have already said off-wiki:

It's a bit of a hollow victory though because the whole affair has put me off editing wikipedia, especially if it somehow implicates me in some international scandal involving a country with very disputed human rights issues!

I am totally clueless about this Burma open proxy, whoever it was just happened to agree with me at the wrong time and it looked far too convenient for Toddst1.

I am trying my best to not have too much of a negative opinion of that admin despite what has happened here. He is only human, just slightly overzealous and should perhaps reconsider the whole admin thing.

That is all. If I return then I hope it will be in better circumstances and more positive edits all round, that's what we're here for isn't it?!?!?!?!? Badanagram (talk) 11:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

BWilkins, Badanagram is understandably upset. I'm writing to the editor to urge calm and good faith. Tony (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. If unsubstantiated allegations are bad for admins, they are bad for Badanagram as well. And there is a lesson here to be learned by everyone about responding to provocation. 203.81.67.123 (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it doesn't matter if they have "confidence" of the people, as long as they have "confidence" of each other. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Huh? Only 3 of the 11 editors who !voted "oppose" below are admins. So 8 of "the people" opposed, and only 3 of "the people" supported. Looks like "the people" simply didn't agree with the motion. Thus speaketh "the people". Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Motion of no confidence against Toddst1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Support

1. Support pbp 15:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support - I just happened to see the conversation linked just above, noting that virtually every internet user in the entire nation of Myanmar is now blocked from access. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support - Just the fact that an IP or user is indeff blocked and the admin blocking says that a second opinion is needed is quite telling, this motion is needed to bring clarity.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I have yet to see specific evidence of misdoing ("admin abuse"). That Ihardlythinkso comes by to chime in is no surprise, given the fact that they've been blocked by Todd before (for edit warring, if I remember correctly), and given some recent shenanigans involving a friend of theirs. Let's get some evidence, and let's hear from Todd, before we kick yet another admin in the balls. (I'm speaking figuratively, of course, and if Todd is of the female persuasion they have my apologies.) Or, if Todd is on vacation and can't respond (admins can have vacations too), then there is no need for immediate desysopping action since they're on vacation. Drmies (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

   Is all right with Badanagram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Or with 203.81.67.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? If you do not trust my opinion that “Confirmed proxy server” resembles a cynical lie (the IP is unlikely an open proxy), then read Dennis Brown’s opinion. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

   It was an INDEF block Drmies, and edit-warring wasn't part of the medley of rationales Toddst1 made up to accomplish what he wanted. (Oh, he also took away my WP Email access based on "abuse", I'd love to see that Email made public so everyone can see another example of his judgement when wielding his tools.) Of course these experiences surely invalidate any opinion I could have, and render me totally incapable of being objective regarding his conduct as Admin. (Ad hominem much?) And regarding "shenanigans", the only that existed was on Toddst1's part, with unjustified sockpuppetry tag on User:Diogotome. (See Todd's willingness to consider he made a mistake here.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

2. I have found Todd to be a pretty good admin, as admins go. He needs to provide some evidence, but he shouldn't be booted yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Display of admin abuse has not been backed up with diffs (typical of at least one editor in this discussion) and calls by Mr. Stradivarius for more information have been left unanswered. And frankly, this whole discussion has been non-technical experts testifying about their ill-informed opinion about what a proxy is and then backing it up with another non-expert's opinion because they happen to be an admin (sorry Dennis).--v/r - TP 19:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

   TParis opposes… it is a good sign, folks. Rather predictable (to me), TParis on yet another occasion tends to disregard explicitly substantiated grievances and resorts to denigration and personal attacks towards opponents, instead of addressing specified points. The indefblock of Badanagram is a bluff (per its grounds) and a revenge for critical remarks (per its motivation). Blocks of 203.81.67.123 and 203.81.67.114 created problems for several editors (per their consequences) and were an attempt to shun a possible outcry (per their motivation). What is not clear to the great technician, the Heir to the Edit counter? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

   Zero diffs, when will you learn?--v/r - TP 20:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

   Diffs from 2010 are better than my no diffs, are they? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

4. This is pretty pathetic. A thread is started to review a block. It descends into anti-admin, anti-Todd free-for-all. And now we have a "motion of no confidence". What the hell does that mean? Are we here to vent or what?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

   agreed, what even happens if we have "no confidence". --Malerooster (talk) 21:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

5. This sounds more like something that should be dealt with via a dispute resolution board or, worst case, arbitration. At any rate, I want to hear his side of the story before we take any further action. There's certainly nothing presented so far to justify convicting him in absentia. —C.Fred (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

   A dispute resolution board? Do you speak about content disputes, or ? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

6. Copied from User:Badanagram's talk page: "I am in agreement that the admin should probably not have a vote of no confidence in his absence, it doesn't seem particularly fair."--Bbb23 (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Not at all appropriate in the circumstances. Mathsci (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
8. There are things to be resolved here, to be sure, but no indication has been given of actual abuse of admin tools. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

   Do you deem the “Confirmed proxy server” a honest mistake? Do you really? Or it is just the default assumption? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

   Isn't that exactly what we're supposed to do until evidence shows otherwise? And you don't have any evidence, really, just that - apart from a grudge you seem to be holding on to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

9. Wrong place, no real grounds, all rather silly. Rsloch (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
10. This is why we have such a hard time getting support for any community desysopping proposal. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  23:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
11. "Motion of no confidence." Are we following parliamentary procedure now? People could be making better use of their time by constructively editing this encyclopedia. Taroaldo ✉ 06:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Summary deletion of a former Ethiopian Minister of Finance

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A newbie user recently created a new article for Teferra Wolde-Semait, who was Minister of Finance for Ethiopia 1975-1982. The article was good and contained many facts, but not perfect, as the creator is a new user not entirely unaccustomed to encyclopedic writing, but already other users including myself had begun the gradual task of cleaning it up. Then suddenly User:Jimfbleak unilaterally deleted it without any discussion claiming it was "promotional". I asked him to restore it, but he says it is "spammy". Are some people like blind when cabinet ministers are from Ethiopia and not other countries, or can this article on him not be restored? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 06:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The above user didn't see fit to tell me that he/she was posting here, but I inadvertently stumbled across it anyway. I replied to him/her here offering to userfy the deleted text to Til Eulenspiege's or Woldesemait's userpage for improvement. I don't think it's appropriate to just restore the page as it stands when neither Til Eulenspiegel or Woldesemait has indicated the slightest intention of making it a neutral referenced article (which can be done initially in userspace). Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm also not sure why this posting is on this page. There seems to be an accusation that I'm anti-Ethiopian, but I would have thought that more evidence was required than the fact that I've deleted one article. On that basis, I'm also anti-American, anti-British, anti-French... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The article explained how notable and prominent he was in the Ethiopian government, because of the fact that he was very notable and prominent in the Ethiopian government, yet you called it a 'hagiography'. What, no second opinion? He was finance minister at a very crucial time for Ethiopia as the article explains. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 07:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Jimfbleak. Sentences like "After patiently serving for many years with prudence and competence..." or "Mr. Teferra Wolde-Semait gained admiration and respect by many in Africa and at the international level." or "After patiently serving for many years with prudence and competence, satisfying his job responsibilities while in a very difficult role and position" don't belong in an encyclopedia article, especially as none of them are actually sourced inline ... indeed there are no inline sources at all. I'm sure the person is notable, but this article as it stands isn't acceptable. Just ask for it to be userfied and fix the problems. Black Kite (talk) 08:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Of course those parts you quoted as written by the newbie user, would have been removed before much longer, had the article not been so quickly deleted on the whim of a single person. Why does it have to be fixed in "userspace" when most problematic articles normally get fixed by editors in "article-space"? There definitely seems to be some kind of knee-jerk 'delete' reaction to articles about Cabinet Ministers from Third World countries around here - that we hardly ever see with say, EU country cabinet ministers. Maybe I should just stop contributing so much to the English wikipedia and stick to building more sensible language wikipedias, it's just too painful to keep dealing with these Neanderthal thick-as-a-brick attitudes of bias that I see recurrently. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• You're going to get nowhere with accusations of bias, and in fact you are running very close to violating WP:NPA. Personally, I would have deleted that article as well, regardless of which country the individual was from. Not to mention that quite apart from the hagiography aspects (and the fact it really does read as having been copied from somewhere - very probably a newspaper obituary), it's effectively simply unsourced. We do not fix problems like that in articlespace; if it had been presented at WP:AFC, it would have been rejected. Now, do you want the article restored to userspace (or that of the creator) so the problems can be fixed, or not? If so, just ask. Black Kite (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

NO - I want it restored immediately to article-space where it belongs, so the problems can be fixed. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hellomynameisandrew19991999

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi all,

This individual has engaged in a systematic war on terror consensus and is edit warring like mad. He has also recently done a few personal attacks. He has been banned once, and has used sockpuppetry in the past. Diffs below.

[81] " I'm not the dumb one you stupid retard"

He has pretty much rejected consensus at every turn, and evidence of this can be seen at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board. ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 06:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

(Also see block request below) ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 06:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Block request

Hellomynameisandrew19991999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This account was set up 14 July and blocked the same day for 3 days for "Blatantly logging out to continue an edit war at Thérèse Rein"[82] He returned 20 July (today) and is edit-warring on the same article[83], Tim Mathieson, Janette Howard and other articles. He posted a note on the talk page with an editor with whom he had a disagreement beginning, "Excuse me, I'm not the dumb one you stupid retard."[84]

I request an indefinite block.

TFD (talk) 06:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support I have warned this user, as have many others. He had plenty of rope and didn't use it all that well. Former sockpuppeteer also. ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 06:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
• I have blocked them for two weeks for the personal attack mentioned and disruptive editing, but any admin may feel free to extend the block if they see fit. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 07:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I postulated somewhere else that this username may indicate a birth year of 1999, and thus an age of 13 or 14. As an Australian high school teacher, I can confirm that the "stupid retard" comment would fit very well with this theory. I suspect we're dealing with some real WP:COMPETENCE issues here. I have nothing against teenagers editing Wikipedia. I encourage it. But the seeming inability to comprehend what he's doing wrong makes this person's participation problematic. HiLo48 (talk) 10:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

220.79.7.7/Cntiger100

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

IP user 220.79.7.7 made three edits to page Gook that were clear vandalism and blanked their talk page to remove the vandalism notifications, then new user Cntiger100 made same vandalism to Gook page. 198.199.134.100 (talk) 08:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Cntiger100 blocked for a week. In future, WP:AIV is probably a better place to report this, but thanks! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeated POV-pushing and removal of sourced content

The user Fareed30 is currently involved in deleting sourced content on a number of articles, all of them seem related to Afghanistan and Pakistan. I am no expert on these issues and would not involve myself in a content-dispute, but what Fareed30 seems to be doing is deleting all claims that are critical of Afghanistan as well as changing peoples' ethnicity as he sees fit. Appealing to the WP:TRUTH, he feels he can delete sources as he wants cause he's "an expert on this". [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91](this last edit added much but also removed a sourced claim critical of Afghanistan).
While some of these edits could be content issues, all of them consist of important changes without any discussion and most of them include deleting sourced content. This user seems to be here to push a certain agenda, not to improve Wikipedia.Jeppiz (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I deleted a dead link and fixed some other minor stuff at Women in Pakistan. That article is dedicated to Pakistani women but someone is adding in it unverifiable allegation against Afghan, Maymar and Bangladeshi women being sold in Pakistan. The sources are over a decade old and one is a dead link while the other is over 100 pages of PDF file, with no page number so we don't know if if the allegation is true or false. See Talk:Women in Pakistan--Fareed30 (talk) 14:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

You removed much more than that, as anyone can see for themselves. If you did not like the sources, the way forward would have been to discuss them instead of just deleting them by WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Jeppiz (talk) 14:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Experts on the issue state: "Acid attack violence occurs in many countries but is particularly prevalent in: Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, and Cambodia." p.5 (Also see Acid throwing for details). Jeppiz believes that Afghanistan must be added in that list, without explaining why. This person appeared out of no where and began to criticize my edits. He is very hostile, calling me a nationalist and this and that, unnecessarily reporting me here and leaving false warnings on my talk.--Fareed30 (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment from an uninvolved, non-admin editor Fareed's above comment appears to be a gross misrepresentation of what's in his source. The quote itself seems not to appear anywhere in the text, and especially not on page 5. Fareed seems to assume that because the report (which centers on Cambodia) also mentions those other three countries (and not Afghanistan), it must indicate that "experts" say these (and not Afghanistan) are the four worst offenders. Additionally, no evidence is presented that Jeppiz is trying to alter some list somewhere on Wikipedia. Jeppiz also has a considerably longer edit history than Fareed, and has been editing articles related to Pakistan since 2009, so the assertion that the former "appeared out of no where" is clearly wrong. Sarumaru the Poet (talk) 06:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I accidently posted the wrong link. I justed corrected it so check it again.--Fareed30 (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to Sarumaru. Yes, the accusations Fareed30 throws at me are somewhat odd. If a user is from country X and repeatedly alters articles to give a more possitive impression of X, then perhaps the user should not be surprised that others note this is nationalistic POV-pushing. As for "false" warnings, I warned Fareed30 over repeated removal of sourced content, I don't know what Fareed30 is "false" about that. And as Sarumaru correctly points out, the source added here by Fareed30 is not relevant to the discussion. Just because someone mentions a few countries where acid throwing is common and does not mention Afghanistan does not disqualify another source that explicitly mentions Afghanistan in that content. That, however, is a content disputed and not suited for WP:ANI. The problem is not the source, the problem is that Fareed30 edits a lot of articles with a particular POV and that he repeatedly removes sources he dislike in doing so.Jeppiz (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Holdek

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere

 – "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." Holdek (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The user recently developed an activity on merging articles without discussion and adding superfluous source requests. I note them yesterday, when they added a dozen of source requests to the article of Moscow 2011 elections. Some of the requests ask for sourcing of every sentence of one section; the section describes the election laws, and a really little effort can be made to find the sources; apparently, the user was not willing to make this effort. Several days ago, they merged an obviously notable article on the film Zvenigora to the article on the producer, Alexander Dovzhenko. Yesterday, I reverted this merger, and they opened today a merge request. During the discussion, it became clear that their understanding of WP:N is that a RS should be online cited in the article, see Talk:Alexander Dovzhenko#Merger Proposal. I also noticed that in the meanwhile earlier they removed without discussion a large chunk of the article on Southern Schleswig, citing the reason that the material is unsourced. The sources can be easily found in any textbook on the history of Europe, but apparently the editor was not willing to make this effort, and removed almost all material from the article. As a result, the article became a stub, and today they merged it into another article. The activity continues, and, as the discussion shows, the user considers this activity pretty much normal. I can not really agree, since we have a lot of unsourced material here, which can be sourced with little effort, and removing this material without this effort basically deteriorates Wikipedia. I believe that the activity should be somehow stopped. The user will be now notified.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Ymblanter, please read: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed," and "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material." (Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence) Holdek (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

May be removed is not equal to must be removed. You somehow fail to see a big picture. Only material which is really doubtful, or BLP material should be challenged. Everything else should net be challenged and should not be removed, it should be sourced. As I explained above, your activity leads to deteriorating the quality of Wikipedia and is best stopped immediately.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. In any event, this isn't the place to discuss this. Rather, you should do so on the talk pages of articles where you have issues with these edits, or on my talk page. Holdek (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• During the process of checking and improving articles I routinely hunt down the targets of the citation needed tags first and other likely to be disputed pieces. Some of these tags date back years, but the material is actually correct.[92] If it was removed the content would not exist for me to cite it, the material was a good faith addition from years back. Removal of the material is all but required of wholly negative unsourced or contentious claims that are really outlandish or on BLPs. It is best to AGF and always try to cite it before removing it yourself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) May be removed is may be removed. Material may also be sourced or tagged as needing a source. I don't see anything wrong with stubifying an article if it's mostly unsourced. I think good-faith tagging or removal of unsourced content is a good thing for the encyclopedia. If the user isn't stalking or harassing another user or trying to prove a POINT, and believes that the content should be sourced to be included, it's okay. Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

To be precise, do you personally find this edit constructive?--Ymblanter (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. It removed years-old unsourced material. Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Then I obviously need a break from editing Wikipedia, at least the articles I did not create. For me, this is a destructive edit, which removed correct information and eventually lead to an elimination of an article about a historical state.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Chillax, I can't say I disagree with the even harsher measure subsequently taken by User:Deor here [93]. Southern Schleswig is not a "historical state". Sometimes articles need to be merged or axed. Compare with Northern Schleswig. There plenty of better written and more detailed articles about that piece of history, including Schleswig-Holstein#History, History of Schleswig-Holstein and Duchy of Schleswig. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Fine, if nobody else cares, why should I care? I never edited that article, and it is outside of my usual interests.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good, are we done here? --Malerooster (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Since my name's been mentioned here, I'll just say that I completely failed to note how much material Holdek had deleted from Southern Schleswig before merging the rest to Duchy of Schleswig. I was led to the Duchy of Schleswig article because the merge resulted in the article's containing two sets of title coordinates, which threw up an error message; and my concern was that the material he added there didn't appear to fit well with the article, so I deleted it there, added a bit to the Schleswig-Holstein article (where most of the material was redundant), and retargeted the redirect to that article. A sheer oversight on my part rather than an intentional "even harsher measure". Deor (talk) 20:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to chime in on all of this, I believe that the Wikipedia project and its readers are served well by having a reputation for some factual reliability, that a reader can open up an article confident that the material he or she is reading is at least authenticated by reliable sources. The Southern Schleswig article had material that was completely unsourced for six years, and at any time that material could have been sourced by its contributors. Sometimes I source material, sometimes I template unsourced material, sometimes I remove old templated unsourced material, etc., and depending on my interest, time, and familiarity with the subject, all within Wikipedia guidelines. If someone believes I have stepped out of those guidelines, he or she is free to notify and discuss with me on my talk page. Holdek (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Arnold Reisman

This arises from a message posted at the Help desk by Lonyar (talk · contribs). Until 2010 we had an article on Professor Reisman; it was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnold Reisman (2nd nomination). The concern was failure to establish notability. In April 2011 he died, apparently. In June 2011 the article was re-created as a redirect to Judith Reisman, who was apparently his wife at one time, although her article never mentions him. Very recently Lonyar (who says that she is Reisman's ex-wife) changed the page to a biography, which cited no sources and in my view did not establish notability. Now Dismas (talk · contribs) has changed it back to a redirect. In my view what needs to be done is to delete this and salt it. (I will notify Lonyar and Dismas.) Looie496 (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I've deleted and salted the article. Note this article was previously discussed on ANI in 2010. LFaraone 19:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of it. Looie496 (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Lonyar, to answer your question from Looie's talk page, "salt"ing an article means to block it from being created again. Think "salting the earth" to keep things from growing. Basically, the article had been deleted before and there didn't seem to be any hope of Mr Reisman being notable, so to keep from having to go through the creation/deletion process again, the article would be salted.

That said, it looks like the article has been restored to User:Technical 13's userspace here so that he may work on the article and try to make it worth keeping. Dismas|^(talk) 00:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• I have had the previously deleted article WP:USERFIED to my draft space to try and make it worth saving. Due to my concerns about possible inadvertant WP:COI I've also had the draft semi-protected.

If there is anyway I can establish notability, I will run it through an AFC review before it goes live back into article space. Lonyar, I suggest that you enable emails from other editors if you haven't already then go on vacation for a couple weeks and avoid watching me work on the draft. If I have questions, I will email them.  :) Technical 13 (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• I want to note that admin Amatulic re-created the page as a redirect to Judith Reisman. I have pointed out on his talk page that there seems to be no need for such a redirect, since Arnold Reisman is not mentioned in that article - I'm bringing it here only because Amatulic's talk page says that he or she is busy on the weekends. Also, the page was protected as admin-only, but the edit notice says that it is only semi-protected, so either the protection level needs to be adjusted down, or the protection notice needs to be changed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The redirect has been deleted and salted, so I think everything's nominal at this point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

User:CamelBinky

Editing Wikipedia:Verifiability, User:Camelbinky made what amounts to a preemptive personal attack in an edit summary. Stating that 'trolls' will revert it. [94]. I nevertheless reverted, explaining on the talk page that I didn't think that it makes sense. [95]. CamelBinky concurred, and revised the material, while taking an entirely unprovoked swipe at me. [96] Meanwhile others were editing the page, trying to reach a compromise. [97] Alanscottwalker then commented on CamelBinky's preemptive personal attack, and on the need to be conservative while making changes. [98] CamelBinky's response: ":I've been on Wikipedia a year longer than you and you're personally attacking me and being a WP:DICK. Don't tell me how we do things around here, I've been working on policy pages for years and years. Policy is not supposed to be conservative, EVER, policy is supposed to reflect how we do things, and not proscribe how we will do things in the future. This policy wording has caused confusion for years and you are saying Blueboar has made it better when his hand was pretty much forced to put it back to what it was. Here's another "attack"- you're entire comment is assholish and you're a dick'. [99]

I see no reason whatsoever why contributors should have to put up with this obnoxious behaviour. It seems to be part of a pattern, where CamelBinky makes some sort of assertion or another regarding policy, and any suggestion that this might not accord with consensus is met with invective and the rest. It is not only contrary to WP:NPA policy, but disrupts discussions of policy-related matters, where the need to maintain standards, and maintain a cordial discourse is paramount. I suspect the only solution may be a topic ban - though given CamelBinky's willinness to get into policy-related debates, and engage in personal attacks while doing so, I'm not quite sure how to best define its scope.

I have no doubt that CamelBinky 's response to this will be to drag up the past behaviour of others, or otherwise try to divert attention from the fact that he basically forced others to engage in a slanging match via a preemptive edit-summary attack. Personally, I initially intended to let the matter rest (CamelBinky had after all conceded that I was correct regarding the edid concerned), but having seen CamelBinky's response to Alanscottwalker, I now feel that sanctions are necessary. We cannot permit CamelBinky's 'ownership' of policy disrupt discussions in this manner. It is simply untenable that such behaviour should be permitted in such sensitive areas. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Well, Thanks for bringing this here. That response is certainly something I've never experienced before in my "meager years" here, so given that, obviously, I think it's egregiously offensive, blockable NPA, and not just for my own sake. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm tempted to block Camelbinky for egregiously disruptively mixing up prescribe and proscribe (which have pretty much opposite meanings) and then bolding the word, but apart from that I don't see much here. I never thought I'd say this, but it actually looks more like a case for everybody having a cup of tea. Andy, that "I have no doubt that CamelBinky's response to this will be b la bla" looks like, what did you just say... yeah, a preemptive personal attack. Please everybody just chill, it would be a pity if these shows of temper between constructive editors led to blocks. Bishonen | talk 18:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC).
    • Hmmm? There is nothing constructive about that edit. Perhaps you do not realize that Andy's presentation may leave a slight misimpression. I did not just jump in to comment. I was responding to another different comment by Camelbinky that was responding to a policy comment of mine (after Camelbinky's attack summary on all editors that revert him/her - which I along with others had done) in which he/she was talking about putting me on a list.diff -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm involved, partly in the policy-changing issue, and partly because every time I run across CamelBinky, their comments are inappropriate (weasel word). What I get most annoyed with is changing fundamental policy as blithely as we change articles with a minimal consensus, if any. CamelBinky can call me an asshole if they'd just leave the policy alone.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
• From my perspective, "what we have here is a failure to communicate"... on both sides. Andy and Alan are not listening to the concerns of Camelbinky, and Cammelbinky is not listening to the concerns of Andy and Alan. And all have taken the comments of others far to personally, and responded in kind. Bishonen seems to have it right... a nice relaxing cup of tea and a break from the discussion will help everyone involved. It's not like we need to come to a decision on the policy language right this second. Blueboar (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• How exactly am I supposed to 'listen to the concerns' of someone who states outright that anyone disagreeing with them is a 'troll'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Andy, you're not altogether modelling the behavior of someone who listens to the concerns of others. How about the concern I voiced above, that your statement "I have no doubt that CamelBinky's response to this will be to drag up the past behaviour of others", etc, is a lot like CB's statement that "sure trolls will challenge anyways"? Both his sentence and yours are preemptive attacks, if you want to put it like that. They both attempt to pessimistically predict the future responses of people obviously seen as opponents or enemies, people of whom only the worst is to be expected. That's not gracious, and not likely to lead to anything good. Do you see my point? Bishonen | talk 21:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC).

• Ok, I'll strike it - then CamelBinky can prove me wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Good point. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• I didn't respond in kind, so I don't know what you mean. Personally? I didn't take anything that way except the bizarre last comment, that was obviously meant personally, as he/she said. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

In the case of the edit summary how about we think of it like this 'it's unfortunate CamelBinky thought a troll would revert them, fortunately this did not happen and AndyTheGrump did so instead'? Nil Einne (talk) 23:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Well that's one way to look at it :). But User:Camelbinky needs to explain and justify his/herself, otherwise we have to take these comments on their face that they misunderstand and are incapable of policy compliant norms. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The edit summary being questioned says: No one wanted to work on better wording, but sure trolls will challenge anyways though they don't want to help compromise with What, Blueboar, or myself. He didn't single anyone out or name names, but said it predictively. This is just like saying "If the shoe fits wear it" or as they say in Jamaica "Who the cap fit, let them wear it." Sure enough, someone always recognizes that cap and decides to put it on, but you can't blame the person who says "who the cap fit let them wear it" for making a "personal" attack. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Whether "personal" or not edit summaries are not suppose to caste general aspersions on other editors for their laziness or lack of good faith, or anything at all. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

67.87.140.155

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

67.87.140.155 has been posting fake volumes on Disney's Sing Along Songs recently. These are proven to be hoaxes. I warned him three times to stop it, but to no avail. He was blocked one time, and earlier today he was adding fake volumes to the said article again. Thankfully, I have reverted it. ACMEWikiNet (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

If true, the page needs to be semi-protected for a while. You might want to try WP:RFPP, as they are usually fairly prompt. Leave this here, too, in case someone sees it here first. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Gogo Dogo' deletion

WP:DENY

User Godo Dogo recently deleted a reviewed article with over 20 notable references. This article had been on Wikipedia for years and was in regard to five or six national universities in the USA. I wanted to edit it, but it's gone. The article is: Wireless Internet Center for Advanced Technology(WICAT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noesmadge (talk • contribs) 02:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC) You've asked Gogo Dodo about this before coming here? You've advised Gogo Dodo about this posting? The article was created on January 10, 2013, and had precisely two edits. It was created by checkuser-blocked user Noshbrian (talk · contribs), and was deleted as a G5 How are you related to Noshbrian? Acroterion (talk) 02:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC) Can somebody please block this Mangoeater1000 sockpuppet? The article hasn't "been on Wikipedia for years". The original article, Wireless Internet Center for Advanced Technology, was written in August 2012, hardly "years". And it was determined at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wireless Internet Center for Advanced Technology (WICAT) for it to be a redirect. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC) ...and blocked. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Martinvl is wreaking havoc

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Martinvl is wreaking havoc at History of the metric system, including making false allegations and taking the law into his own hands [100], [101]. He has been warring the article to death recently [102], [103], [104], [105], note too the dishonest edit summaries, and is still persisting. I have made reports at WP:RFP and WP:AN3, which have not yet been actioned. Can someone help please, he is now being seriously offensive and disruptive. 212.183.128.233 (talk) 09:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

*slowly watching the boomerang go by...* Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs) 09:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• As Martinvl has pointed out, this forum shopping is almost certainly by ipsocks of DeFacto (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Mathsci (talk) 09:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Blocked the latest sock, but please help up my memory, which banned sockmaster was this again that had a bee in his bonnet about metrication? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I protected the article for 3 days and blocked User:Martinvl for five reverts for 24h given that he had previous blocks for edit warring. I was about to block the sock as well, but Fut.Perf. beat me to it.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Uhm, wait, if we all agree the IP was an obvious ban-evading sock, then Martinvl ought of course not to be blocked for reverting them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

If we all agree, I will unblock them. So far, the discussion at the talk page is meaningful, and the edits by the sock are not vandalism, it is looking more like a content dispute.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

If the IP is a sock, then it doesn't matter whether they were engaging in good-faith content disagreement or in vandalism. Indef-blocked users are not supposed to be engaging in content disputes, since they are not supposed to be editing at all, so WP:NOT3RR applies. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure, the question is whether the sock was so much obvious that it justified breaking of 3RR. I see that Martinvl called them indeed a sock. But was it obvious to anybody else?--Ymblanter (talk) 09:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The trouble here is that Martinvl did the correct thing, filing an SPI, with quite substantial evidence, but that SPI then sat there without admin attention for several days. That's hardly his fault, and I don't think that just because no admin could be bothered to look at it must mean that a sockpuppeter must be allowed free rein in the meantime. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• I respectfully submit that the block on Martinvl was not necessary here. A word of warning would have been sufficient. --John (talk) 09:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The way I see it, Martin made a judgment call, acted on that call...and was right. His edit summaries note that it is a suspected sockpuppet he is reverting, so it is not as that wasn't his intent. Blocks are supposed to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia, and Martin was in fact protecting it with his reverts, so I think there is little point in him remaining blocked. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Good, I unblocked Martinvl and lowered the protection to semi.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Another sock? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tamilakam

User:Copperchloride keeps continuing Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing at Tamilakam. Per 21 july 2013 he made 30 edits to this page, of which 15 reverts, 3 without any explanation. Bottomline is reached at 21 july: eluding previous discussion at Talk Page; pushing POV by presenting suggestions as fact and removal of contextualising info [106] [107] [108]

His behaviour at Tamilakam is typical for his wider pattern of editing. Between 22 july 2012 and 21 july 2013:

• • 880 edits
  • three warnings for edit warring [109] [110] [111]
  • three advices on edit warring [112] [113] [114]
  • three advices on sources & references [115] [116] [117]
  • one advice on accusations of vandalism [118]
  • four warnings for disruptive editing [119] [120] [121] [122]
  • two warnings for duplicating pages [123] [124]
  • one warning for copyright violation [125]
  • two proposed deletions [126] [127]

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The above trivia by User:Joshua Jonathan is clearly a misleading compilation spectacularly composed so as to divert the real issue that is longstanding in the article, Tamilakam. My 'wider pattern for editing' has few number disputes, none that concerns User:Joshua Jonathan but all of them issues more or less related to Sri Lanka or the Sri Lankan Tamils, and involving Sri Lankan editors directly namely User:Blackknight12 and User:SriSuren to a lesser extent. In-depth insight will clarify how both the editors are more disruptive, than I'am accused of but I would like to make my stand more specific with this article.

The article Tamilakam has been subject of intense misrepresentation and POV pushing for quite a long time much before the start of my contributions to the article. User:SriSuren and User:Blackknight12 were much involved at the core of the dispute before I started contributing, later User:Joshua Jonathan.

Both the users have been involved for a long time in suppressing edits of other users to various sensitive Tamil-culture related articles often leaving very less scope for WP:NPOV. Discussions at the talk page often are not heeded to, nor are they at any point willing to reach any consensus.

Here in this article, User:Joshua Jonathan has been taking the law into hands of maintenance of the article and has completely deprived me of contributing to the article altogether. The accusations of edit warring on 21st July, cannot be backed by why he chose to remove content I have added plus sources backing my claim(the last time we were involved along with the Sri Lankan editors on what basis content was relocated from its sub-heading).

The Naga People were a Proto-Dravidian tribe that worshipped snakes, and it is well documented that being Dravidian, they spoke Tamil and were among the earliest inhabitants of the island. The ancient Tamil-Buddhist Epic mentions the kingdom of Naga Nadu, a prosperous Tamil kingdom in North Sri Lanka which had existed along with the several other Tamil kingdoms in India, Eg:Thondai Nadu, Chera Nadu etc. Both the Sri Lankan editors and Joshua have constantly rejected any form of citing to this fact, and my edits for this regard have been constantly suppressed while Tolkappiyam another equivalent Tamil Sangam Literature is being clinged on to define the boundaries of Tamilakam.

My latest edits present with sources on validity of the Manimekalai, as well as the existence of the Naga Kingdom along with the rest of the Tamil kingdoms in the ancient times, but these have all(6 edits) been totally reverted by User:Joshua Jonathan without any discussion in the talk page. Nor had he convincingly challenged them in the brief discussion we have held(are holding) in the article's talk page following his revert under WP:BRD again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Copperchloride (talk • contribs) 21 July 2013 11:00 (UTC)

The boundaries of Tamilakam, and the meaning of naga nadu have been extensively discussed at the Talk Page. There's a clear concemsus, backed up by sources, that Naga Nadu is merely mythological, and even if it existed, the Naga's were not Tamils, but Tamil-speaking people. The mentioning of Naga Nadu does not provide any prove of the habitation of Sri Lanka prior to the 3th century BCE by Tamils. Copperchloride has persistently refused to discuss about this, but chosen to revert over andover again, despite repeated warnings. Copperchloride has clearly a WP:COI, and to me seems to be a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so Naga Nadu is mythological; Copperchloride mentioned above,"The Naga People were a Proto-Dravidian...". But you say, "....the Naga's were not Tamils, but Tamil-speaking people." It is widely believed Tamils are predominantly Dravidian people. Then do you mean, "Nagas were Tamil-speaking Dravidian people"?Shivaass (talk) 13:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Historical records suggest that the South Dravidian language group had separated from a Proto-Dravidian language no later than 700 BCE, linguistic evidence suggests that they probably became distinctive around 1,100 BCE, and some scholars using linguistic methods put the deepest divisions in the language group at roughly 3,000 BCE. Russian linguist M.S. Andronov puts the split between Tamil (a written Southern Dravidian language) and Telugu (a written Central Dravidian language) at 1,500 BCE to 1,000 BCE.

The above Timeline of Language Separation between Tamil and Telugu shows, the existence of Tamil Language between 1,500 BCE to 1,000 BCE in Geographically Modified Ancient Tamilakam in the North of Naga Nadu. I don't think so if the Tamil could be there in 1,500 BCE to 1,000 BCE in Tamilakam why it can't be there in Naga Nadu just a few miles away from the Tamilakam just a few centuries back. Tamils are predominantly Dravidian with the admixture of other people at that time and later on with Indo-Aryan. I don't agree with Joshua Jonathan that, "The mentioning of Naga Nadu does not provide any prove of the habitation of Sri Lanka prior to the 3th century BCE by Tamils." He needs more home work on the history and the region involved more logically.Shivaass (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Jonathan's allegations: There has been nowhere a clear consensus, right before the times I have got involved in this article, 'Consensus' was only the voluminous citations to Tolkappiyam users such as User:SriSuren brought in to abruptly prevent anybody edit on a neutral perspective. The Nagas(backed by the sources) were Dravidians, and the Naga Nadu was an administrative entity in the island with a rich Tamil Buddhist heritage. The sources I present testify this to immaculate clarity. The mentioning of an Naga Nadu by itself a great testimony to a Tamil habitation of the island, and precisely why the Sri Lankan editors had always persistently removed its reference(just as Tamil Eelam so many times even some very desperately) from the article(by using Tolkappiyam, which ironically is a Tamil epic) so as to root out any neutral historic perspective that may arise. While Tolkappiyam is widely criticized for its historical inaccuracies (nobody knows who the author was or where he lived) and yet used for defining boundaries for the cultural homeland on the other hand, the version stated by Manimekalai one of the 5 greatest Tamil Epics in the history of Tamil language has been nullified by these editors. Jonathan has constantly almost altogether opposed me from making any edit to the article, just as User:Blackknight12 and User:SriSuren who revert edits without the slightest respect for the encyclopedia's policies.

These Sri Lankan editors(if their User Contributions go under scan) always engage in POV pushing and no amount of reasoning can get them to co-ordinate or bring a solution through dialogue. But here as I said, User:Joshua who has seemingly become the 'guardian angel' of the page(that since I raised the issue of vandalism by the Sri Lankan editors on the DRB) and has sided with the Sri Lankan editors engaging in wholesale reverting my constructive edits to depict a totally inaccurate chronology, and more interestingly blames me for not co-operating in the talk page, when it is him who does not explain his reverting each and every edit of mine. You can see how futile this exercise has been for a wikipedian like me(who is accused of WP:COI and WP:Edit warring, by the initial perpetrators themselves;the others have exceeded the WP:AN3 more than once and still thrive unblocked), and even while we are going through the issue here, see what User:Blackknight12 has come up with, no counter-explanation in the edit summary, no discussion at the talk page and the least respect for any of the policies we are doing with. --CuCl₂ ^{(talk . contr . mail)} 13:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Note: I've just fully protected the article for three days. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

This is more than just some content dispute in Tamilakam. It is the behavior of Copperchloride and his pattern of edits here on Wikipedia. He is persistent in disruptive edits, POV, use of unreliable sources, evading discussions, manipulating sources and edit warring, and I can verify Joshua Jonathan's claims. I too believe Copperchloride is Wikipedia:NOTHERE for the good of Wikipedia but for what he accuses others of, POV pushing. Similar behavioral patterns can be seen in his edits at the following articles, multiple of which he has broken the WP:3RR rule, and engaged in baseless edit warring.

• Tamil Muslim
• Tamil Eelam
• Tamilakam
• Naga people (Lanka)
• Tamil Buddhism
• Sri Lanka Army
• Riots in Sri Lanka
• Persecution of Christians
• 2013 ICC Champions Trophy
• Sri Lankans in India
• Bodhidharma

As he has accused us of not letting him edit and reverting all his contributions on the Tamilakam page, he has taken hostage of all the above mentioned articles claiming his edits are justified yet refusing to participate in discussions. The only reason there is now a ANI report under the Tamilakam article is because Joshua Jonathan volunteered to get involved and mediate with in the article, as Copperchloride would not come to discussions with me when he opposed my edits.

Copperchloride is also gung ho in "Tamilising" many Sri Lanka related articles, misrepresenting them through the manipulation of sources. Such as refusing to recognize the distinction between Tamil speaking people and ethnically Tamil people, which are highly loaded issues in Sri Lanka. Furthermore this is again highlighted by type of articles he has created (shown below), the pro Tamil-LTTE and anti Sri Lanka-Sinhalese. Obviously here with a motive.

• Jaffna Tamil dialect
• 2013 Tamil Nadu Assembly Resolution on Sri Lanka
• Mawanella massacre
• 1915 Sinhalese Muslim riots
• Jaffna Palace ruins
• Thondamannar Bridge
• Karaitivu (Puttalam)
• Haiti Sex abuse

I myself have given him multiple warnings [128] [129] [130], including others not involved. I and others involved have also been subject to personal attacks, even after an admin warning. [131] [132].--Blackknight12 (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with Blackknight12 that Copperchloride is "Tamilising" many Sri Lanka related articles, misrepresenting them through the manipulation of sources. I think even any editor involved on articles related to Sri Lanka with historical issues, they will be accused with same allegations.

How the following articles are pro Tamil-LTTE and anti Sri Lanka-Sinhalese?

• Jaffna Tamil dialect
• 2013 Tamil Nadu Assembly Resolution on Sri Lanka
• Mawanella massacre
• 1915 Sinhalese Muslim riots
• Jaffna Palace ruins
• Thondamannar Bridge
• Karaitivu (Puttalam)
• Haiti Sex abuse

It all associated with some myth Sinhalese can never be wrong-doers though I don't say Tamils are always good Samaritans.Shivaass (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Continent containing Georgia

Obitauri (talk · contribs) is trying to goad me into breaching the 3-revert-rule at Jehovah's Witnesses by country. Despite the fact that only 4% of Georgia is on the European continent, he wants to insist that it should be listed as being primarily in Europe, though the article is divided into continents geographically. There is no good reason why Georgia should be treated in a special manner whilst all other countries in the list that span borders are listed according to the largest geographical portion. The user's objections seem to be related to political motivations. The user appears to have a very recent history of edit-warring (see user's Talk page), including on topics related to Georgia. [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] --Jeffro77 (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC) Note - I would normally have taken this to the article's Talk page, however the editor in question has a recent history of edit-warring.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Georgia pushing revisited: see also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive804#User Obitauri undoing redirect to unsourced article and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive216#User:Obitauri reported by User:DVdm (Result: Protected). - DVdm (talk) 12:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

This isn't even debatable IMO; Georgia is not a European nation. Tarc (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Georgia is an European nation. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries. Also other things out of continental some lands in so called "Best border of Europe and Asia". According to The Georgian Chronicles, the ancestor of the Kartvelian people was Kartlos, the great grandson of the Biblical Japheth. Ancient Greeks (Strabo, Herodotus, Plutarch, Homer, etc.) and Romans (Titus Livius, Cornelius Tacitus, etc.) referred to early western Georgians as Colchians and eastern Georgians as Caucasian Iberians. Most historians and scholars of Georgia as well as anthropologists, archaeologists and linguists tend to agree that the ancestors of modern Georgians inhabited the southern Caucasus and northern Anatolia since the Neolithic period. Scholars usually refer to them as Proto-Kartvelian (Proto-Georgians such as Colchians and Iberians) tribes. Some European historians of the 19th century (for example, Wilhelm von Humboldt and Paul Kretschmer) as well as Georgian scholars (R. Gordeziani, S. Kaukhchishvili and Z. Gamsakhurdia) came to the conclusion that Proto-Kartvelians might be related linguistically and culturally to the indigenous (pre-Indo-European) peoples of ancient Europe including the Pelasgians, Etruscans and Proto-Basques. Georgians are classified as Caucasoids (Europoid or Europid), and often have brown hair and brown eyes. Georgians who have historically lived in alpine areas of less sunny western Georgia — especially Svans and Mingrelians- tend to have lighter features, with higher frequency of blond hair and light blue or green eyes. Alpine type of Georgian is Svan. According to Orthodox tradition, Christianity was first preached in Georgia by the Apostles Simon and Andrew in the 1st century. It became the state religion of Kartli (Iberia) in 337. Georgian is the primary language for Georgians of all provenance, including those who speak other Kartvelian languages: Svans, Mingrelians and the Laz. The language known today as Georgian is a traditional language of the eastern part of the country which has spread to most of the present-day Georgia after the post-Christianization centralization in the first millennium AD — today Georgians regardless of their ancestral region use Georgian as their official language. The regional languages — Svan and Mingrelian&nbsp — are languages of the west that were traditionally spoken in the pre-Christian Kingdom of Colchis, but later lost importance as the unified Georgian Kingdom emerged. Their decline is largely due to the capital of the unified kingdom, Tbilisi, being in the eastern part of the country — known as Iberia — effectively making the language of the east an official language of the Georgian monarch. --Obitauri (talk) 13:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Like Kazakhstan, Russia, Turkey and Azerbaijan, Georgia is a transcontinental country. A small part of it lies in Europe. Other countries like Armenia and Cyprus are geographically in Asia but have strong cultural and historical links with Europe, so are often considered European. Mathsci (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Most of the rant above by Obitauri is irrelevant. 'Europe' as a continent is not defined either by light skin or by Christianity. The suggestion that any part of the Caucasus region is necessarily part of 'Europe' is also simply wrong. The subject of the article (statistics about a religion that has members throughout Asia and Europe) has no direct relevance to 'European' culture.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

With the exception of Australia all continents are subjective and are not a hard-core scientifically defined. You can have a geographically based definition, where in this region you are calling the Caucasus Mts the "border", or you can have a politically defined where you use political boundaries. This idea of splitting Georgia, Azerbaijan and Kazakh between Europe and Asia is taking the geographical definition a bit too far, to the point of fringe, since very few sources would do that. Since the break-up of the Soviet Union I would agree that Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia are more and more likely to be put in Asia on maps and classification due to political, cultural, and historical definitions, along with obvious geographical reasons of the Caucasus. However, to call it "4% in Europe" would have to be backed by multiple reliable sources. Basing it on strict geographical reasons we would have to call Egypt, Indonesia, and Panama trans-continental as well, even the USA with Hawai'i and an argument could even be made that some of the islands of Alaska are in "Asia". Basically I'd like to see some very reliable definitive sources on geography on what the consensus amongst those with professional status say Georgia is "where".Camelbinky (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

According to the Council of Europe, "Georgia is a relatively small country, situated in the south west of Asia, bordering the Black Sea, between Turkey and Russia. Geographically, Georgia lies mostly in Asia, but part of northern Georgia is located in Europe."[138]

According to the United Nations, Georgia is part of West Asia.[139]

Should I continue?--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Whether the 4% figure (as stated at List of transcontinental countries#Georgia) is exactly accurate is immaterial to the fact that by far, most of the country lies in Asia, and international bodies agree that it lies predominantly in Asia.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The other examples of trans-continental countries listed above also demonstrates the point, as none of those other countries is being contested regarding in which continent most of the country is situated.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Jeffro for those sources, that was indeed helpful. I was wondering though if you have time, if you could find sources by experts in the field of geography, as those are political in natural and not exactly definitive sources for information regarding geography of Europe. The UN and the Council of Europe, despite its name, are not exactly the authorities on what is and is not Europe.Camelbinky (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, anonymous editor Camelbinky. I think the burden of proof at this point would be on the other editor to support their alternative claim.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Culturally, Georgia is European country. How you can say its not European with religionary, cultural, nationally. If you consider everything with locations lets start from here: Continentally Europe and Asia dont needed to be splet. Continent is land mass, rounded with water from 4 sides, not splitted with mountain ranges or rivers. I disagree splitting Europe and Asia with geographical conditions, as its not alot difference with nature and geography. If we split Europe and Asia, simple things to discuss: How close is country to Europe and if haves some land in it. Cultural conditions, national conditions, natural conditions, etc. Then they can choose if country is European or Asian but here no way to talk about this cause people strongly disagree this ideas.

I will stay on topic and say to you who says Georgia is culturally not European, or nationally Georgians are not Europeans. Georgians are Europeans nationally, culturally and historically. As I already wrote this, read it: "Georgia is an European nation. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries. Also other things out of continental some lands in so called "Best border of Europe and Asia". According to The Georgian Chronicles, the ancestor of the Kartvelian people was Kartlos, the great grandson of the Biblical Japheth. Ancient Greeks (Strabo, Herodotus, Plutarch, Homer, etc.) and Romans (Titus Livius, Cornelius Tacitus, etc.) referred to early western Georgians as Colchians and eastern Georgians as Caucasian Iberians. Most historians and scholars of Georgia as well as anthropologists, archaeologists and linguists tend to agree that the ancestors of modern Georgians inhabited the southern Caucasus and northern Anatolia since the Neolithic period. Scholars usually refer to them as Proto-Kartvelian (Proto-Georgians such as Colchians and Iberians) tribes. Some European historians of the 19th century (for example, Wilhelm von Humboldt and Paul Kretschmer) as well as Georgian scholars (R. Gordeziani, S. Kaukhchishvili and Z. Gamsakhurdia) came to the conclusion that Proto-Kartvelians might be related linguistically and culturally to the indigenous (pre-Indo-European) peoples of ancient Europe including the Pelasgians, Etruscans and Proto-Basques. Georgians are classified as Caucasoids (Europoid or Europid), and often have brown hair and brown eyes. Georgians who have historically lived in alpine areas of less sunny western Georgia — especially Svans and Mingrelians- tend to have lighter features, with higher frequency of blond hair and light blue or green eyes. Alpine type of Georgian is Svan. According to Orthodox tradition, Christianity was first preached in Georgia by the Apostles Simon and Andrew in the 1st century. It became the state religion of Kartli (Iberia) in 337. Georgian is the primary language for Georgians of all provenance, including those who speak other Kartvelian languages: Svans, Mingrelians and the Laz. The language known today as Georgian is a traditional language of the eastern part of the country which has spread to most of the present-day Georgia after the post-Christianization centralization in the first millennium AD — today Georgians regardless of their ancestral region use Georgian as their official language. The regional languages — Svan and Mingrelian&nbsp — are languages of the west that were traditionally spoken in the pre-Christian Kingdom of Colchis, but later lost importance as the unified Georgian Kingdom emerged. Their decline is largely due to the capital of the unified kingdom, Tbilisi, being in the eastern part of the country — known as Iberia — effectively making the language of the east an official language of the Georgian monarch." Hope you at least agree, Georgia is culturally European as other articles and sources agree too. If you just made list with Geographical conditions, I cant do anything here then cause Wikipedia agrees different borderings than I do. Georgia is culturally, nationally, historically, naturally European. If you just do this with Geographical conditions which wikipedia agrees, ok keep it here but I will NEVER agree people who says Georgia is not culturally, nationally, naturally European. Georgia is like this with Wikipedia conditions: Located mainly in Asia, but culturally, nationally and historically is European --Obitauri (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Your subjective comments about 'culture' have no bearing on the geography of Georgia. Further, you have only provided one 'source' (a Wiki link), and it states in the footnote for Georgia that "Georgia and Azerbaijan are mostly in Asia with small portions north of the Caucasus Mountains divide in Europe".

And you've just pasted a large irrelevant passage that you already previously provided above. As I already directly responded to your rant the first time you said it, I really don't see why you thought you should paste it again.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

You can check article "Georgian People", also "History Of Georgia", you can read Georgian history books, also look Georgian flag, religion, coat of arms and history of kings. Georgia is christian since 300 AD. Also people are considered as European. If you know Europeids are also called "Caucasoids". Origin of European people is in Caucasus region. Geographically difference only according to even wikipedia. Even wikipedia agrees that Georgian people are Europeans. --Obitauri (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how it's remotely relevant whether you personally consider Georgia to be anything in particular.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know if this has any bearing on the current dispute, but as a historical fact that people today are often ignorant of: For thousands of years, until about 300 years ago, Europeans considered Europe to end, and Asia to begin, at the Don River, which put all of the Caucasus in Asia. Around 300 years ago they "expanded" the concept of Europe past the Don, as extending all the way to the Caucasus. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you think of a good reason why Wikipedia articles should apply a 300-year-old definition of Europe that ignores plate tectonics and modern definitions used by international organisations?--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course it shouldn't - current consensus is how we define Europe today, not pre-1700 traditional definitions. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC) It's actually the newer definition that is "300 years old", buut I knew what you meant. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I obviously meant 300 years out of date. :) --Jeffro77 (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is not something that has to be discussed afresh every three months. There are multiple sources (National Geographic, BBC, CIA Factbook, UN, etc) all with slightly different interpretations. These are all mentioned in the detailed footnotes for Europe. Where there is ambiguity, the usual method for as long as I can remember has been to clarify matters with sourced footnotes or explanations in the main text. That applies for example to Malta: situated geographically in Africa, but considered part of Europe. The standard academic reference is: Lewis & Wigen (1997), The myth of continents: a critique of metageography. University of California Press. Mathsci (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The map at Europe#Definition also shows that very little of Georgia is actually located on the continent of Europe. However, the broader issue here is the edit warring by Obitauri on various articles relating to Georgia.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Obitauri's edits were already reverted on Ethnic groups of Europe by Chipmunkdavis. There were similar problems recently in that article with Armenia and a different user. The solution was to add footnotes about the Southern Caucasus. Could this be another sockpuppet of Satt 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Mathsci (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not sockpuppet and stop saying this things which you dont know. Want check my ip? --Obitauri (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Urgent revdel required

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See [140]. Please revdel it, thankyou, ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 14:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if these comments were removed swiftly, thankyou. ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 14:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is really necessary. The second criteria for revdel does allow for the deletion of grossly offensive material such as smears, but not "ordinary incivility...or personal attacks". This comment has already been removed from the talk page and so it isn't readily visible. As an aside, I think it would be for the best if you reviewed your use of the {{adminhelp}} template. I can't think of any reason why it should be used here or at AN. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

This is grossly offensive material. Can you please remove it immediatly? I do not appreciate being called a "cunt" by a sockpuppet. ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 15:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate that personal attacks can be upsetting; none of us like being called names. That isn't a reason for revision deletion, though. The comment has already been removed. I've deliberately left this open for someone else to review if they want. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

This would be a serious misuse of revision deletion for a simple, vulgar insult. One does have a right to be free of such insults on this project, but demanding that they be sent down the memory hole is a wee bit of an overreaction. Revert it, block the offender, and go on your merry way. Tarc (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I've seen less-obscene attacks than that rev-del'd. So, too, should this one be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Rev deletion is terribly misused. The policy clearly states that RD2 is:

not mere factual statements, and not "ordinary" incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations (emphasis in the policy)

This, and I would say a majority of the material deleted under RD2 or RD3, should not be revdeleted. Prodego ^talk 17:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

If you don't rev-del it, it tells the world that that kind of abuse is perfectly OK, thus encouraging more of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

This is one time for us to disagree, Bugs. RBI. Tiderolls 17:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Bugs. It has no redeeming value whatsoever and disturbs the wiki's character. Why keep it? Wouldn't you want it deleted if it was on your page or at your expense? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For the future

The admins have just declared that gross obscenities are perfectly acceptable and don't harm Wikipedia. And they wonder why Wikipedia is ridiculed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I recall saying no such thing. The user making the statement was blocked. If a removed comment saying mean things is too much for you, then this is not the right project for you. Prodego ^talk 17:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Think of it this way — revdel is generally a simpler way of getting rid of a diff that qualifies for selective deletion. Would you suggest that we delete the page entirely to get rid of this incivility? The context shows that it's generally meant for things like "_____ collects child pornography" or "_____ murdered _____"; exceptions apply as always, but if we found this a good candidate for revdel, we'd either leave tons of eligible stuff undeleted or we'd be going crazy deleting all of it. Nyttend (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

If that's your bar for revdel Bugs, there's almost nothing that can be both offensive and yet not qualify for revdel. Someone using a bad word is not a reason to revdel, or more broadly, to go crying to a higher authority. Shadowjams (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't go crying to any higher authority, the OP did that - and was effectively told "F.U." by those higher authorities. Another proud moment for Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite proud at the moment, actually, as I view this as an anti-whining and pro-grow-the-fuck-up moment. Yes, bad words are mean, but that's what a simple revert or rollback can fix. A vandal that posts "so-and-so is an <insert insult here>" just needs to be removed from view, it does not need to be obliterated from history for all-time. Contrary to the cartoons of your namesake bro, people don't really call the fire department to get kittens out of trees. And on top of that, looking thru this user's talk page, I see a lot of Chicken Little stuff, like badgering the WMF's emergency e-mail address because he got blocked by an en.wiki admin. IMO further posts of this nature are going to see a WP:BOOMERANG. Tarc (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Actually, lowering oneself to obscenities is the opposite of acting "grown up". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

While when I was more active I was often in agreement with Bugs and often found myself at odds with Tarc, I do have to say I agree with Tarc in this case. But I do have this question for Tarc, or anyone who wishes to respond- should we have a set of words, similar to [George Carlin]]'s set of seven words you cant say on TV? Of which if those words are said about someone, it would allow for a revdel? Could this be a policy change that would heal some of the animosity found here between those who say not enough was done and those that say if a revdel WAS done then it would be a slippery slope to revdel'ing something every second of every day?Camelbinky (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

We shouldn't have such a list; besides the WP:BEANS issue, we shouldn't delete stuff simply because of bad language. Revert it, but don't make it invisible to non-admins except in the most egregious cases; each situation is different, so "most egregious cases" will have to be decided case-by-case. Nyttend (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I see the "beans" issue, I was just trying to figure out some sort of way where Bugs did not feel like Wikipedia let everyone down, he's a good editor and means well.Camelbinky (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

ip resuming bad habits

First reported here and subsequently here, a combination of a registered user Skellands (talk · contribs), and now various ips, have attacked the article James King (Royal Navy officer) to insert falsified information. With the last ip still under a six month block for vandalism, up pops 216.129.211.44 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to resume this pattern of behaviour ([141], [142], etc). Though the ip should probably be blocked as a fairly obvious sock, I wonder about page protection since this is a perennial problem. Given the long gaps between these attacks I don't know that it would be the ideal solution, but perhaps admins might have a different view? Benea (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

As the article has been stable for years, other than this ongoing problem, I think some fairly long-term semi-protection should be done. I will put it under semi-protection for six months to start, and if the problems resumes when the protection wears off, please ask for another round of protection at the WP:RFPP noticeboard (here is ok too, but the specific noticeboard is the best place to go). -- Diannaa (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/80.47.181.51 - Troll using his talk page to troll more

I request this user's talk page access be revoked. He has been repeatedly blocked for obvious bad faith edits and his unblock requests be declined. Currently he's again trying to get unblocked in bad faith. Ginsuloft (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• I've procedurally declined the unblock request. I did not notice significant disruption on the user talk page. I'll watch for further developments. Tiderolls 18:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• For the record, this IP is an obvious sockpuppet account of User:Samlaptop. -Thibbs (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:COMPETENCE problem with Arctic Kangaroo on AfC

Arctic Kangaroo (talk · contribs) is an enthusiastic young editor who has taken an interest in Articles for creation and helped reduce the backlog. Unfortunately, he's been making too many mistakes, mostly declining articles on people who are actually notable for irrelevant or spurious reasons (eg: Austen M. Purves, Jr., Paul Prucnal, Mike Feerick, Sarah Green, Nitzan Chen).

My impression is that AK is rushing through submissions, declining them too quickly. I've already had words with him at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/July 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive#Increasingly frivolous multiple decline reasons, and Mdann52 has also advised him to back off AfC for a bit as he's causing too many problems here. I've also been advised by Geo Swan of a further problem over on Commons over a lack of understanding of our copyright policies here. Despite increasingly straight talking, I find he's still making questionable judgement calls on AfC today here. He really needs to just take a break from this area.

AK's not malicious, he wants to help and feels he is, but I just don't feel he has the required maturity to deal with AfC reviewing, and as such I feel a topic ban from AfC would help protect the encyclopaedia. What does everyone else think? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I've recently been helping on out the -en-help channel of IRC and the week of the backlog, there were at least a few AfC submitters that popped in asking why their draft had been declined. Upon review, I had no good answer for them because I could see no reason to decline (some only had minor formating issues or bare URLs that needed fixing, not a reason to decline), and all had been declined by AK. I agree that AK is likely good intentioned, but unable to to reasonably assess these drafts. I've personally kept my reviewing to a minimum (instead focusing on improving the templates and the reviewer script) patiently awaiting the completion of Theonesean's AFC reviewer training program and think that an enforced topic ban would be appropriate here if AK refuses to self impose one until he can complete the training program. Technical 13 (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I see that Arctic Kangeroo has been notified. When he posts here, it would be helpful if he briefly explained why he declined the specific AfC's mentioned above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Catlvr6969

Could an admin revoke this user's talk page access? He's been insulting editors since being blocked, such as what he added with this edit. Thanks. Lugia2453 (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Restore my username please

Hi, can my user of Whispering Wind be restored please? 91.125.151.10 (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't see that you've ever registered by that name. There was a "Whispering wind" who created an account nine years ago, but made no edits. Why do you think you have that account name?—Kww(talk) 22:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Because I created this account and made some edits on it. 91.125.151.10 (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

What articles? About when?—Kww(talk) 22:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

We do have a User:The Whispering Wind. Is that the account? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)