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)
• Support per Scott Martin. GregJackP Boomer! 14:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Having visited the AE page, the only conclusion I can draw is that Sandstein is the only Admin who is actively involved in that forum. I'm not surprised if some users come to the conclusion that there are ownership issues here but, frankly, there should be at least half a dozen active Admins weighing in and, in a cursory view, that doesn't seem to be the case. The problem is not with Sandstein, it's with the fact that he/she seems to be the only (or one of the few) Admins willing to resolve cases there. So, of course, there are going to be people unhappy with his/her decisions.

The solution is not for a ban or block on Sandstein (who is really taking on a thankless job) and instead bring in more Admins to resolve cases on the AE page, so more points of view are heard from. I think people would quickly see that Admins hold to some common guidelines and do not impose sanctions arbitrarily. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 19:20, 25 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)
• We all know what this scandal is about, and what needs to be done. But everyone who counts has been bought off with Gibraltar money, and there's no one left with the guts to tell it like it is. Warrior of Zen (talk) 11:25, 22 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)
26. Support per Hahc21's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
27. Support per Carrite and Anthonyhcole. GregJackP Boomer! 14:43, 24 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)

  Frankly, as someone involved in cleaning up articles on firearms, I can tell you that "woefully and erratically incomplete" and "often containing very dubious content" applies to that topic area as well. It's not just the "pantsy" academic areas that are plagued by such problems. Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:41, 23 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)

Sandstein, your snide, childish, self-congratulatory arrogance here is almost unbelievable, and you're clearly not even paying attention, though that is no surprise. Who do you think you could possibly be fooling with this "see, you haven't really stopped editing, tee hee hee" act? Three major contributors have stopped editing on one level or another in response to your abuses. I've stopped editing other than to try to tie up a few loose ends, including the dispute between us. Neotarf as far as I know is doing something similar, and not editing encyclopedia content any longer. Noetica doesn't edit at all. Secondly, your bogus 1-month topic ban against me is not the outstanding issue between us (though it should also be vacated as violation of admin authority on several levels). it's your unretracted false accusations against me, Noetica, Neotarf and Ohconfucius, as has been explained to you many, many times. Thirdly, ANI is part of the Wikipedia dispute resolution process, or did you somehow forget that? I'm happy to attempt to have ANI resolve some of these issues, since it more closely represents actual Wikipedia community response, instead of or in advance of ArbCom doing so, with all of its excessively legalistic process-wonking. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 02:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Based on what I've witnessed, Sandstein does not seem to take responsibility for his actions when he screws up and I've never seen him apologize.

Full disclosure: I had my own run-in with Sandstein related to a long-term campaign of bullying and cyberstalking by a small group that even ArbCom initially failed to put a stop to (later mostly resolved by the combined efforts of the community and ArbCom). After a botched ArbCom case that did absolutely nothing to resolve the problem, the main person involved discovered AE could be easily gamed to further bully and harass.

At one point in frustration I made this reply at AE for which Sandstein initially blocked me for 72 hours. [My comments were later found to be very much valid [13] [14] [15] (more background linked on my talk page).] In response to the 72 hour block, I then made the mistake of venting some of my frustration regarding the cyberstalking and bullying towards Sandstein off-wiki via email (I had already made him aware of it previously, so he knew full well going into this what was happening). Ten (10) hours later, Sandstein indef blocked me.

Getting that indef block resolved was an absolute nightmare and was further complicated by the fact that Sandstein seemed to be promoting this block as an AE action (which it wasn't). Even though a number of administrators who asked me to send them copies of the email I had sent Sandstein strongly disagreed with the block, none wanted to potentially run afoul of ArbCom if the block really was an AE action.

While I try not to hold any resentment towards Sandstein [16] it bothers me to no end that even more 3 years later, he still doesn't seem to have learned anything from his past mistakes. If he is still making poor decisions at AE, then clearly he needs to step away from AE. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:27, 24 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 [17]. 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". [18] 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)
    • Maybe we should be talking about the July award for failing to communicate one's point clearly... A problematic issue for an admin. Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: make Sandstein enforcer of WP:IAR

• Support. Count Iblis (talk) 11:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support. He is ideal for this role. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose This conversation has clearly devolved into one, mudthrowing fest. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 19:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• If you think so, you should support this proposal. Count Iblis (talk) 13:05, 26 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[19]', clearly violate[20] WP:Involved, and commit a horrendous block[21] 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[22]...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'[23]?...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 6,909,179 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)

That's half of it, and ... — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 02:23, 22 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)

... that's the other half. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 02:23, 22 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)
  • It is misleading to sum up the situation as concerning "unpleasant things about another's religion" without mentioning that the issue was whether a proponent of scientology should be banned from that topic. The comments that resulted in a block were "scientology is a ridiculous cult and we do not need members of said cult" and "an abjectly inane belief system" (please see Xenu before disagreeing with the last statement). It is perhaps reasonable to take AGF, grossly inflate it, then announce that such comments should not be directed to another editor. However, the comments were not run-of-the-mill unpleasantry about a religion. Johnuniq (talk) 04:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Propose to Close

It's been almost two full weeks this thread had been open. It time for EVERYONE to drop the WP:STICK, I really don't like how Sandstein has conducted himself in several situations but enough is enough here. Nothing is or will happen here.

• Support as proposer. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for closure and archival

This has been up for some 12 days now, even though discussion has stalled and I think it's pretty clear by now that this will not result in administrative action. Additionally, the discussion among arbitrators at WP:ARCA#Clarification request: Scientology has broadly supported my view that the naming of the editor at issue against their expressed will constitutes (at least) harassment, except perhaps under certain circumstances not present here. The presence of certain parts of this thread in this public space may contribute to this harassment. For these reasons, I request that an uninvolved administrator close and archive this discussion.

If people disagree with my AE actions, I am always ready to discuss them, but – particularly if they relate to private information – I ask any who disagree to pursue the formal appeals and/or dispute resolution process, rather than to just make noise and assumptions of bad faith in public fora, which (as shown here) accomplishes little. As discussed in the clarification request, as soon as that request is closed, I intend to replace the sanction relating to The Devil's Advocate (which has failed to accomplish its purpose) with a sanction intended to prevent the continuation of the harassment at issue here more generally.  Sandstein  15:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

That should go over well and reduce the drahma :), just saying. --Malerooster (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Your view (and block reason) was that it was outing, and that view has not been supported. You would have to warn or sanction at least two arbitrators for telling you exactly the same thing that Peter cohen and TDA told you. In addition, there was a significant conflict of interest in the article at question (if you really don't understand what it was, e-mail me), which is precisely the circumstance under which arbitrators said a reference to the identity per se would not be harassment. I am afraid you seem to have learnt nothing from this. Andreas JN466 13:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

As I have discussed in more detail at the ARCA thread, outing is but one form of harassment, so whether or not the conduct at issue is outing does not change that it is just as sanctionable as "normal" harassment. Furthermore, the block of Drg55 for his harassment remains in force (his appeal to BASC seems to have been declined), and his conduct is not excused by any conflict of interest situation because his own topic ban appeal was not the place for a discussion (which he did not engage in, he was just belting out an alleged real name despite warnings) of another editor's alleged conflict of interest in an article.  Sandstein  16:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Facepalm You said on 16 July, 'I have now been pointed to a 2009 edit by Prioryman where they acknowledge their real name by providing a diff in which, they say, they edited a citation to their own works, and where the diff leads to a reference with the name at issue. This excludes outing in the narrow sense defined at WP:OUTING, because that policy excepts situations where "that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia".' This is the precise information what Peter cohen and The Devil's Advocate pointed you to, weeks ago, because it was contained in the links they dropped you. Instead of looking at it, you peremptorily warned and sanctioned them. (I actually missed that post of yours last week at WP:ARCA; had I seen it, I would not have described your proposed further action as "unspecified" earlier today.) You shot first, and asked questions later. Can you see how this may look inappropriate to bystanders looking on? At least please apologise to the two of them. You'll look a whole lot more human as a result. Andreas JN466 18:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I was not provided by either user with the specific 2009 diff you mention, just broad claims and links to huge old discussions (e.g here) about how it was not outing. As I am trying to communicate, in my view, whether or not it was technically outing is not in any case relevant. Either way, Drg55's conduct – repeatedly reinserting an alleged real name at AE for no legitimate purpose despite another admin's warning – was indefensible harassment, and the two users you mention repeatedly contacted me on my talk page attempting to defend it and threatening noticeboard discussions about it (e.g [24]), which in my view would have been just more venues for "accidental" name-dropping and thereby continued harassment, as this thread has indeed in part become.

Jayen466, I am aware that there is bad blood between the user at issue and many users here, including you (you were a party to WP:ARBSCI and were topic-banned there for Scientology-related editwarring), apparently because of old dramas involving Scientology- and Gibraltar-related issues. I am not familiar with those dramas or who is to blame for them (it may well be the user at issue, for all I know). I do know, however, that this has escalated in a slow-burning feud conducted on- and off-wiki in part by using harassment and privacy breaches as a weapon. This is not acceptable, and WP:AC/DS mandates administrators to stop it wherever it threatens to escalate. You and your friends must understand that old animosities, however legitimate they may appear to you, do not allow any editor to misuse Wikipedia as a battleground. I am therefore warning you and all others here that, if I am made aware of similar instances of harassment continuing (particularly publishing alleged real names), those responsible for them may be made subject to a range of discretionary sanctions per WP:ARBSCI#1 June 2012 amendment. Uninvolved editors should be aware that opposing discretionary sanctions in this topic area without proper consideration of all circumstances is likely to have the unintended effect of promoting continued feuding and harrassment.  Sandstein  19:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

That you were not provided with the specific diff that now seems to have satisfied you might well have had something to do with the chilling effect your ham-fisted actions induced, or indeed with a genuine desire to not give undue prominence to the information at issue. Instead of handing out warnings and a sanction, you could just as easily have e-mailed either Peter cohen or TDA and asked them to point you to the relevant bit in the "huge discussion" you were not prepared to read. As you bring up WP:ARBSCI, for the second time now, reference to that page will tell you that my finding of fact and sanction in that case were rather lighter than Prioryman's. They certainly did not involve a topic ban from the Scientology topic area as you falsely imply above. I went on to write a GA in the topic area a few months after the case concluded. I have never once used Prioryman's name on Wikipedia (unlike several of his friends), I have scrupulously avoided using it in this discussion, as has everyone else (with one exception, which was neither Peter cohen nor TDA), and I have no intention of departing from that practice. Casting aspersions on me does not change the fact that you owe Peter and TDA an apology. The sooner you make it, the better, and then we can all move on. Andreas JN466 21:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

OK. The subject of the incident has called for closure and archival. Move along folks. Nothing to see here. Seriously? The use of AE warnings and sanctions noted in this thread are absolutely outside of the intent of the Arbcom cases. You can scream, "broadly construed," until you are smurfy blue but that doesn't change the fact that some of the editors in this complaint didn't edit anything related to the topic of the Arbcom case. - UnbelievableError (talk) 03:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The subject of the thread engaged in a delaying tactic saying that discussion should be put on hold saying that we should wait on Arbcom, then he comes back here and says that discussion has stalled. Whose fault is that? He's now admitting that he did not bother to read the thread he was pointed to by two different readers even though and is spinning a thread of his imagination to come up with increasingly bizarre reasons to justify himself.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Reminder from an AUSC Member

If anyone objects to a functionary action using the CU or OS tools, I just want to remind you all that the AUSC exists to review functionary actions that community members feel are outside the checkuser and oversight polices. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 20:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

In other words you want this buried in the non-transparent, do-nothing committees. The nature of the edits in question is clear enough, there's no "private information" contrary to assertions above, making this redirection to yet another committee a clear waste of time. On the other hand, I agree that there is not going to be a community consensus here to lift the sanctions, even if there's a slight majority in favor (27:20), so this thread should be closed. This is not the first railroading by clever use of procedure I see on these boards (asking the wrong questions at ArbCom [25] & splitting the discussion with the inevitable consequence that some community voices [26] only post in only one venue); and it probably won't be last either. On the other hand, these sanctions hardly affect 'pedia content, so we can all move on. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's do what the third banner on this page calls for. Count Iblis (talk) 22:39, 24 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)

• AK is keen to be of help on Wikipedia, and always cheerful. However, maintenance areas are always a magnet to younger and/or inexperienced editors, and AK is no exception. I've tried to help him a few times as evidenced here, here, here, here, and here. His responses to me are always friendly and polite and he's the kind kind of editor I would willingly adopt if I did adoptions. I don't think any admin action is needed here other than a firm message to slow down a bit, stop reviewing and/or patrolling new pages for a while until at least we have a satisfactory report from his mentor. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I had no idea an AfC reviewer mentoring program was in place, and I think sending AK on that is a much, much, better idea than any sort of formal action, if I'm honest. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• I am sorry, but in my limited interaction with him, I did not find AK to be "keen to be of help". Rather, I found him willing to cause a lot of disruption in order to get his own way, even when doing so would cause a lot of inconvenience to others. Mind you, those threats of disruption were over at Commons, and, traditionally, bad behaviour at one WMF project isn't held against a contributor who seems to be well behaved at another project. But AK threatened something highly disruptive there -- across dozens of projects.

1. AK requested deletion of a fine image, one widely used across many WMF projects, asserting he was no longer licensing it for use one commons -- because he wanted it to be used exclusively on en.wiki. His justification for doing so was, frankly, trivial and selfish.
2. Of course he can't claw back a legitimate cc-by-sa license -- it is irrevocable. We sometimes agree to delete properly licensed images -- as a courtesy. But no one could remember doing so when that image was widely used.
3. AK then seemed to announce that he would address the "widely used" objection, by going to all those other WMF projects, and editing the articles that were using the image in question, so they no longer used it. What AK threatened here was, frankly, extremely selfish and extremely disruptive.
4. Two followup comments AK made seem to indicate that AK actually started going to other wikis, to try to edit articles so they no long used his image -- only to be frustrated by instances when he lacked permission to perform the disruptive acts of selfish image removal. We have no idea on how many WMF projects he succeeded in this selfish image removal.
5. I don't think AK has shown any contrition. I've asked him on which projects he succeeded in his clandestine image removal plan -- no reply so far.

Since he started acting as a reviewer, at AfC, Arctic Kangaroo declined 614 candidate articles, and agreed to move 138 articles to article space. I am afraid I think we should have no confidence in AK's judgement and that all 752 decisions need to be reviewed. Here is a list of candidate articles that he declined: User:Geo Swan/AK's AfC declines.

Yes, I agree, that participating on WMF projects can be a good learning experience for keen young people. But providing that learning experience should only be accommodated when it is consistent with our primary goal of building an encyclopedia.

I suggest that when a contributor's record suggests a long learning curve before they can counted on to make contributions that we can count on being overall positive, it would be in the best interest of the project if we did not encourage them to try to contribute in critical areas -- like quality control. Over in the Commons deletion discussion AK insisted he did understand copyright and related IP issues, yet he kept making assertions that demonstrated he did not understand copyright and IP issues. For instance, he not only thought he was entitled to remove instances where his image was being used on other WMF projects he thought that if the image was deleted from the commons his release of his intellectual property rights would lapse, and he would have all his original IP rights restored. AK was not open to learning from his mistakes there, and I suggest this implies he won't be very open to learning from his mistakes here. Geo Swan (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• I appreciate AK's eagerness (even though he stole my signature without attribution), however, I have also found that he is not overly keen to accept critique. I'm not going to go digging for the details, but he once screwed up something pretty badly that he should not have been touching in the first place. He had already been previously warned not to do that type of action. I dropped a friendly WTF notice on his talkpage so that he could fix the problem himself instead of further action being taken. Many many days later, he tried to use that friendly kick as an example of me being "uncivil", rather than the helpful learning (and non-blocking) experience that it was. I would far prefer to rein him in than anything else - perhaps a voluntary ban on AFC, plus engaging him to assist in the re-review of all of his AFC actions (just like we do on CCI) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • @Bwilkins: As I have mentioned, it was not about "WTF". Rather, it was about the shouting (with ?!?!?!). ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

AK, you probably want to let this one drop. I found the exchange, read through it, and concluded that Bwilkins was simply giving you good advice. You should take that advice in the spirit intended. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Yup, I dropped it long ago. I'm just explaining to let him understand. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

A voluntary ban is a good option if the editor is patient enough to do that and learn through the process. It is better to have a large backlog instead of having discouraged first time article creators.  A m i t  웃   02:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• I ran into one of AK's poorly considered declines at AFC, on a biography I thought was quite worthy. Here is the decline decision by AK, based on the actress being "non-notable". After a call for help at the Film Project, a few of us teamed up to expand the article and nail down the references. The resulting Miriam Battista biography was soon featured at "Did you know?" and is now a cheerful little article assessed as C-Class. The editor who first proposed the article became more interested in Wikipedia and has been working on other articles. I shudder to think how many such promising contributors have been scared away by an unreasonable decline from AK. Binksternet (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• He probably is the least accurate of all the frequent AfC reviewers. Examining 3 dozen random declines from the list given, about 25% needed speedy deletion but weren't nominated, about 25% could be accepted with only minor changes, about 25% were not acceptable but the reason given wasn't accurate, and the others were declined correctly, though in no case did he offer what I consider sufficient advice. At least a few of the promising new editors have been scared away by the reviews, and I'm trying to bring back some of them, but it's probably too late. (About half of the declines were reviewed by one or more other editors . Many of these subsequent reviews were not correct either. My guesstimate that 60% is the average level of accuracy for AfC declines; that's a very poor figure, but his accuracy is only half that.

Frankly, I've tried to assist AK, but I don't think he understands. Most reviewers I try to help do learn to understand, and some realize they need to learn more before they continue. We have to clean up the AfC reviewing, and here's a place to start. If he won;t accept a voluntary topic ban from AfC (and NPP, because he'd do just as much harm there), he needs it done involuntarily to protect our new contributors. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

In his time on Wikipedia, AK started just three articles; two are now Start Class and one is a Stub. I suggest that AFC volunteers ought to be familiar with the process of taking their articles at least to B-Class, and more than just a few of them. Binksternet (talk) 05:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

AK's AfC submissions for this month are in his July backlog drive chart here. As part of the backlog drive, other, more experienced editors, should review the submissions. AK has voluntarily signed up for his contributions to be reviewed, so if you want to specifically track his progress, this is the place to do it. 21 fails out of 79 checks so far is about 1 in 4 called wrongly, but only about 1/10 of his reviews have been checked so far. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

So, will someone be telling him that such "quality" of work will most definitely not obtain the award he seems to be chasing after - just like all edits, it's quality not quantity that matters (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many times I've gotta say this, that it's my inexperience and noobiness that's spoiling the quality of some. The rest of the reviews are fine. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Hmmm. This is a confusing comment -- implying you have acknowledged that your declines fell short in earlier messages. But isn't this the first time you have acknowledged that your declines fell short?

Do you know the aphorism "even a stopped clock is correct twice a day". Using DGG's assessment of how often you gave the useful, correct reason for declining, are your declines really that much more accurate than random chance? Even the 60 percent accurate, 40 percent inaccurate DGG estimated for other reviewers determinations is disturbing.

I don't think you understand why a bad determination at AfC is damaging to the project. I question whether you really want to understand. How about you describe your understanding of how a bad determination affects a genuine newbie who has struggled hard to prepare a new article? User:Geo Swan 19:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

For the Commons thing, Commoners are being unreasonable. Sometimes, rules should be bent a little, especially if it is a mistake (yes, it was all a mistake to upload those images). But anyway, I'm not gonna delve into details, since this is not the place and what we are talking about. Back to point, I don't mind taking a short semi-break at AfC. Anyway, I've got the haze article to get busy with these few days, since Indonesia is back, and the haze has hit Malaysia yet again, although Singapore has been unaffected by the return. And BTW, I did not know about the AfC course, but I signed up yesterday after reading about it. As for not responding immediately, I just wanted to see some comments first, so at least I can respond better. Cheers. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Besides AK, I think there is a larger problem with AfC... every time I take a look at the submissions, I remain often puzzled by the lack of competence of many reviewers... I think we should have a "method" to avoid these "incidents". Cavarrone 12:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban proposed

This is pretty alarming, especially DGG's experiences with the editor. AK is enthusiastic and wants to help — those are excellent qualities — we do want to be nice and appreciative and encouraging to him, but the risk of scaring off well-intentioned new contributors must surely take priority. AK hasn't chosen to take part in this discussion, even though he was immediately alerted of it, and is editing. That doesn't bode well for the idea of a voluntary ban which was broached above, and I just don't think we ought to wait for something like that. I suggest a topic ban from AfC and WP:NPP until such time as AK either can show that he "understands", per DGG above, or else gets a mentor who ongoingly checks all his work in these areas. Bishonen | talk 13:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC).

AK has not touched any AfC reviews since this one two days ago, and has been working on content. If he says he's going to voluntarily abstain from AfC, let's take him at his word for the minute. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

@Ritchie: I'm on semi-AfC-break, as mentioned above. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree on the same. He has himself enrolled to the AFC course and we should assume good faith this time. And probably thats the end of this ANI too...  A m i t  웃   14:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I would like to see AK declare a full break from AFC for six months while he works on content. Binksternet (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Six months, I would say, is almost impossible. Furthermore, it's a full break and I will be a free bird after October 2, having nothing to do everyday until perhaps, the start of 2014. If it's semi-break, I don't mind, but for a full break, especially one that's 6 months long, nah. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I've been on Wikipedia for seven years, on the internet in one form or another for about 20, and on this planet for nearly 40. And that's not saying much. You can do six months. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

At the moment, I will only be reviewing Doncram's submissions. Easiest to find, easiest to review. For the rest of them, will discuss here. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, AK, that is not the offer that is on the table. As you can see upthread, some editors (not least DGG and BWilkins) are quite comfortable with serving you a mandatory AfC / NPP topic ban right here, right now, but Binksternet has given what seems to be a compromise. The offer is - no AfC work at all for six months, stick to articles, get a mentor and read up on policies. I think, unless anyone else wants to pass comment, the only question now is whether you want to accept that off your own back, or whether you want it to be imposed on you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Ritchie333's assessment above. A semi-AfC pause presumably means that AK will do less AfC work than now, concentrating only on those areas which s/he judges to be uncontroversial. That's the problem; it's AK's judgement about what is and is not controversial which is at issue, and the consensus is that AK's judgement is poor. I'm not in favour of a semi-AfC pause. I'm not very keen on voluntary, self-imposed band either but a total voluntary ban, strictly adhered to, for 6 months would convince me. Failing that it's a community imposed ban, for my money. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec with Kim) Agree with Ritchie. A six-month topic ban makes sense, and a "semi-break" doesn't sound promising at all; impossible to supervise, in fact essentially completely up to the user's own judgment, which has been questioned here. That's probably why you never hear of "semi-bans". AK, did you really not think there were any comments here worth answering until just after an explicit proposal of a topic ban had been made (by me)? I can't admire your timing there. Bishonen | talk 17:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC).

• Support mandatory 6-month holiday from AfC and NPP, per proposal. I'd also support a 6-month break from tagging articles for deletion, broadly construed. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, Anthony, I meant to support a six-month ban from NPP as well, as per my original proposal. But I can't see anything upthread about a problem with tagging for deletion (maybe I'm missing it). Could you specify about that? Bishonen | talk 21:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC).
    • I was assuming someone having trouble assessing AFCs would also have problems choosing articles to tag for deletion. On reflection, maybe spending time at AfD would be useful for AK - similar skill set but more scrutiny. Be that as it may, I was over-reaching, so have struck it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The attitude AK is expressing here is simply unacceptable. "If it's semi-break, I don't mind, but for a full break, especially one that's 6 months long, nah." AK, this isn't about what you mind or not--it's about what's best for Wikipedia. Based on the statistics cited above, your actions are cause clear and probably (as DGG points out) irreparable harm, by driving away new editors who are producing good content. Personally, I don't understand why we're "offering" a voluntary 6 month ban, since, if AK doesn't take it, the result needs to be a mandatory 6 month ban. That's like saying "Please volunteered to be lashed 40 times. If you don't agree, we're going to punish you by lashing you 40 times." This behavior has to stop, and I don't care whether we call it mandatory or volunteer, but just stop it. (that's a Support for the topic ban, in case this is about counting votes). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose 6-month ban as too harsh. Support 3-month ban from AfC and NPP. I've proposed a 6-month ban in the past for an AfC reviewer who was an absolute menace, whose understanding of English was so poor that they would reply incomprehensibly to article submitters who asked for explanations for chaotic declines of submissions, and that proposal went nowhere. AK does at least have a reasonable command of English (so much so that there have been on-wiki suggestions that he's lying when he claims to be under 16!), and that's an improvement on some of what's happening at WP:AfC. Also, I see a lot of this decline-button-hammering as having been caused by the limitations of the WP:AfC drive itself; either the reviews of reviews need to happen more often or have more bite when they do, or else the "awards" should not be given to editors who have consistently failed to respond (sensibly) to questions on their talk page about their reviews. (AK is currently headed to receive the topmost prize for the current AfC drive; does that not indicate some problem with that process?) Finally, I would point out that AK is very young, shows remarkable promise considering his age, and has the benefit of a slightly older wiki-friend who uses the same WP:ENGVAR who has been offering considerable assistance (including doing much of the reviewing of AK's reviews). With these advantages, there's no reason to think he can't be ready to review again in 3 months. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
• Prefer the 6 month, I can live with 3 months as per Demi's proposal on all NPP and AFC reviews as long as it's coupled with the right training/mentoring (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• NOTE: following AK's behaviour on this very discussion, I am no longer convinced that AK will have learned anything within 3 months. At this point, I'm leaning towards beliving that a 3 month BLOCK from the project, followed by 6 months Topic Ban from AFC and NPP along with intensive training to be the probably only way forward (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• AK, have you participated in any sort of formal mentoring or WP:ADOPTION process previously? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support six month ban from AfC and NPP. My first comment on this case was rather positive in AK"s favour in so far as I believed, and still do, that he thought he was reviewing in good faith. However, his own statement of inexperience and noobiness strongly emphasises that no noobs or inexperienced editors should be interfering with the 'management' areas of Wikipedia. What I have discovered at AfC in the past couple of weeks has given me goose bumps and a shake up of the participants is long overdue. Some of the problems are due to the AfC project's own aggressive recruiting (possibly coinciding with school vacations) for reviewers and as with all management areas, has clearly attracted new and/or inexperienced users. The shake up has to start here, and unfortunatly for AK, he is going to be one of the catalysts. There won't need to be another long ANI like this one for the others; it will simply be a couple of official requests to cease and desist voluntarily or risk a TBAN or even a summary preventative block for disruption. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Ain't no school vacations. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• support up to a month or successful completion of the mentoring program. Oppose for any longer duration. This is supposed to be preventative, and we all need to bear WP:AGF in mind. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• FYI: I just noticed that this discussion was initially triggered by Geo Swan’s attempt to find real age of AK on Ritchie333’s talk page. GS took part in that DR very late; and started attacking AK and everybody who behaved softly to AK, considering his age. Finally MichaelMaggs, a crat had to say "As a side note, I was sorry to see Jkadavoor being attacked for trying to help him. This is an international project and there are differences in culture and language; Jkadavoor was not trying to be sarcastic as appears to have been assumed above" to stop such attacks. Then GS uploaded all the works of AK to Flickr ([27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]) and started threatening him, violating Flickr’s community guidelines. (According to http://www.flickr.com/help/guidelines/: "Don’t upload anything that isn't yours. This includes other people's photos, video, and/or stuff you've copied or collected from around the Internet. Accounts that consist primarily of such collections may be deleted at any time." I informed this matter to Flickr/Yahoo support team and hopefully waiting for their response.) I think this is enough regarding the “common things”. JKadavoor Jee 04:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I dispute I attacked Arctic Kangaroo, Jkadavoor, or anyone else involved in these discussions, and said so in more detail on User talk:Jkadavoor.

With regard to whether I was trying to out AK's real age, after AK followed the advice he should claim to be a minor, I asked him to have his parents or legal guardian confirm his age, and I encouraged him to have them use OTRS to confirm he was a minor, in order to preserve his privacy. I don't care if Arctic Kangaroo is 17, 15, or even 12 -- so long as he can consistently behave responsibly, civilly, competently. Geo Swan (talk) 07:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

This possible attempt at WP:OUTING is very concerning ... even moreso if you did, indeed, re-upload AK's images to Flickr. I'd like to see proof of the former, and would encourage you to undo the latter (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, very concerning. Block! Outing is a no no, say the WikiGods... ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• I dispute I outed AK's age.

1. The first person to assert AK was a minor was Jkadavoor, on 2013-07-13, suggesting he should be cut more slack, because he was "a schoolboy".
2. After many suggestions he could get his way in the deletion discussion if he claimed to be a minor AK wrote "And, please understand that all the uploads were mistakes, as I was unfamiliar, and still young (U16)." I didn't "out" him, he volunteered this information.
3. In my reply I said I thought if AK really was a minor he should get his parents or legal guardian to confirm this -- VIA OTRS. I suggested OTRS to preserve his privacy. I don't want to know his personal details. Geo Swan (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• From the first to last comment, I had advised all the participants to behave properly following the guidelines, several times. But unfortunately many participants including GS behaved very poorly to him. You will get an idea if you read the entire discussion. JKadavoor Jee 17:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose 6 month ban which is unduly punitive but Support a 3 month ban, which is more reasonable. A large amount can be learnt about Wikipedia in a few months. AfC needs editors with a sound knowledge of Wikipedia's basic principles. AK admits they are currently a newbie. Some of the problem stemmed from the fact they were invited to take part in a AfC backlog drive where there is a strong motivation for quantity over quality. AfC probably needs to review how and when they carry out backlog drives, rather than punish enthusiastic participants. Sionk (talk) 06:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• • This is not punishment, it's self-preservation. AK has been burning off prospective contributors and I don't see any recognition from AK of the seriousness of that. There are squillions of other things a person can do here, the most useful of which - in terms of improving AK's ability to decide the fate of others' good-faith article efforts - would be to actually write content. Six months may seem like a lifetime to a child, but even under the constant coddling of a mentor it is a very optimistic time-scale. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Six months is a child's entire godding life!!!! ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm going to be slightly awkward, but hopefully this'll be a good compromise to what everyone else has said so we can get consensus ... I will support a voluntary three month AfC/NPP topic ban if AK responds to it in the affirmative soon. By saying "yes, I will take the ban", it proves he is prepared to put the needs of the project and the community ahead of the needs of himself, and he is personally promising to improve as an editor. Otherwise, I will support an involuntary six month ban of the same. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I supported a six-month ban above, but I'll go with your suggestion which I don't feel to be awkward at all. I will however point out that while A large amount can be learnt about Wikipedia in a few months, it takes longer to assume an appropriate level of maturity, and helping users on their way to adulthood is not within our remit. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support a 3 month ban, with mentoring & training in the meantime. GiantSnowman 11:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support a 6 month ban, with mentoring & training included. Not punitive, but preventive, to avoid further "damages" in a very sensitive area that requires the highest competence, that in my view this editor proved not to have (yet). Cavarrone 12:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• The purpose of a ban or block is to protect the project. I suggest we have good reasons to believe AK's actions will continue to be highly damaging. In particular Arctic Kangaroo has a pattern of not taking responsibility for mistakes. On commons, and on my talk page, AK is on record that he is not responsible for previous mistakes because he is legally too young to be held responsible. I don't care how old a contributor is -- so long as they contribute in a responsible, civil, competent manner. But, it seems to me, AK is acting like claiming to be under 16 means he should not feel responsible for his mistakes. Discussion above strongly suggests to me that AK is unable to really recognize the weaknesses in his contributions, and that makes me think he faces a long learning curve, may never understand what he was doing wrong. In that commons discussion AK kept insisting he understood copyright, when he very clearly didn't.

If we were to take at face value his claims to be under 16, and to interpret his comments as if he was saying he shouldn't feel an obligation to take responsibilities for mistakes because he was a minor, then we shouldn't expect him to try to act responsibly for more than two years.

I suggest the topic ban should include a ban on nominations in {{xfd}}.

I suggest the ban's duration should not be fixed, but that it should last as long as his mentors feel he is unready to act competently, civilly and responsibily. Geo Swan (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Whoa there...let's investigate this Can you provide a diff where he even suggests that he has no "obligation to take responsibilities for mistakes because he was a minor"?? I think this is a very valid rabbit hole to start going down if such a thing was even hinted at by AK (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the diff is this one where AK says " I'm also just a minor, so how well do you think I can understand these copyright and law stuff?". Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Hard truth: The pictures will stay. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• • With regard to AK taking responsibility -- when he was told the commons image he wanted deleted wasn't eligible for courtesy deletion because it was in use on other projects he said he would visit all those other projects and remove it from those articles, so it no longer in use! No, I am not making this up.

    Later he complained he lacked sufficient permissions to remove all use of his fine image from all projects. I have told him that the responsible thing to do would be to go back to the articles on other projects, and restore usage of his image. He has not responded to this suggestion.

    I have asked him for an estimate of how many articles he succeeded in removing the image. He has not responded to this question. Geo Swan (talk) 12:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• I feel an obligation to comment here. It's saddening to see an ANI thread concerning you (unless it's something good?). The fine prints of Wikimedia: Once you give us the goods, there ain't no takin' it back. Likewise I have to agree that once AK donated those photos, he could have never taken them back. Unless, AK, you say that you took those photos from another site, and it's not yours. I don't think that would work. Age should not matter on Wikipedia. I'm in favour for a three month AfC ban. I think it would be better for you to gear up and study. Don't trip on the final hurdle, AK! AK's a good chap, but all good chaps start out as bungling ones. With some time, this mess will be cleaned up and everything's good again. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support 3 month - 6 months seems extreme in this case. Seems like 3 would be plenty of time to get up to speed. We can always revisit it then. Sergecross73 msg me 13:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I will, very gladly, take the 3 months voluntary AfC ban, complete with AfC adoption. Case closed. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 13:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, AK, but that option is off the table. The community is discussing whether you will have a 3-month or 6 month (or possibly indefinite) community-enforced topic ban from NPP and AFC's ... you do not get to unilaterally choose something different - especially when you had that option long long long ago (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

@Bwilkins: ??? They were asking me to volunteer for a 3-month or 6-month, so of course, I volunteered, after understanding that it would benefit Wikipedia. I don't see anywhere above talking about indef, but I actually don't see why it's needed, considering this is the first time, and I have good intentions. That leads to assuming good faith (as always). But anyway, an NPP ban would be almost redundant, as I only do NP patrol like, once every many many weeks or usually, months, although my userpage states that I'm on NP patrol. Most of the time, I do rvv, if you did look at my contribs. Cheers. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) BWilkins, I was going to say something like this too, but I'm not sure if AK truly meant that he was doing a "voluntary ban", or just meant that they "voluntarily submit to a formal topic ban". If it was the latter, then we're fine; that may have just been a confusingly worded way of saying he concedes to the topic ban. (This seems to be the case based on his post that EC's with this one.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I'm puzzled by what you mean. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me try to simplify: You don't decide how long your ban will be. (Sorry) We (the folks here) decide. You can accept it willingly or unwillingly, either way you will serve what we want you to serve. Understood? Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

"Voluntary" bans are strictly up to you, in theory, its all up to you to uphold. "Topic bans" are actually enforced, and you'd probably get reprimanded and blocked if you decide to go against them. Based on your wording, I guess we're not sure exactly which one you're agreeing to. Agreeing to a topic ban would end the discussion. Agreeing to the voluntary ban...wouldn't really mean anything at this point, with so many people supporting a topic ban. Sergecross73 msg me 14:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm volunteering, actually. Sorry for my confusing wording. If I ever try to/do break my voluntary ban, please slap me with 1000 whales and trouts, give me a huge scolding, and vandalise my block log for a duration of your choice. But two condition though, let me participate if there are further discussion on the current drive's page, and respond to any fails that I don't understand. Thereafter, I will shut myself totally from AfC until 24 October. Cheers. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Well then, as others said, volunteering for a voluntary ban is pointless this far into the process. That's like "turning yourself in when you're already in the courtroom". (Sorry, its a pretty common tactic for people around here to quickly say they'll do it voluntarily just to avoid formal sanctions.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• AK: As already stated, you are long past the opportunity to self-impose a "voluntary topic ban" - consensus above is that a "topic ban" is required. You have no choice anymore. You can stop this discussion right now by stating "I accept the 6 month topic ban from NPP and AFC". Any violation of the topic ban (that is very clearly the consensus above), will lead to an immediate block, and then future blocks of an escalating nature. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose any topic ban modified by the word 'voluntary' (implying that AK gets to choose whether and when it ends). Support topic ban of 6 months from AfC (and obviously any shorter ban as a second preference.) Sorry, but this negotiation process is not how we do bans. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support Topic Ban for 6 months - voluntarily or not doesn't matter until he keeps his hands away from it and takes time to learn.  A m i t  웃   16:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support six month AfC and NPP topic ban. From what I've seen of (and about) Arctic Kangaroo both on commons and on here I have serious reservations about their work. They seem to think they can get out of things, and have things their way with complete disregard for policy and procedures (as seen here, here, and here one this thread and here at commons). Their whole attitude both here and at commons is quite unusual, trying to both claim competence and understanding (here) while claim 'I didn't know' other times and in the end claiming here and at commons that they don't understand (here), in what I assume is a last ditched attempt to get their own way. I feel it in the best interests of both Arctic Kangaroo and the project that a six month ban be enforced. I would however ask if there were someway that Arctic Kangaroo could review AfC articles, but through a supervising user? ie, Arctic Kangaroo looks at an AfC candidate, and writes up a review, proposals etc and send that to a supervising user who reviews their (Arctic Kangaroo's) review and then moves to the AfC candidates entry. This way Arctic Kangaroo could continue to contribute, but not directly (so as to limit potential harm) this could also be a way of providing valuable feedback, increasing Arctic Kangaroo's knowledge and competence. I do have two questions which I would like Arctic Kangaroo to answer though: Do you recognise that the way you reviewed AfC candidates was problematic, and that you have things to learn and improve on before you can go back to AfC? AND Do you completely understand the nature of licensing that is applied to all work across WFP projects (Wikipedia, Commons, etc), and can you - in your own words - explain it? (if these questions are out of line, I request an admin either strikethrough or redact them) Liamdavies (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• I just noticed that GS still keeping AK’s works in his Flickr stream, attributing to AK; neglecting his repeated request to either remove them or remove the attribution. Removal may a matter of courtesy and ethics; but I believe AK has full rights to ask for removing the attribution per [34]: “That said, CC licenses do provide several mechanisms that allow licensors and authors to choose not to be associated with their works or uses with which they disagree. First, all CC licenses prohibit using the attribution requirement to suggest that the original author or licensor endorses or supports a particular use of a work. This "No Endorsement" provision protects reputation, and its violation constitutes a violation of the license and results in automatic termination. Second, licensors may waive the attribution requirement -- choose not to be identified as the author or licensor of the work -- if they wish. Third, if a work is modified or incorporated into a collection, and the original author or licensor does not like the how the work has been modified or used in the collection, CC licenses require that the person modifying the work or incorporating the work into a collection remove reference to the original author or licensor upon notice. Finally, if the selected CC license permits modifications and adaptations of the original work, then the person modifying the work must indicate that the original has been modified. This ensures that changes made to the original work -- whether or not acceptable to the original author or licensor -- are not attributed back to the licensor.” JKadavoor Jee 03:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Attribution must be kept. But of course, it's better to delete the image. I have also placed a nice note explaining the steps I hope to take to make the decision I find best here, but the unreasonable guy is still talking crap. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 13:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    • As you are teetering on the edge of a 6-month topic ban here AK, it might be better if you demonstrated a more level-headed editing style than this. I'd suggest that you strike this as an intemperate mistake, or at the very least that you think more carefully in future before you give your opponents more ammunition. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm not striking that, but I'll try to control the blowing during this period. RL is making me fed up enough already, and Geo Swan just makes it get better. Can sometimes be hard to control, though. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• On User talk:Jkadavoor I said I would remove attribution to AK -- if he requested I do so. I don't believe he has made this request. If AK simultaneously requested commons also remove attribution I presume an OTRS ticket could be initiated for those who have a legitimate need to inquire.

I don't think it is on-topic here to discuss whether I have an ethical obligation to remove the flickr copies of these properly licensed images. I've encouraged Jkavadoor to explain his or her reasoning via talk page. I'll encourage anyone else with an opinion to explain it to me on Commons:User talk:Geo Swan. Geo Swan (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support six months AfC topic ban. Although he's been editing for about a year, 99% of his contributions are vandalism reverts. I think he lacks sufficient understanding of the more complex content policy issues to patrol others' work. Some of the articles he declined are rather complex as they require an evaluation via WP:ACADEMIC criteria, but in other cases he simply said that generally reliable sources, like the New York Times etc., are unreliable. In general, one should not stomp on articles he understands little about. It should be understood that more serial mistakes after the topic ban expires would result in an indefinite topic ban. Hopefully he'll use this time to contribute some new content as well, and in the process become more familiar with content policies. There are also problems with this vandalism patrol as well, e.g. [35] is not vandalism; they did have a loss that big for 2012 per [36]. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I actually don't find it nice to talk about the wrong revert, considering the fact that that was almost 5 months ago. 5 months can help us make lots of improvements. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support a 6 month topic ban. I hope that AK spends the time at AfD, learning the fine points of Wikipedia's notability doctrine. Read that every day with open eyes and an open mind, especially the closer rationales. Offer your opinions when you bump into articles you feel strongly about one way or another. Improper declines at AFC are a big problem; once a person truly understands notability doctrine that shouldn't be an issue. Carrite (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support 3 month AfC topic ban if he refuses to self-impose a topic ban. Also, I would like to note that Category:Submissions by Doncram ready for review is not technically part of AfC as a result of this discussion at the AfC wikiproject, and I personally have no problem with him accepting/declining those with guidance from a mentor. Which, as I originally mentioned way up above, I support him taking part in an Adoption and going through the AfC Mentoring program (when it is completed that he has already signed up for). Technical 13 (talk) 02:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Copyright and incapacitation due to minority

Broadly speaking, a person not of the age of majority in the US cannot be legally bound to contractual obligations. Does this not apply to WP's terms of use, specifically: releasing their contributions as per our CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL? This user has a) declared their minority and b) questioned how they can be held responsible for "these copyright and law stuff". WP:COMPETENCE may be applicable, as well may be a block (until their minority has elapsed) so as to protect the foundation from potential exposure and also to protect a young editor. Rgrds. --64.85.216.104 (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

We have several editors who are under the age of majority in their respective countries. If that were a legal concern, WMF's general counsel would have brought that to our attention. I'm not a lawyer, and I wouldn't be WMF's lawyer if I were, so I try to leave the legal stuff up to the people who are experts in it and get paid to do that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

There was a discussion sometime back about underage editors in the village pump to be allowed to use WP and access especially the so called adult content. Most of us opposed. But in this instance for an editor who shows intentions to ignore the rules and legal contracts should be an issue especially when they themselves claim being underage as one of the loopholes. At the same time the above about putting a block on him because he is underage is going to discourage a lot of underage editors in WP, also how do we identify without an outing that when his block should lapse? A m i t  웃   16:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

They have said they're under 16/18. I could say I am an admin, or Foundation staff; That doesn't make me one. Also, there is some doubt about their age at the file deletion page on Commons. I feel that we just can't tell about this, unless we make everyone to identify to WMF. Mdann52 (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Amit, I think most people who favor a ban favor it not due to AK's claim to be a minor, but due to an unwillingness or inability to contribute in a responsible, civil, competent manner. Adults who can't contribute responsibly, who can't contribute civilly, or who can't contribute competently may also face preventative blocks or bans. Geo Swan (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

  I agree and for the same reason you can see my already existing support vote for the 6 month block in the above section irrespective of his age. I do raise the outing question and made the point about discouraging underage editors in my earlier point which i meant to put in as i am not trying to favor nor oppose any action based on age.  A m i t  웃   18:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The challenge here is that AK seems to have claimed that because of their age, they were not old enough to be able grant the license they did for their images, and as such, they original grant should have been cancelled. That's problematic (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• IANAL, but I think if a case like this ever made it to court, the judge would rule that by letting him use the camera, and then letting hims use WMF sites where individual released images and intelledtual content under a creative commons license, his parents had authorized him to upload those images, and click save when he drafted new material.

  Until he takes steps to confirm he is a minor, through OTRS, I suggest we act as if AK is legally competent to surrender intellectual property rights through a CC license. Geo Swan (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Your obsession with "winning" this war over this image, however important an image it may be, is unseemly. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer either, but I'm reasonably certain a minor can hold a copyright. If there were issues with a minor disposing of (i.e., agreeing to license) such a copyright, I would imagine that would have been brought up by WMF legal counsel by now.

Regardless, however, a refusal to agree to the licensing terms is incompatible with editing any Wikimedia project, and we've normally revoked the editing privileges of any editor who's tried. While this incident occurred on Commons, rather than here, I'm troubled that it took place. I'm not certain AK should be editing until (s)he clearly indicates understanding of and willingness to follow the irrevocable CC-BY-SA licensing terms. That's true whether an editor is 15 or 50. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually WMF have already commented on that eventuality, so your being unaware of that suggests that you shouldn't be commenting until you're up to speed on the realities. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Well, if the WMF have already commented, and you know where to find that comment, would you please link to the pertinent comment? Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yep, I'll dig that out for you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Arctic Kangaroo was following erroneous advice he was given

In April 2013, as part of a formal WP:ADOPTION process, Arctic Kangaroo, obviously confused about copyright of images, asked this:

"Umm...if I have a photo which I have taken myself, and I want to upload it, but just uploading it to help Wikipedia, but don't want others to use the work, then can I list it "non-free" or place a "<copyright sign> Arctic Kangaroo" on the picture?"

In reply he was told this:

"You could do the latter of those, but not the former because that requires it to be used, and just a notice asking for no usage would work. It is unlikely anybody will want to use right away anyway, especially if its not something that requires further illustration."

He was still uncertain, so he expanded on his question further:

"Could you explain further what you mean by "just a notice asking for no usage would work"? Because I don't really get what you mean."

In reply he was told this:

"Just write a sign that asks people not to use it."

So AK made clear he wanted to upload photographs without other people using them elsewhere, he was told that this was possible (or that probably no-one would want to use his photographs anyway), and he was told that he could retain more rights over his photographs than is actually the case. And he followed this advice.

I'm not saying AK's attitude has been acceptable here, but it seems to me that half the problems he has are caused not by "lack of competence", on his part, but in fact by problems with two WikiProjects - first, the WP:AFC project which is giving out its biggest shiniest award to someone who hammers the decline button on submissions without giving it enough thought and without replying to most of the queries about it on their talkpage, and second the WP:ADOPTION wikiproject which has given a kid who was already confused about copyright, the wrong information that has led him into exactly this mess.

This is not his fault. It's our fault. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

As the coordinator of the drive, I want to make something clear - per the rules of the drive, AK is not in the lead. Every review that is reviewed as a fail does not count - and in fact takes points off. Also, on the adoption page, the user in question makes it clear that CC makes the work free - and says nothing about releasing the images under the licence in question. Mdann52 (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Well the leaderboard currently shows "1 - Arctic Kangaroo - 808 - CRM.png and Goldenwiki 2.png". As for the adoption page, I'm not sure I completely follow what you're suggesting, and I don't think an inexperienced editor should be expected to follow it from the answers provided either. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• That is interesting. Note, while his mentor seems to have given AK incorrect advice, AK didn't "write a sign that asks people not to use it." So, I suggest it is quite incorrect to assert he got into trouble because he "followed this advice".

AK was being mentored, this question could have been thoroughly theoretical -- not a reflection that he didnt' want his images to be re-used when he released them under a free license. This would explain why he didn't place the note his mentor described, when he released them.

I suggest the underlying lesson from his mentor's bad advice is the importance of vetting or monitoring those who volunteer for particularly important positions. Quality control is important -- too important to be undertaken by unvetted individuals who just aren't qualified. Similarly, the lesson of the bad advice which AK was given, is that those serving as mentors need to be vetted or monitored. I don't know AK's mentor, and I won't judge his or her competence on a single event. They are on a wikibreak, so we can't expect them to explain this advice here. Geo Swan (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes the question could have been "thoroughly theoretical" if it weren't for the fact that the chronology is quite clear - (1) AK asks if he can upload images that then won't be used elsewhere, (2) he's told that probably no-one will be much interested in using it elsewhere anyway, (3) he uploads a rather fine image, (4) it gets used elsewhere, (5) he seems unhappy with this.

About the need for greater vetting or monitoring of those in quality control or mentoring positions, we are in agreement. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I echo the above arguments, as I said in the main discussion, these roles (mentor, AfC reviewer) are too sensitive to be left free from every rule and every supervision. They are the entrance doors of WP, they should be assigned to persons of the highest competence. I think there should be some selective mechanism to avoid any incident and any bad judgement. Cavarrone 06:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

User:‎BSmith821

User:‎BSmith821, a new WP:Single-purpose account, states that his sole purpose is to have Wikipedia "reflect the work of this brilliant man", Chandra Wickramasinghe, whose genius User BSmith821 compares to Galileo Galilei. (User talk:BSmith821#Restructuring the Whole wiki webpage for Chandra Wickramasinghe)

Background

Chandra Wickramasinghe, a vocal proponent of panspermia, has made multiple fringe claims -all rejected by the scientific establishment- on the discovery of extraterrestrial life, he testified in court in defense of Creationism, and denies evolution arising from abiogenesis, but User:‎BSmith821 is sanitizing all negative (and referenced) information from that biography and pushing Wickramasinghe's fringe assumptions in the panspermia article.

Violations

My main concern with User BSmith821 is beyond Chandra Wickramasinghe's biography, which is supposed to present his work and speculations -whether fringe or not. My concern is the jeopardized quality, verifiability and scientific accuracy of the Panspermia article. User:BSmith821 is pushing considerable WP:POV, WP:FRINGE, WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:EDITORIALIZING and WP:OR into the panspermia article, where he is advancing Wickramasinghe's fringe speculations as if they were accepted, and as if they were main-stream science. His stated purpose is to re-write and mold the panspermia hypothesis to Wickramasinghe's fringe hypotheses and extraterrestrial life discoveries and "evidence". ([37])

Some editors have intervened politely, (User:Vsmith, User:DanHobley, User:Wer900 and myself: User:BatteryIncluded) and have repeatedly directed him to review the concepts of POV, FRINGE, SYNTHESIS, and the need for references and WP:Verifiability, but User:‎BSmith821 is not taking no for an answer.

Details and diffs

• User:‎BSmith821 is a self-described Wikipedia:Single-purpose account working to enhance the biography and fringe hypotheses and claims by Wickramasinghe. (Diff:Talk:Chandra Wickramasinghe#Restructuring of Dr Chandra's WIKIPAGE)

• There is a WP:Conflict of interest ("When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.") as User:‎BSmith821 claims he is in the process of "submission to the UK National Honours Nomination process to recommend Chandra Wickramasinghe for the highest UK honour."(Talk:Chandra Wickramasinghe#Restructuring of Dr Chandra's WIKIPAGE).

• User:‎BSmith821 sanitized Wickramasinghe's biography from negative but very well referenced and high quality sources, and introduced Synthesis & OR on the Kepler space mission to give the false impression that NASA and astroiologists in general, now support Wickramasinghe's hypotheses and "evidence": [38], [39], [40], [41], [42].

• He used WP:Synthesis to add that Google's Project Loon is a prototype early warning detection system to detect incoming extraterrestrial viruses: [43]

In the Panspermia article

• POV pushing: [44]
• Deletion of: "The mechanisms proposed for interstellar panspermia are hypothetical and currently unproven." And he introduced WP:OR: [45]

• Repeatedly introduced a false statement: "The latest NASA estimates for the number of earth-like habitable exoplanets is around sun-like stars is over 144 billion." ([46], [47]) When in fact, NASA and the Kepler Science Council made clear that "Analysis of the current Kepler data does not support the assertion that Kepler has found any Earth-like planets."

Hatting and nowikifying the cite tags, it screws up the entire ANI page. Tarc (talk) 00:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
<ref>{{cite web |last1=Dunham |first1=Edward W. |last2=Gautier |first2=Thomas N. |last3=Borucki |first3=William J. |title=NASA Kepler Science Status: Statement to Ames Center Director |url=http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=34637 |date=3 August 2010 |accessdate=2011-04-24 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Steffen |first1=Jason H. |coauthors=''et al.'' |title=Five Kepler target stars that show multiple transiting exoplanet candidates |doi=10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/1226 |pages=1226–1241 |volume=725 |journal=[[Astrophysical Journal]] |arxiv=1006.2763 |date=9 November 2010 |bibcode = 2010ApJ...725.1226S}}</ref><ref>{{cite arxiv |last1=Prsa |first1=Andrej |coauthors=''et al.''|year=2010 |title=Kepler Eclipsing Binary Stars. I. Catalog and Principal Characterization of 1879 Eclipsing Binaries in the First Data Release |class=astro-ph.SR |eprint=1006.2815}}</ref>

• Introduced synthesis: [48], [49], [50]. (Non-biological organics in space are known and accepted, but are not considered to be life).

• More fringe statements on extraterrestrial life "evidence" from a blog: [51], [52]

• POV, Synthesis, OR, EDITORIAL and pushing WP:Fringe as if mainstream: [53]

• Creates a section entitled "Evidence" and adds WP:OR/WP:EDITORIAL without references: [54]

• User:‎BSmith821 announced that next, he intends to introduce estraterrestrial life "evidence" that Wickramasinghe published in the Journal of Cosmology, where Wickramasinghe is the Chief Editor, and a journal best known for its fringe articles, non-peer-review process and even "predatory" practices: Talk:Panspermia#Polonnaruwa Meteorite - P-Meteorite.

Thank you for your consideration and assistance, BatteryIncluded (talk) 05:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• I did notice most of the points that are mentioned above in the article. Using social media(like lankaweb) or affiliated sources(like journal cosmology) is not making the article useful. But why not take it to article talk page? Why are you not engaging with the user especially when he has invited other editors to do so here? It is best to try to resolve these content issues in article talk page. I do understand that you are claiming that he has been contacted by several other editors and he is not reciprocating - Could you please provide diffs for the same where he is not pushing his point and is keen on neglecting Wikipedia policy when pointed to one?  A m i t  웃   14:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course I have engaged the user! See his talk page and both articles' talk pages. However, I will not engage every assay he writes. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think the evidence presented above is convincing enough that BSmith821 will likely end up blocked indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE, but only after wasting lots of other people's time and driving some productive contributors away by exhausting their patience (see recent and similar case request at ArbCom on Mars). Most of ‎BSmith821's problematic editing involves WP:SYNT abuses, e.g. [55] so this not likely to see an immediate admin action, although some abuses of WP:V are more evident [56] (how can a book from 1986 say something about what's happening in 2013?) Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

________________________________________________

This is User:‎BSmith821, the subject of the discussion and the person doing his best to improve both Panspermia and Chandra Wickramasinghe pages.

I am struggling with great disappointment to respond to these accusations. I came here thinking this was a place where the editors would be seeking guidance on my suggestion, on seeking "best practices" in formating a wikipage which was "a hypothesis". Instead I found this. :-(

My goal is simple. I want to help improve the page. To better structure it around the life cycle of a hypothesis : ie original observation, the hypothesis itself, the propositions, the evidence , how the results are consistent with (or not) the proposition(s).

I also felt that each hypothesis should have a clearly defined "owner" (ie The person who had published a paper on the hypothesis). Currently the editors, who admit to not being scientists and certainly not experts on the subject, seem to randomly change and add content with no advice from any "owner scientist".

currently this page does not accurately reflect the Panspermia hypothesis in that the structure does not allow presentation of experiments (evidence) against the propositions. There is much recording of old results, but just by subtopic - not by hypothesis proposition. And there is minimal assessment of the evidence the results indicate. The editors have recently commented that this is not their objective for the page.

please recognize I only started to add material 2 weeks ago and it has been quite a learning curve even simply "getting around".

At some level, this discussion does illustrate how one of the editors "attacks" any contributor who takes a position he does not like rather than allowing balanced discussion.

As you say, I am surprised these points were not presented to me in the page:talk or even my own user:talk. I have lots of sections where I have discussed the various sections that I feel need improving to be more accurate.

you can get a sense of my overall concern over this discussion by considering one or two of the statements above from my perspective:

eg *Repeatedly introduced a false statement: "The latest NASA estimates for the number of earth-like habitable exoplanets is around sun-like stars is over 144 billion."

for your interest the current count of the estimated number of habitable planets around "earth-like" stars was published in January by NASA as 17 billion (see our Wiki page).

I decided to contact the scientist best position to answer this question in June 2013 : here is the request and the response. I encouraged him to update the numbers on Wikipedia.

On 6/20/13 3:15 PM, Bill Smith wrote:

Dear Dr Kopparapu : please could you tell me the latest estimate of the number of habitable exoplanets in the Milky Way Galaxy. I have reviewed your at http://phl.upr.edu/press-releases/anewhabitablezone

I understand in January NASA estimated that the Milky Way Galaxy contains 400 BILLION Exoplanets - of which 17 Billion are earth-like. But it is the latter number I am interested in clarifying. This article by Dr Mills explains the challenge in estimating – but I thought you might offer a very rough current estimate.

Dear Bill,According to my recent paper, about 48% of low mass stars have Earth-size planets in their habitable zones (or *potentially* habitable planets).

So if we want to get a 'number' out of this, assuming that there are 400 billion stars of all types are in our Galaxy, about 75% are low mass stars. That is about 300billion low mass stars in our Galaxy. Then my estimate (which is validated by other researchers) shows that nearly 48% of these 300 billion low mass stars have Earth-sized planets in the habitable zone. That is, about 144 billion potentially habitable Earth-sized planets around low mass stars. And this is a conservative estimate ! There could be more. Note that these billions and billions are not actually exact numbers but only estimates. Since we don't know EXACTLY how many stars are in our Galaxy, this number (144 billion) changes a bit. But not by much.

Does this answer your question ?Thanks Ravi

so I ask you, 17B v. 144 B significant? Not really. Even 17 B is amazing when you consider 5 years ago we thought the earth must be unique. I believe the latest Kepler Mission results were a paradigm shifting moment for scientists and laymen alike. Now many believes that there is a strong possibility that "Life is a Cosmic Phenomenon". Some NASA scientists have already mentally moved from a "Search for Water" (valid 10 years ago) to "Search for Life".

so this is perhaps the fundamental tipping point moment when these Wiki editors, who for so long have felt a need to deny the likely existence of life across the galaxy, must make the mental paradigm shift and accept that this theory is moving from "fringe" to "mainstream". At minimum they need to create a more balanced page presenting evidence for, as well as against the hypothesis.

Moving forward, I feel it is very important that experiments which indicate life can survive extreme conditions on earth and in space are discussed against the appropriate hypothesis/proposition.

e.g. In 2019 the Mars Icebreaker Mission will drill deep into the ice in the northern plains of MARS. This is a fine experiment for the hypothesis that "Life exists on Mars" even the editors will agree. But Panspermia hypothesis would include this discovery as evidence for its overall tenet that "Life is a Cosmic Phenomenon". Should Icebreaker NOT find life then that would be strong evidence against Panspermia. In either case it would be relevant and worthy of documentation on the Wikipedia/Panspermia page.

the final point I'd like to make is around Google's Project Loon. There is a special (somewhat confidential: Canada-UK) experiment being designed which would utilize a "loon like" platform for the evaluation of the feasibility of an inbound virus detection system. Loon provides the perfect platform for a "prototype/Version 1" in that the balloons return to earth in a controlled way every 3 months. Also there is continual communication between the balloon and earth. So Loon (or a Loon-like network) would solve many of the platform and communication issues. The sampling of air and possible detection of viruses using nano-sensors is the challenge. This project has not yet been proposed to Google Loon Team - and will not be, until a preliminary design is completed and possibly tested using regular "non-loon" balloons.

Overall I have found VSmith very helpful. I hope you can see from the trail of communication that I have always followed his direction. I now ask you to get an expert on scientific hypotheses, to evaluate my suggestion and guide VSmith - or me - on making this hypothesis page much better and more accurate. I would also like to formally apply to be appointed as an editor on this page to balance the seemingly negative (to the hypothesis) position of the existing editors.

BSmith821 (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

This is the a very good example of the campaign by BSmith821: staking a claim of "ownership" of a scientific hypothesis in order to change its scope in Wikipedia. Especially one formulated one century before Chandra Wickramasinghe was born. This goes beyond his simple "comprehension" isues of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

As the primary writer of the current version of the circumstellar habitable zone, I can validate BSmith821's 144bn figure for habitable planets as being entirely possible under the Kopparapu study. On the rest, I broadly concur wih BatteryIncluded. Wickramasinghe's works are primarily fringe science that is poorly supported by he evidence. Wer900 • talk 19:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• BSmith821, the wikipedia's rules are what they are. If experienced contributors think you are lapsing from compliance with our policies on writing from the neutral point of view, avoiding original research, and citing verifiable authoritative reliable sources, you should take those concerns seriously. If good reliable authoritative sources exist, then neutrally summarizing them, and not going any farther than what those sources say, is a good way of addressing those concerns.

The wikipedia is the most popular wiki. But there are other wikis, which do allow material that isn't allowed here because it is considered "original research". That is another option for you. Geo Swan (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a research center, Trying to validate your own original research here is not going to happen and that's really not how it works here. If it is already a notable verified content, you can put it in Wikipedia else go else where. As mentioned above by GS, there are other places which would accept and probably even encourage this kind of content. It is all referential content here and no original research is allowed here  A m i t  웃   14:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

BSmith821 discussion break

• Since Panspermia is in Category:WikiProject Paranormal articles, I believe that BSmith821's area of interest includes articles that fall under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. His edits seem to qualify him for a warning of the discretionary sanctions under that decision. His wall-of-text postings and his removal of reliable sources from the the Chandra Wickramasinghe article indicate that he is unlikely to collaborate successfully with editors who are trying to follow Wikipedia policy. For examples, see the list of edits by BSmith821 provided above by Batteryincluded in his opening statement. EdJohnston (talk) 14:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • There is nothing "paranormal" about panspermia; it is a legitimate scientific hypothesis. Wickramasinghe merely takes it too far, but some real scientists such as Paul Davies have stated that directed panspermia of certain bacteria to Earth, though not necessarily the origin of its life, may be an alien message to humanity. Given how little we know about the "dark matter" of life, we cannot write this directed panspermia to unknown phyla of life off. I'm not defending Drs. Smith or Wickramasinghe, just stating that a legitimate hypothesis is legitimate. Wer900 • talk 16:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
    • May be true in general, but BSmith has certainly touched on the pseudo/fringe-science aspects, like the Wickramasinghe's hypotheses about the extraterrestrial nature of SARS [57] and his edits were in the opposite direction of NPOV (per WP:GEVAL), so a formal warning about promoting pseudoscience would seem appropriate. (See also User:MastCell's comment [58] on that edit.) Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

      I believe we all agree that what the editor is doing is wrong but I would like to point to why I feel he is wrong - For all we know even Darwins evolution theory could be a hoax, they are theories and we would be wrong to differentiate which one is right or wrong because till date scientists are still collecting proofs to know the truth of our evolution. But at the same time using Wikipedia to propagate a particular theory and using the article as an OR publishing point is not acceptable either. We need to use only referenced content in this article.  A m i t  웃   16:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

      • I'm afraid you're mistaken, because you're confusing the colloquial usage of the word "theory" with the scientific one. The closest scientific cognate to ordinary speech's "theory" is "hypothesis". In science, a "theory" is something that's well-established by much evidence. It's been said that modern biology makes no sense except in the light of Darwinian evolution, and that's correct. You cannot eliminate it without having practically everything known in biology come crashing down. That's what a "theory" is in science, so saying Darwinian evolution is "just a theory" and that other competing fringe-science hypotheses might be correct is to misunderstand entirely the state of the field, as well as to misuse the word "theory" by applying its definition in one context to another one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

        An argument saying this is what is proven worldwide is not a valid argument in such cases(it is not a simple mathematical calculation to say 1+1 =2 or even a equation to be proven). I don't believe in fringe theories either but my argument inside WP against such theories is based on lack of references and citations and OR policy and that's what it should be in WP world.  A m i t  웃   14:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Note: I have no input on the actual subject here, just want to note that I hatted and untagged the cite entries above, as it munges up the entire ANI page. Tarc (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

False accusation of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry by User:Earl King Jr. at Talk:Zeitgeist: The Movie

Hi. I have been trying to resolve a dispute on the talk page for Zeitgeist: The Movie, and since it was essentially going nowhere, with two people for one position and two people for the opposite position, I called for a consensus discussion by contacting other editors who had participated in previous discussions on that talk page. I was not acquainted with any of them, nor interacted with them prior to this (that I can remember), and had no way of knowing what position they would take in the discussion.

In response, User:Earl King Jr. accused all of these people of being "sockpuppets" of Peter Joseph, the creator of Zeitgeist: The Movie, and then accused them of being "meatpuppets", a false accusation for which he didn't even bother offering any evidence. He also questioned why I didn't call for an RfC, when there is no requirement for this, as far as I know, since RfCs should only be requested after the two sides in a discussion first attempt to reach consensus. He also accused me of "looking for editorial back up" and "contacting people I know to come and wave a flag for my opinion", both of which are false, as aforementioned.

I've tried pointing out to Earl that this is a violation of WP:AGF, but since he has not responded directly to any of my other statements in the discussion, I do not anticipate responding to that one, and request that an uninvolved admin kindly explain to him on his talk page that this behavior is not appropriate. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 02:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, I can't say that anything you right write is accurate. However, I suppose I am a party (one of the four editors opposing his viewpoint), so I may be biased. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

What exactly that I wrote above is not accurate? Nightscream (talk) 02:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I was going to clarify my statement, but there was an editor conflict. However, things you wrote that were inaccurate include:

1. That there were two editors on each side. There are 2-4 on your side, and 5 on the other side (my side).
2. That Earl accused all of your WP:GANG of being sockpuppets or meatpuppets, only that some are.
3. That the editors you contacted were not all pro-Zeitgeist. (I am not saying you knew that, only that it was obvious from their edits.)

I am not willing to declare that you were acting in bad faith, but I can easily see a good-faith basis for the belief that you were acting in bad faith. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Nightscream you are in my opinion a very confrontational borderline picking fights, type of editor, over your opinions of the issue being discussed on the talk page, that being your point of view that Peter Joseph should be used as a primary source to give his point of view on a website that he controls. Your repeated use of words like inane to describe other editors viewpoints is annoying. Also you mis-characterized here about my saying all those people are sock-puppets. As to the actual subject it is being hashed out on the talk page with more people weighing in. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin: "There are 2-4 on your side, and 5 on the other side." We're not talking about how many people there are on your "side". We're talking about how many people there were at the time I called for the consensus discussion. There were two. Nice try.

Arthur Rubin: "That Earl accused all of your WP:GANG of being sockpuppets or meatpuppets, only that some are." I never said anything about "all", and in any event, it's irrelevant, since accusing others in this manner, providing evidence or reasoning, is a violation of WP:AGF. Splitting hairs over whether he made this accusation of "all" of them or "some" of them is irrelevant.

Arthur Rubin: "I am not saying you knew that, only that it was obvious from their edits. I didn't look at their edits. I just looked at who participated on the talk page in prior discussions and contacted them all. The only exceptions I made were to anonymous IPs, and those who had been blocked. So my approach was completely blind, as evidenced by the fact the one of them, Capitalismojo, argued in agreement with you, a point that (shocker!) I notice that you haven't addressed.

"Earl King Jr.: Nightscream you are in my opinion a very confrontational borderline picking fights, type of editor, over your opinions of the issue being discussed on the talk page..." Your opinion of me is irrelevant to me. You don't get throw policies like WP:AGF out the window to lob false accusations at other editors simply because they disagree with you, and you see that consensus isn't going your way. That behavior is inexcusable, and it is for that reason that you have been reported, and not my opinions on the talk page, which can be discussed there.

"Earl King Jr.: Also you mis-characterized here about my saying all those people are sock-puppets." I never made any such statement. See above. Nightscream (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Earl King's accusations were inappropriate, but I don't think they were too egregious. He did insinuate that everyone who showed up was a sockpuppet, and when challenged on that allegation, changed his accusation to one of meatpuppetry. That said, it was more of an excited utterance than anything of concern. Looking at it further, I feel Nightscream's notifications do fall somewhat afoul of WP:CANVASS, by presenting a somewhat biased framing of the debate to a wide group of editors. However, none of this is serious enough to warrant action, in my opinion. One thing I will note is that, it seems to me, that there is a 7-4 split in favor of Night's position.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:ALLSOCKS seems to fit here (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I watchlisted this article some time ago when there was a similar complaint about one if the other partisans that frequent the page. It's hard to keep up with the talkpages when they consist of walls of ramblings by Nightscream and others. My take is that anyone promoting fringe stuff on this website needs to be shown the exit.--MONGO 18:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Nightscream may have been less than clueful with his notifications, but it doesn't look like he intended to canvass - he notified me, apparently not having seen that I had already given my opinion. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Rubin is mistaken to claim that Night was notifying people who were "pro-Zeitgeist" as there were at least two editors other than you who Night notified that I know are the exact opposite. He also notified a former Arb and someone who opposed his position. The only problem was that his notification was a bit too biased and he was a bit excessive in notifying people.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I was one of those notified by Nightscream. I was one of those that did not agree with his position. This does seem to put paid to the accusations of sockpuppetry. Earl King should appologize for the accusation. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

MONGO: "My take is that anyone promoting fringe stuff on this website needs to be shown the exit." Agreed. Since this has noting to do with the accusation of meatpuppetry in question (or even with the topic of conversation on the article's talk page, which concerns including a statement that someone was misquoted), what does that have to do with this discussion?

The Devil's Advocate: "However, none of this is serious enough to warrant action, in my opinion." Even if the action in question is to simply inform him that such accusations are not appropriate, and that he shouldn't do it any more? Nightscream (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The article in question has a history of meat and sock puppet participation. Zeitgeist things are controversial. Just contacting old editors would conjure up some of those that previously were asked if they were involved in that type of activity. Nightscream seems bent on intimidation by constant upbraiding, put downs and over stating differences on the talk page and here.

Its a content dispute with sour aggressive demeaning overtones. The Zeitgeist thing in general brings out lots of controversial, emotional aspects. Many Zeitgeist supporters end up on the article page to cut and paste things from the various websites on Zeitgeist into the material, including primary sourced things.

More experienced editors maintain calm and order on the talk page and others flame with personality digs, using provocative language to incite ill feeling to make their points instead of compromise and hashing things out positively. Earl King Jr. (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

[59] Can I show this example here of how intimidating and personal attacking the editor NightScream is in regard to other people working on editing the article in question, not just me? Basically he trash talks his opponents. The editor Capitalismo tried to talk about some issues and was insulted over and over. Nightscream was also asked by another editor in this thread Orangeman to lay off attacking and refused to get the point, defending his verbal assault. Mostly I think Nighscream started the thread here about the sock puppet, meat puppet thing out of bitterness and to intimidate. That is my opinion. He relentlessly is in attack mode. I know he has edited for a long time, but no excuse for trashing those who have a different editorial view. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, if there's a couple of uninvolved folks with a strong basis in BLP that wouldn't mind reading over the discussion on the talk page and offering their views it might help to resolve this. Both sides are pretty fervent in their views and there's a few walls o' text that make it intimidating to read, but some neutral views could help. A post was made on BLPN but it hasn't gotten too many outside opinions yet. It would be appreciated. Ravensfire (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Constant WP:NOTFORUM violations by User:Baseball Bugs at Talk:Edward Snowden

Let me put this simply: Baseball Bugs has gradually become a huge pain in the ass over at Talk:Edward Snowden.

A quick peruse through that page will reveal Bugs' increasingly disruptive behavior.

His first edit was on June 10. At first most of his comments were actually quite reasonable and seemed focused on discussing the article. But over time his focus shifted from the article to the subject of the article. Then over time a strong bias started showing through, and recently he has annointed himself as a POV warrior who must do battle with what he calls the "hero-worshipers." These days, several times a day he will go through all of the active discussions several times per day and blanket them with his own snarky editorial gloss on all things Snowden. He seems to have a complete misunderstanding of the WP:NOTFORUM concept, and he also seems not to understand that Wikipedia isn't a WP:BATTLEGROUND.

And there are a bunch of editors who agree with me. Here are some discussion threads where editors have complained about his soapboxing:

• Not a "whistleblower" (complaint by User:RAN1)
• "Political views" vs "Career" (complaint by User:71.20.55.6)
• NYT article on Snowden's job (complaint by User:Nstrauss)
• Snowden's Resume and Skillset. (more hatting)
• Mass spying on Brazillians (complaint by User:AndyTheGrump)
• Letters from Snowden 1 Jul (more hatting)
• Edward Snowden’s nightmare comes true (complaint by User:Nstrauss)
• Asylum requests (hatting by User:AndyTheGrump)
• Complaints filed by Human Rights organizations in France (complaints by User:AndyTheGrump)
• Moscow-Cuba plane detour sparks speculation Snowden may be on board (complaint by User:AndyTheGrump)
• Removed accusations (a very revealing thread in which Bugs claimed to have the right to delete talk page comments that disparage the US government; complaint by User:DrFleischman and agreement by User:Blade-of-the-South and User:Gandydancer)
• Media contraditions (removal of BLP violation by User:NorthBySouthBaranof)
• Russia update? (complaint by User:DrFleischman)
• Omission of religion? (complaint by User:Jonathunder; notice Bugs' reaction re WP:BATTLE)
• Why is this here? (role of KGB/FSB) (complaint by User:Gandydancer)

And then there are the off-page warnings and comments:

• User:AndyTheGrump: [60], [61]
• User:DrFleischman: [62], [63], [64]
• User:NeilN: [65]

Bugs does occasionally make some constructive comments, but these days they're few and far between. As for what to do about this, I'll leave it up to the admins. Obviously Bugs is a valuable member of the community but there's something about Edward Snowden that makes him go haywire. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, his attitude and approach has nothing to do with Snowden. Bugs is of a specific generation in the United States who sees the world through what is called moral clarity. If you read that article, you will understand what he is thinking. Viriditas (talk) 07:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

That article is a coatrack for conservative bashing.--v/r - TP 14:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Most conservatives and liberals are good at holding their ground while they bash each other. -- Taroaldo ✉ 21:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Moral clarity thats pretty close. Winners write history as they say, but for now we're in history. Its ongoing. It may even get epic, and many of us try to document these interesting times in a non POV style. I dont mind Bugs too much, but the black and white view of the world he tends to support just isn't realty and is two dimensional. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 09:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the black-and-white problem is among those who treat Snowden as a hero and the US as a villain. It is nowhere near that simple, and it's important to keep reminding editors on one side of that POV fence that there is another side that they need to consider. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Why is that important? I thought we were here to write an encyclopedia? --John (talk) 10:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you asking why a balanced view is important??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I am not. Your behaviour as exemplified here and later shows that you should not be editing in this area due to WP:NOTFORUM, WP:SOAPBOX and WP:BLP concerns. Your view is not balanced, and your comments are not helping. Please do not continue like this. --John (talk) 10:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The behavior of the hero-worshippers is nauseating. How do you propose to deal with that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Walk away and let others deal with it. --John (talk) 12:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

That's how you propose to deal with it??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The same way it's dealt with on other talk pages - escalating not-a-forum warnings and not by tit-for-tat snarky remarks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I say this with love in my heart and with all appreciation for Bugs's humanity and humour; it'd be best to back off from this and focus your talent elsewhere, BB. --John (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I've taken a glance through the current talk page and the archives and I think it's clear there are serious forum issues all around. I can't speak for all the contributors, but I do know that Baseball Bugs at least should know better, especially all the times he shows up to stir the pot at AN/I. If he can't collaborate constructively and keep the focus on developing the article rather than developing politics, he should be topic-banned from the article and whatever closely relates to it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

To be fair to Bugs, there was a time when s/he was a real irritant and timewaster here at AN/I and was I believe topic banned from these boards for a while. However this was well over a year ago and Bugs' recent contributions at AN and AN/I have been much more succinct and constructive. Bugs retains an acerbic and intelligent wit which is appreciated by many, including me. However on the Snowden topic I agree with others that Bugs' sense of proportion has gone missing and I think I would agree with a proposed topic ban on this one area. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with David Fuchs that there have been other WP:NOTFORUM violations at Talk:Edward Snowden, but Bugs has been by far the worst and most consistent offender, and most of the others have been by IPs or other much less experienced editors. (P.S. I'll update the links in my original post to avoid linkrot.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

To me, this comment by Bugs pretty much says it all. His goal is to influence the other editors themselves rather than the article. That's WP:SOAP in a nutshell. (It's immaterial that influencing the other editors might indirectly influence the article. That could be said to defend any soapboxing.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

"Influence"? Horrors! Goddess forbid that editors should be asked to think outside their particular box of biases. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Seems so. The thing is, if the preponderance of world opinion backed by reliable sources portrays Snowden-as-hero, then that is what WP:NPOV dictates our encyclopedic coverage should be. If Snowden-as-criminal is the minority point-of-view, it actually does a disservice to NPOV to treat it as an opinion with equal weight. This is no different from tamping down the birthers who feel their particular conspiracy theories should be given prominence in the Obama article. Doesn't work that way, however. Tarc (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

No valid source calls him a "hero", they merely quote others who think he's a hero. Don't forget that distinction. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, a wiki world that is fair and NPOV. I knows its July, but I just made my xmas wish :). Good luck all. --Malerooster (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Bugs, could you disengage from the Snowden talk page, please? I'm asking you this as an old editing pal of the morally relativist kind. That will save us all some time and trouble, and you a topic ban which is likely to be granted. FWIW, I appreciate Bugs's wit as much as Kim does, and I don't consider him an irritant. Drmies (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't think Bugs' humor should serve as a defense. And he hasn't shown much wit over at Talk:Edward Snowden. I've laughed out loud at some of his posts on other pages, but at Snowden he just comes off as shrill, angry, and stubborn and his attempts at humor seem intended for an audience of one. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Dr. F. You've expressed your concerns and people are agreeing with you. Don't undermine attempts to de-escalate the issue without formal sanctions by calling Bugs shrill and angry. That will only cause more drama. Back off and let cooler heads deal with it. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

This coming from an obviously-hiding-their-identity IP user who does nothing but comment around the edges of Arbcom cases is what truly ramps up the drama. Calling a spade a spade in the case at hand is sometimes the only way to truly deal with it. Tarc (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

What identity would that be? 204.101.237.139 (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey, don't be hating the IPs! We are people, too. Our opinions are just as valid as yours. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, but they're much harder to keep track of. HiLo48 (talk) 22:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Forum or no forum, the bottom line is that if other editors ask you to change your behavior, you should do so. Only if you think you need to continue with what you are doing in order for the article to be edited properly, can you argue against that. So, the issue is not per se whether or not Bugs violates the NOTFORUM rule (because from time to time many other editors including me do so, the rules on wikipedia are flexible), what matters is that it can at some point become disruptive to other editors. A teacher may tolerate the pupis to talk in class, but when he asks the pupils to be quiet and Bugs keeps on talking, Bugs risks being sent away... Count Iblis (talk) 12:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I see that some other editors are now starting to question some of the premises that the hero-worshippers have glommed onto. So at this point I'm content to watch, as the tide slowly turns in the factual direction. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Fittingly, given the circumstances, here's a story just today,[66] about Russian hackers stealing 160 million credit card numbers. Thank goddess it was only Russian criminals and not the NSA. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that I had some trouble finding this story (which I heard on CBS radio news today) in Google, because there are so many of them at various points in time over a number of years. Russia also routinely jails critics and satirists, which is against the law in America. The guy says he wants to hang around for a while, "to learn about Russian culture." Uh-huh. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• I purposefully have not read the talk page yet. Much like the notion that history is written by the victors, POV is sometimes intentionally or unintentionally introduced by the majority. Talk pages must not be used as a forum, but perhaps everyone involved in editing Snowdon should try to examine the content more dispassionately. -- Taroaldo ✉ 21:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I certainly second that. The article has had its share of flare-ups that were not provoked by Bugs. But my complaint isn't about Bugs' bias or passion, both of which are probably warranted for such a controversial subject. Rather, my complaint is that Bugs has become focused on convincing other editors of the righteousness of his views (e.g. most notably, that the subject of the article is not a hero) rather than on improving the encyclopedia. His most recent edits in this discussion thread are just further evidence of that; when your NOTFORUM behavior spills over to ANI then you know you've got a problem. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I concede that it's very difficult to convince others to look at a story from other angles, when they are already locked into their positions. It reminds me of the fight over whether we went to the moon or not. There was no convincing the conspiracists, regardless of evidence. As regards ANI, well, Doctor Yeast-and-Margarine, you dragged me here, so don't expect your complaints to go unchallenged. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

If you feel the need to debunk conspiracy theories then you can start a blog or write a letter to your newspaper. But that's not what we do here. (And to compare those who consider Snowden a hero to those who believe we didn't put a man on the moon is laugh-out-loud silly. Included among the many millions of people you've repeatedly disparaged as "hero-worshipers" is the founder of this website.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

One thing the Apollo hoaxsters liked to do was to cite polls on how many people agreed with them. Oddly enough, there seems to be no small amount of that kind of thing in this situation also. As regards Wales, keep in mind he shut down Wikipedia for a day to protest something or other, in gross defiance of Wikipedia's rule against "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point", so he's not walking any high ethical ground. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Keep digging that hole... --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Enough, you two. None of the above exchange is appropriate for AN/I (or indeed anywhere on WP.) I strongly suggest that you disengage from one another now and allow other editors to come to a decision on whether any action is warranted. Personally I would close this right now but I've expressed an opinion on the matter. If anyone uninvolved cares to do so I think we've all heard enough and there's nothing to be gained by extending this discussion. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 08:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Close it. I've stopped editing the talk page, which is presumably what Yeast-and-Margarine was wanting. So dat's dat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

190.137.36.40

The person behind 190.137.36.40 (talk · contribs) has been disrupting multiple articles since last May. If I remember correctly s/he started with this edit, adding falsely that this song was recorden in 2010 with no evidence of that. This continued for several days[67][68] until I said this, which I think was incorrect as well as it was released in late 2012. After this, this person started to say that it was recorded in 2011 and not 2010 as s/he previously said, and to say that the song was released as single last year when it was released last week.[69][70][71], etc. To make it short, the page eventually was protected, but this user has moved since then to multiple pages:

• Leggings, which was protected in the past because of this
• Boot, which was protected in the past because of this
• Wavin' Flag
• Race queen
• Boot fetishism
• Spandex fetishism
• Insomnia (Faithless song)

In most of them the edits are similar (about clothes), remove from the WP:SEEALSO section a relevant article under arguments like Leggings is not fetish. This has become an absurd edit-war with someone who "believes" their edits are "correct"--despite the fact of several blocks and page protections. Considering this message, which doesn't need to be translated but denotes this user incompetence and immaturity and has jumped now to add personal attacks and restore them as "They can't be eliminated", can somebody explain him/her why abusing multiple IPs to do "something correct" is incorrect, that personal attacks is disruptive, and if possible protect the articles? Thanks. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 08:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

false blocks, false reversals and false accusations

My edits are not disruptive, are vandalism and are not bad, I've had locks falsely falsely have been reversed, and that's not right, everyone can edit, no one should be blocked or reversed falsely, and I've been through this matter, really. Several users have accused me falsely puppet user. That's nothing true, because I'm no puppet user. I do not agree with me reverse, or accuse me falsely blocked me, I do not accept that. That is something that is prohibited and is not. Also a couple of times I have attacked some users and that is prohibited. This is a place that anyone can edit, obviously disruptive editions, personal attacks, spam edits or vandalism are not accepted. Change or modify content in the articles, it's nothing bad, many users do that and nothing happens. For that reason I say this; my edits are not bad, because when I modify and / or change contained in Articles disruptive that's nothing, my edits are not false and are not wrong, you know. 190.137.36.40 (talk) 09:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC).

• Well, given your lack of competence with regards to your ability to speak English, it's hardly surprising that you've been flagged as a potentially problematic editor. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
• This user has been abusive too - an example here(cited above in initial report too), use some translation tool to see it. The editor has not stopped editing. I have left a note in their talk page for the same. If the editor does not stop then a preventive block might be needed to control the disruption.  A m i t  웃   15:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
• Its refreshing that he/she admits: "Also a couple of times I have attacked some users and that is prohibited." however, I'm unsure if that's what they intended to say.--R.S. Peale (talk) 01:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• People should not be editing Wikipedia when they have not demonstrated competence to do so. The response above clearly shows that. Enough said. Taroaldo ✉ 01:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • This user's IP now has changed to 190.225.104.205 (talk · contribs). Considering the fact s/he can change from IPs easily and the persistent removal of content, can we protect the articles Leggins, Boot, Boot fetishism and Spandex fetishism? S/he admitted to be of American origin, but the text s/he wrote was really badly written as it can be interpreted as "I do vandalize but I do not disrupte, I do not sock, but I have changed my IPs many times, and Wikipedia is the enyclopedia anyone can edit, and vandalism is correct and should be included" ("My edits are not disruptive, are vandalism and are not bad" ... "everyone can edit, no one should be blocked or reversed falsely", and the recent history of Leggings per WP:DUCK, demostrate this user won't work correctly. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• Note that there is no need to reverse falsely editions with no explanation. Besides, I do not inventions to me because I referred you say ... no ... let's start with who invented, be careful not to be aggressive, presumably in good faith, do not make personal attacks. And now I want my problems are solved editions, greetings. 190.225.104.205 (talk) 04:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • • Whatever this person wrote, s/he moved to 190.137.188.225 (talk · contribs) and then 186.125.74.159 (talk · contribs) (current). This is getting ridiculous, if s/he does nothing wrong, why many users disagree with their edits? Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
      • I support what Tbhotch says. Elliot Wing (talk) 22:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the main targets listed for 2 weeks save for Insomnia (Faithless song) which seems to be under control. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

FkpCascais

In the April Evlekis arbitration enforcement discussion, I mentioned FkpCascais was engaging in tendentious revert wars and recommended that we act to stop this behavior. At the time, Gatoclass didn't think it was serious enough and FC was let go with just a notice.

Well, as usual, history repeats itself and makes me think that the patterns I'm noticing aren't all just in my head: a discussion about an old picture's copyright has degraded into yet another violation of the spirit of WP:ARBMAC. He ignores the nominator's main copyright concern and instead wants to keep the picture because it presents one position, claiming some other people have added pictures that present another one. His other contribution to the FfD is joining a contentious subthread (a discussion between Antidiskriminator and Peacemaker67) to explicitly censure another editor for (allegedly) not respecting his POV there and, well, everywhere else.

That's just not the right attitude - it's a clear battleground mentality and an apparent failure to adhere to the spirit of the neutrality policy. In short, exactly the kind of bad attitude what ARBMAC is supposed to guard the encyclopedia against.

He's been mentioned in the ARBMAC log at least once a year in the last three consecutive years; he's violated his earlier topic ban there on at least two occasions - one is documented in the log and the other I noticed and notified WGFinley, who then gave them yet another second chance.

At this point I'm unable to act unilaterally because I'm involved. Nevertheless, I really don't see what the community stands to lose from giving FkpCascais a long-term ban on the topic of politics of the former Yugoslavia - other than these repetitive incidents.

I chose ANI instead of AE as a venue for this discussion because the latter forum tends to be very technical and narrow in scope (and when people like Sandstein apply sanctions broadly, people get upset). Here, the format is less strict and I'm hoping more people can chime in to make sure we've got a good sample for a consensus.

--Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Joy, you had disputes with me in the past and some you lost so it gets quite borring by now you hunting me down. I don´t think appropriate for you not to show one diff showing one wiki-rule I broke but rather collect cases you and some friends made against me long time ago... FkpCascais (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

And regarding the "Evlekis case" I restored a section that was sourced and blanked by one editor because someone seems to have changed parts of the content which I was unaware of, and in my view not a reason for blanking an entire usefull section (the editor who was blanking the section, if acting in good faith could have just corrected the information). One section restoring is not a tendentious reverting for sure, but I understand your efforts to present it that way... Regarding Peacemaker, yes, I was a bit hard on him on that comment, but seing a picture with soldiers trumpling an enemy flag and arguing that they are just standing and it´s only a few of them and etc. is just not understandable. FkpCascais (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I may not be the nicest editor around to discuss with, but I try allways to be objective, correct and I´m a strict follower of wiki rules. That is why you never have concrete diffs with clear breakings of some rule by me, but rather you mention all your past reports with addition of peacock words and dramatising them. Next time you´ll mention this report, and so and so... FkpCascais (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to see some diffs for this as well. Also, I thought FkpCascais was under a topic ban already, though it may have expired. If memory serves, it was in regards to Balkans history, especially dealing with the politics during WWII. FkpCascais, are you still topic banned? AniMate 23:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

No I am not AniMate. I may have been a bit hard on Peacemaker on my comment (the reason why Joy brought this here) but so is he being ironic in that discussion. He says he wants to "help" but when Antidiskriminator fixes the non-free-usage problem of the picture, then he tries to disregard the picture by saying that those soldiers are "simply standing" next to the Nazi flag (when the source clearly says they are trumpling it), and so... I mean, this is a highly politicized matter, but there is a group that constantly makes all sorts of difficulties to include in the article anything that goes against the "collaboration issue with Nazis" and reports those editors. Basically Joy is reporting me and asking to topic ban me because I wasn´t nice in one comment to Peacemaker and because I opposed his opinion? Come on... FkpCascais (talk) 00:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

You're right. I think I was remembering a topic ban discussion in regards to User:PANONIAN. AniMate 20:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I linked the discussion already, piped, here it is explicitly: Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_July_22#File:Chetniks_trampling_the_Nazi_German_flag.jpeg. The other hyperlinks in my text are also piped and they provide further information. The messages are clearly signed, do you really need diffs? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

In any event, I realize requiring people to click through a few times and follow several different discussions is onerous. Yet, I think that it's fair to do that to make sure everyone's seen a modicum of context before discussing a non-trivial topic ban. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Joy. You are asking for a long-term topic ban for this user, so yes, you really do have to present diffs, and lots of them, and current ones too, not from years gone by. Their two posts to the file deletion discussion are not enough on their own for a topic ban to be warranted in my opinion. Thanks. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree here that I don't see anything actionable. The arguments at FFD are poor, but if we topic-banned for poor FFD rationales, we'd be banning a lot of people indeed. Without any other evidence of recent misconduct, I don't see anything warranting a sanction. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The incident and the evidence, or lack thereof, presented here do not make a very compelling case for a topic ban at all. AniMate 20:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a polemical issue and we even had a almost 2 year long mediation on this subject. The group Chetniks has started initially by being a resistance movement, and with the appearance of communist Partisans, they ended up engaged in collaboration activities with Nazi´s. That complex situation needs to be presented in the article. Our article is deeply unbalanced (one can compare our article with the one from Britannica and see the major difference). I was a bit hard on Peacemaker on my comment there, but their continuos obstruction in adding material about Chetniks resistance activities is also very tireing with endless debates and excuses, and the pic is extremely necessary in order to bring balance to the article. FkpCascais (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Having been pointed here by Antidiskriminator, I have to say I think this is a bit of an over-reaction. In the past I have been as frustrated as anyone else by Fkp's failure to bring reliable sources or address WP policies when dealing with a topic. His comment was uncalled for, as I did assist Antidiskriminator when the picture was first uploaded. However, a bit of robust banter is part and parcel of editing in ARBMAC-Land, and I can use some picturesque idioms myself at times. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

(replying to all) I realize how this can seem like overkill. The problem is, low-intensity POV harping doesn't improve the encyclopedia and is instead disruptive, even if there's not a lot of it. If after three years the same user keeps presenting the same problematic attitude in discussions, and does not reciprocate with quality sourced contributions in main space, why do we all have to spend time dealing with them? I see no reason to believe that we won't be seeing the same problems next year and in perpetuity.

Notice how he still insists on describing the Chetniks article issue as "deeply unbalanced" - it's an article with 141 citations to an assortment of books. If it was really that deeply unbalanced, someone probably would have noticed and tagged the hell out of it. Instead, I think this is just an inability of FkpCascais to let go of his own bias.

Also notice how I didn't suggest a similar ban for Antidiskriminator - God knows his behavior regarding the same topic areas is terribly annoying (see his topic ban on a FA biography - I've literally never seen something like that before, plus the several times he's baselessly accused me of admin abuse). But he's done some actual half-decent work - most recently I noticed he wrote 13KB of material about the Thematic debate on the role of international criminal justice in reconciliation. Yes, perhaps there are problems with that, but it's not oblique POV pushing, it's something that contributes to the encyclopedia.

In this topic area, I'm just not seeing the benefit of continuing to listen to FkpCascais. It's at best marginal compared to the amount of effort required to ignore the disruptive elements of it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a shamefull attitude Joy. I beleave BOOMERANG should be in place here. You are unable to provide any diffs of mine showing any disruption and you are basically asking people to ban editors because you don´t like them. You being an administrator here is a big disapointment for WP standards. FkpCascais (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I have provided ample links to demonstrations of your behavior; perhaps they're not in trivial and straightforward diff form, but anyone who wants can click through and read up on it. I don't dislike you personally - I don't even know you personally - I simply find this pattern of behavior where you violate ARBMAC on half a dozen occasions over the course of several years, and still don't reform despite numerous warnings and bans, to be a clear sign that you have no intention to reform. Heck, even in this response, you went for an ad hominem as opposed to for example explaining how you've contributed to making that article less "deeply unbalanced" or something else that might actually be productive. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I challenge you to find any diffs of mine from this year where you can point a finger to me in any way. Otherwise, please get off my back and let me edit peacefully. FkpCascais (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Dude, seriously, I already did that. You're now intentionally insisting on wasting my time. But hey, let's continue the charade: here are the diff links of the two edits I already mentioned: [72] [73]. *facepalm* --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOUR dispute

Hi, I'm coming here from a dispute on the Four Award talk page, primarily located at Wikipedia talk:Four Award#Removing name and articles from WP:FOUR and partially here. Could an administrator please assess the consensus in the first discussion and take appropriate action, possibly including removing articles from the records list? I tried to act based on the comments there, but receiving vandalism templates on my talk page is getting rather old. (pinging User:TonyTheTiger, please let me know if I should ping more) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Note that as project Director, I exercised my authority to maintain the records of the project. You are free to decline an award, but not free to change the recorded history of an award, even for something like the Golden Raspberry Awards where everyone would want to remove their name from the historical records people are allowed to decline but not change the history of the award. It is not a matter of consensus in terms of record keeping. The historical records are what they are. I have agreed to use placeholders to maintain the historical record for declined awards.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I thought that Tony, the director of that project, had determined he was not to be swayed by consensus:

MY DECISION IS FINAL in the sense that I am no longer commenting on this thread. I am not opening up FOUR to a special MILHIST style collaboration. I don't want to wake up and see all of the battleships, Airplane models, famous battles, and notable military leaders known to man listed here because I allowed MILHIST to dictate what a collaboration is. You are free to pervert the rule as I have posted it.[74]

There would be no problem with people removing their entries if Tony accepted jointly created article collaborations. Binksternet (talk) 23:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

As I have stated, for several reasons, I am not expanding collaboration eligibility for userspace/sandbox creations any further than those for article space. The award has gotten watered down many ways since its creation and we are getting to the last straw. Now (the last 4 years) nearly one award is issued for every 5 new FAs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Tony, you describe it as a bad thing that the award is being given out more often now than when it first started. I say "so what?" Lots of awards means lots of happy contributors. The wiki benefits from people being motivated, and what I see here is you becoming a demotivator, which is, I'm sure, not what you intended. So don't change your purpose, don't start discouraging people! Collaboration ought to be held in high regard, as exemplary activity. [[User:Binkster{{net|Binksternet]] (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not familiar with WP:FOUR, is this Tony the Tiger's private province? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Tony has been highly active, but its not his "private province". The page was started by Thomas Bat four years ago (diff) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, he didn't start it, yes—but he appears to have granted himself the title of director and unlimited oversight over it. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• I would also like to point out that, during the course of this dispute, Tony has displayed a striking lack of good faith towards people with views which contradict his own. Snark about a user's name, painting all Milhist members (even barely active ones) with the same brush, saying those against him are perverting the rules... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • In fairness, Crisco, that first one is fair game. Drmies (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• Looking at the history of Wikipedia:Four Award/Records, Tony the Tiger has already reverted attempts for editors to remove their names from the list 4 times in the past 24 hours [75] [76] [77] [78], which I believe would be a violation of WP:3RR. FunPika 00:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Make that five now, with his latest revert (1). I'm WP:INVOLVED, so I won't do the blocking. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Fully agree. Tony knows far better than that. He can peruse the list for 48 hours (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Request for explanation Binksternet (talk · contribs) has taken action to eliminate the possibility of a collaboration. He is not an administrator. Is this the resolution here to resolve the dispute by making it moot.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Tony, you declared yourself to be the director of FOUR. You declared that collaborations would not be accepted. I merely corrected and simplified the otherwise misleading text in the FAQ and in the rules, to say collaborations were not part of FOUR. You had placed some byzantine text which said that collaborations may be accepted in very unusual and unlikely cases. In practice this description was not followed; rather, collaborations were not allowed by you. In light of this declaration I felt that people should have the rules stated simply. Binksternet (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Agree fully with Binksternet. If a self-declared director is ensuring that there is no chance for a collaboration to pass, despite consensus to the contrary, the rules should not offer false hope. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• Just trying to understand why WP:OWN doesn't come into play in these circumstances and how can some one attribute ownership for something already present in Wiki though it is not an article but more like a process here but still same rules apply - No??  A m i t  웃   14:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • My concern as well. Do we have self-appointed "directors" of projects now? Should we expect T the T to begin to annex other related projects and pages into his directorship? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• I'm struggling to see the logic of Tony in forcing people to be part of this, when they simply don't want to be. Not sure exactly how many things that is violating, but WP:OWN and WP:IDHT are definitely being violated. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Article creation

• I've been dealing with TonyTheTiger on somewhat unrelated matters for the past week. He initiates articles on individual works of art. He admits to not being particularly knowledgeable in this area. He solicits help in writing these articles. (I would call it a kind of Wikipedia outsourcing.) He attempts to promote these articles to Featured article status (I'm fairly ignorant of "featured article status".) These articles tend to be riddled with problems. These articles stray from scope, sometimes in not good ways. These articles are what I would call "everything including the kitchen sink" articles. Quantity seems to be equated with quality. Overblown language is sometimes preferred to plain language. I have a particular interest in articles on individual works of visual art. I object to his churning out articles that misinform about works of art. Speaking to him has been futile. For a sampling of some of what I'm talking about, look at this page and some of the pages it links to. I would not mind TonyTheTiger's involvement in this area if he seemed to be genuinely concerned with the quality of the article. Unfortunately I don't see that as being the case at this time. Bus stop (talk) 00:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I had similar concerns with Drowning Girl, though not being familiar with the subject area I could not find any possible misrepresentation. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Bus Stop is not the only editor to voice concerns with the quality of the article he linked to, but I want to make clear what he means by "Wikipedia outsourcing": what he means is that Tony brought the article to WP:Peer Review, which I think all those who have contributed to this thread recognize as not only a normal, but encouraged part of the process of bringing an article up to FA quality. Also, I hope what Bus Stop means by "the kitchen sink" is not the content that is currently under dispute... Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Shavaiz Shams

Where to start? I first noticed this editor doing a series of strange edits at Wikipedia:No original research. [79] Looking at their other contributions led me to strange and unneeded ref additions [80], [81], [82] and incorrect "corrections" [83], [84] leading me to believe English was not their first language. My polite notes were refactored [85], [86] followed by more of the same including a copyright violation [87]. They took a break for a while then returned for more of the same [88], [89], [90]. This is only a subset of their edits and clicking on some the external links they've added (after fixing them) leads to websites which have nothing to do with the topic. Please either block or find someone to watch over them. Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Anyone? A Franklin quote added to a Frankl article [91], invalid template [92], and no idea [93]. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks to me like a clear language issue - see [94] for example. Or this comment on Talk:Ch (computer programming): "How much it easy to run a program of ch program on any operating system and how much it can contribute to perform the programming work like the c++, c#, java and many are doing to day..." [95] - this is a bizarre posting in that it also seems to be proposing to add text to the article which is in fact copy-pasted from it. Looking at the refactoring that NielN links above [96][97], together with an apparent familiarity with Wikipedia workings, I'd guess that this 'contributor' isn't new, and has probably been blocked before. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Objectionable email

Quinacrine (talk · contribs) posted this attack on a religion to Talk:Islamophobia saying in part "ISLAM IS NOT A RELIGION. IT HAS NEVER BEEN A RELIGION AND IT WILL NEVER BE A RELIGION. ISLAM IS THE MOST GENOCIDAL IDEOLOGY EVER CONCEIVED BY A HUMAN MIND". I reverted it and warned him I'd block him if he did it again after seeing that he'd been blocked before for a similar edit.[98]. He then used Wikipedia to send me what I considered an objectionable email - I can't quote it, but I can say it was a short question. Now that doesn't bother me in particular, but if he's sending me this he could clearly be emailing others with even more objectionable emails. He complained at the talk page about my reverting his edit(with a link to it) but has received no support. I also see [99]. Was I justified in telling him I'd block him if he made a talk page post again? (And minor question, about his linking to his original post?). Dougweller (talk) 05:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Dougweller quotes my post out of context. If you read my entire post, you will realize that I posted solid evidence for every word quoted above. The root cause of our disagreement about Islam is that I understand Islam better than average Muslim (and can talk about it for many hours) while the majority of Wikipedia contributors and administrators lack the most basic, idiot-level understanding of what Islam is and what it is not. My opinion (quoted above) is not important, but the facts I included in my (deleted) post are VERY IMPORTANT.Quinacrine (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

How the Left Conquered Wikipedia: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/david-swindle/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/Quinacrine (talk) 07:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Freedom is not free, it is paid with blood. Our blood will pay for the appeasement of Islam.Quinacrine (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

There is certainly a long-term pattern of disruptive soapboxing on topics like this with this editor. He was ranting on Talk:Anders Behring Breivik last March too. Very much support a final warning (at the least). Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Doug, would you be willing to forward the e-mail to me (or to another functionary)? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Update: I have seen the e-mail, which is indeed unpleasant, but does not warrant a block per se, in my opinion. However, this is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE, as far as I'm concerned. I'll give him the chance to reply here, if wants, but, as things currently stand, I think an indefinite block is inevitable. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I have the same impression from what I've seen here. I should note however that enforcement of the wiki rules in this area (Islam) is rather uneven (see the couple of discussions currently on WP:AN). Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Piotr9 unhelpful and non-consensus edits

Piotr9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a brand new editor on Wikipedia.(See welcome tag here). As of this moment this person has edited the phonetic spelling of the names of more than 20 subjects, hence more than 20 articles on Wikipedia (see this user's contributions for current update). At this moment this person does not have consensus for making such changes across Wikipedia in large numbers of articles, and has been notified [100]. Also, the accuracy and necessity of such edits has been questioned by me and at least one other editor [101], [102], [103]. After leaving a message on his talk page imploring this person seek consensus and to stop editing across Wikipedia [104], I reverted several edits on several articles, [105], [106], [107], [108]. This person then reverted several of my reversions describing such action as "rubbish", but without any way to verify their accuracy or even their necessity [109], [110], [111], [112]. Because of this I decided to hand this situation over to Admins.

I admit that I mistakenly thought consensus was building counting two other editors besides myself. But I misunderstood an earlier (May 2013) edit by another contributor [113], [114] as related to this situation. Hence, I only know of one other editor that disagreed on one article [115]. So, although I cannot claim that consensus is building just yet, there is still no consensus for editing more than 20 articles after pointing out the need for reliable sources, verifiability, and consensus [116], [117]. I think this person's editing and lack of cooperation are both inappropriate - at this time. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, I recommend that the phonetic spellings for all of these articles be restored to what they were before Piotr9's edits, unless this editor or someone else can produce acceptable references, and perhaps a rationale for why Wikipedia should use these type of phonetic spellings, rather than what was on these articles before. Maybe, a good question to ask is, what is the accepted norm in such cases? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Although I may be wrong, I want to say that Piotr9's edits and name remind me much about Piotr Blass, who was banned on 17 January, 2007. Could it be that Piotr9 is Piotr Blass? 173.58.100.137 (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. It might be worth looking into; and of course a qualified Admin would have to do the check(s). At this point, as far as I can see, who ever this person is, he/she seems merely disruptive, and not really helpful. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

SamerVergara 21‎

User:SamerVergara 21 has been repeatedly updating the page for Sandra Vergara, attempting to add dates of birth. My concern with these repeated edits are:

1. The edits are unsourced, and in conflict with her date of birth as published in the media (although media reports are themselves inconsistent, none make her old enough to be his mom).
2. Samer's own edits are inconsistent; he has used 1976, 1977, and 1978 as years of birth and has stated her age to be 34 (implying a year of 1979) while simultaneously explicitly providing the year 1976 in the same edit.
3. The editor claims to be the subject's son, introducing an obvious wp:conflict of interest.
4. The editor does not respond to messages on his talk page nor on the article's. (I am not sure he even understands that these pages are there.)

I am not trying to get into a debate about the Sandra Vergara's true date of birth; I merely do not think it is appropriate for her alleged son to be inserting unsourced dates into his mother's article, especially given the fact that it conflicts with published sources. The published sources are also conflict with his claim as the date of birth in the media would make her ten years old at his birth. Either he is lying about having a famous mom (not unheard of for a 15-year-old boy) or his mom is lying about her age (not unheard of for a Hollywood actress); in either event WP:BLP precludes us from including his edits in her article.

The editor periodically returns to editing this page. It is almost the only page he has ever edited in the article space (with one exception). He usually makes about one attempt per week although today he has reverted my reversion of his edits. He has never broken 3RR as far as I can tell; as I say this is a low speed edit war.

Thanks, Dusty|💬|You can help! 14:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

User:SamerVergara 21 has created an article about himself in his sandbox, including a header which says "this is an article, not a user page", apparently with the intention of moving it to article space. So he obviously sees himself as a celebrity, and worthy of an article, too. --Rullebör _{(snacka me maj)} 15:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I not sure that is true because if you read the article (it is a stub on a non-notable person) it is mostly about whom he is related to and nothing about him. He does make the claim there that he is Sandra Vergara's son so I wonder if he is trying to change the date of her birth to support that claim. Dusty|💬|You can help! 13:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Samer apparently has added sockpuppetry to his resumé now: User:Joė121111, born yesterday and already made an edit! (I wonder why nobody has ever, ever tried that trick before?) Dusty|💬|You can help! 00:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Badmintonhist continues stalking me

Less than a month ago, I brought a complaint to this board about Badmintonhist's hounding, and the general agreement that he was not behaving as he should does not seem to have dissuaded him, as he continues (cf. [118]) his (cf. [119]) hounding (cf. my recent editing of the article). Pretty much everything he does at the encyclopedia is directly or indirectly related to undoing my edits. If a warning from admins would make him stop, and find something productive to do instead of spending all his time trying to disrupt my editing, that would be great, but as remarks from admins haven't stopped him in the past I worry that a firmer hand may be necessary. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

At the last discussion, Black Kite, Gamaliel, and I all agreed that Badmintonhist was stalking you. I don't know why the thread was archived without any action being taken. This continuation is plainly the same sort of disruptive interaction. I suggest an interaction ban. Binksternet (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

An IBAN would not stop that. It is merely a ban on actual interaction between the users. This edit clearly shows that Badmintonhist is continuing their previously-established pattern of following Roscelese to articles and reverting them. I would suggest a final warning, to be followed by blocks. Black Kite (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Barring the presentation of conflicting evidence by Badmintonhist, I concur. Gamaliel (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I've only recently begun interacting with Roscelese after she reverted several of my edits and then nominated the article for deletion. That's fine, except she didn't attempt to seek consensus or discuss any of her heavy handed reverts in the talk page. She seems to have improved a bit since I complained about her lack of cordiality and etiquette, but I believe a lot of the ire directed her way is because of a general insensitivity to the edits of others with whom she apparently disagrees. I hope that this will be an opportunity for all of us to be polite toward one another irrespective of our political and religious beliefs. Thanks! Lordvolton (talk) 01:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but what does 'opportunity for all of us to be polite toward one another irrespective of our political and religious beliefs' have to do with it? Do you have some evidence Roscelese is impolite to people because of Roscelese's or the people they're interacting with's political or religious beliefs? Nil Einne (talk) 01:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I think one of the great successes of Wikipedia has been the ability of people from varying political and religious perspectives to edit Wikipedia amicably. When an editor is heavy handed and doesn't seek consensus that can easily be interpreted, rightly or wrongly, as being a POV editor. The simple solution is to be polite and cordial even if the other person probably doesn't share the same views. It should come as no surprise that there are negative consequences when other editors opinions are not taken into account and basic etiquette is ignored. I believe that these situations can be avoided if people with different political and religious views agree to disagree agreeably. In recent days Roscelese has shown signs of being more willing to have a discourse with editors, but there is a previous pattern of behavior on her part that is apparently being ignored.Lordvolton (talk) 04:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

This discussion appears to be conclusive that Badmintonhist needs to be given a final warning, so I have done that. I expect that an administrator will immediately block Badmintonhist if Roscelese points to a single new instance of Badmintonhist following her to an article. Binksternet (talk) 01:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hardly. You have the same group of supporters commenting here as last time. Expect whatever you wish, but that has no basis in reality. Arkon (talk) 03:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

So Black Kite, Gamaliel and me are somehow not part of reality? That's an indefensible position you've taken.

How about offering a positive contribution to this discussion? Please tell us what you propose be done about the observed stalking problem. Binksternet (talk) 03:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Black Kite, Gameliel and you are certainly a part of something. How about not issuing warnings, particularly final ones, to people you are in a dispute with. Arkon (talk) 03:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

To add, the expectation that has no basis in reality is that some admin "will immediately block Badmintonhist...", when no such consensus from uninvolved admins/editors has been reached. Your little club has no ability to dictate such. Arkon (talk) 03:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe the relevant passage from WP:Wikihounding is "correct use of an editor's history includes fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." On that basis I think I can defend every intervention I've made in articles that Roscelese has been (mis)editing. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I think this edit from a few hours ago sums up what you are doing wrongly quite simply. I have issued a final warning for this, too. So the answer is no, you can't defend yourself. I looked at your editing pattern as well and I would not have agreed in the previous ANI filing if it were the case. Even after the previous ANI we have this today (the sources are in the Wikilinked article), and this attack on the other editor. That bolded section you mention above does not mean following an editor to multiple articles and reverting just because you disagree with them, it means fixing actual problems with the articles ("unambiguous errors" is quite clear). Not to mention your previous personal attacks on the other editor. There are 4,000,000+ articles on Wikipedia; please go and find the 99.999% that Roscelese hasn't edited. Black Kite (talk) 07:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Lordvolton, I'll put it a different way, whatever the alleged problems with Roscelese's behaviour when it comes to communication, it doesn't seem justify any alleged stalking. If you have problems for the,, I suggest you use a suitable form of dispute resolution. For example, if you've already tried to resolve it with them you can open an RFCU if you think someone else with certify. I would note whatever form of dispute resolution you choose, you will need to be willing to provide actual diffs not unsupported allegations. Nil Einne (talk) 06:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• If there happens to be any traces of doubt, a cursory look at the provided refs by someone entirely uninvolved, namely me, indicates there is indeed a substantial issue here, including violations of WP:BATTLE. Any further disruption by Badmintonhist should result in a major preventative block up to and including an indef. This is stalking behavior that cannot be tolerated by our community. Jusdafax 11:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I think we can agree that there was a series of events that led to this moment. Some of them may have been self inflicted. The evidence is in the editorial history of both parties. A cursory review by an unbiased third party, not personal editing partners of either party, could probably bring some closure to this question. My experience with them has been recent and I've noticed an alarming trend in my dealings with Roscelese, although she has improved lately. If an independent third party determines that there has been agenda driven edits and behavior that isn't within the spirit of Wikipedia then corrective action needs to take place. Simply because an editor feels a sense of camaraderie toward either party shouldn't determine the outcome -- in fact those people should probably recuse themselves and let others make the final call. I'm perfectly happy to do just that as long as others who have a history of siding with one party or another remove themselves from the discussion as well. I think that's fair. Otherwise we have a second topic to discuss -- cyber bullying on behalf of editors who cry wolf without there being any due process. I've read some of the threats and I don't think they've taken a tone of cordiality. In fact, I don't see much discourse between the accused and the self appointed prosecutors. This doesn't look like justice to me -- it looks like the schoolyard during recess, but that doesn't mean we cannot rise above it. Lordvolton (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Given that there is an Arbcom decision about abortion, this should really go to WP:AE. It looks to me like the undoing of Roscelese's edits is motivated by content disagreements over some issues closely related to abortion controversies in the US, rather than being merely the schoolboys' type of personality-driven bullying. The diffs provided in the opening statement are all from that same topic area. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • To be fair, Roscelese's undoing of my edits (and others) could be described as content disagreements over abortion. In the past I've attempted to find a neutral third party to discuss my editing disagreements with Roscelese, but rather than allowing a neutral third party to intervene she nominated the article for deletion, so I know that her tactics can be insensitive to the work of others. That doesn't mean the right thing to do is retaliate in an uncivil manner, two wrongs do not make a right. However, rather than focusing solely on "stalking" and some of the cyber bullying that may have occurred as a result of her allegations against an editor she finds disagreeable -- we need to also carefully review the repeated reverts by Roscelese on the topic of abortion (Douglas Karpen, Rachel's Vineyard, and Catholic Church and abortion in the United States, etc). As Black Kite points out, there are over 4 million articles to edit, which includes topics other than abortion. Both parties have every right to edit articles on abortion, but they don't have a right to mistreat others or engage in POV edits. I encourage everyone to review the editing history of both parties before taking sides and administering punishment. Perhaps we need to move this discussion over to WP:AE to get a fair review of the editorial behavior of all parties involved.Lordvolton (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm not going to address your comments about my edit history, because I think that my edits speak for themselves and that pointing them out as supposed evidence that I've been editing badly will backfire on you. However, I do not like your assertion that I brought Badmintonhist's stalking upon myself by not liking him; that's a very unsavory suggestion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Lordvolton, you seem to be on the brink of suggesting that Roscelese or Badmintonhist should step away from abortion articles, to let the other one hold sway. Looking at their article and talk space interaction, it appears that Roscelese edits abortion articles first, then Badmintonhist comes in later. If one of the two editors is to step away, I say it should be Badmintonhist. This sounds like an abortion topic ban for Badmintonhist, or a one-way interaction ban. Is that what you wanted to suggest? Binksternet (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Funny, I didn't see that at all in what Lordvolton suggested. I do agree that Roscelese's edits "speak for themselves" but probably not in the way she thinks they do. For example, she recently effectively deleted (she is not an administrator) two "pro-life" articles, Virginia Society for Human Life and California Right to Life Committee by redirecting them to National Right to Life Committee. Since there's nothing on the California organization there and a mere mention of the Virginia organization, Roscelese provided readers with "a bridge to nowhere." Her editing is fiercely anti-anti-abortion. 04:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC) PS: Those "redirects" came shortly after she was unsuccessful in getting another "pro-life" article,Rachel's Vineyard, deleted through the normal process. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Badminton's actions are ongoing, and the stalking seems incredibly apparent, as does the battleground behaviour. Given how heavily warned they have been, why are they still allowed to contribute? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Sfan00 IMG and Wikimedia Commons

I see this user making a mass transfer of files to Wikimedia Commons, where many of them are deleted (see commons:User talk:ShakespeareFan00, a page littered with FfD notifications and already red File: links), or are just not needed. Note also that the user apparently does not read regularly their user_talk at Commons. See also User talk: Sfan00 IMG #File:Sir-charles-cameron-dublin.jpg and the thread immediately below, where “which images are problems” IMHO points to some problem with English syntax. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

OK , Enough. I'm not transferring any more images to commons for the present. Also note to admins, can you revoke file-mover because apparent concerns about COMPETENCE have been raised? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

If files deleted at Commons were subsequently restored in English Wikipedia, then the problem diminished, but I no not see obvious traces of such activity and I am lazy enough to check file names from the list and investigate whether they existed in English Wikipedia (Sfan00 IMG claims that not all of them, but I’m lazy to investigate). In any case, the problem of broken attribution links after deletion of superseded files in English Wikipedia remains. I estimate that attribution of hundreds or possibly even thousands of files is broken now thanks to Sfan00 IMG, a recent example being commons:User talk:ShakespeareFan00 #File:Maxam gilbert sequencing.png where no efforts were made to rectify broken attribution chains. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I missed that Sfan00 IMG uploaded files on Commons under same names than in en.wikipedia. So, the problem of attribution does not occur because en.wikipedia/wiki/File:… just shows the same file from Commons. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I moved the files concerned in good faith. Can you clarify what you mean by broken attribution chains? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I hoped a WP:File mover should know what is a derivative work in the context of (many) free licenses. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

You will really have to explain more fully. What happened? What images did it happen to? Can you give examples? -mattbuck (Talk) 20:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Further to above annotation, It seems that when a file is transfered over to Commons, no check is made at Commons for incoming links from Commons to the local file. This means that there is a breakage when items are moved. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It is good that, after a heated exchange on IRC, some positive conclusion was reached. Note that I didn’t question Sfan00 IMG’s good faith. This quarrel initially developed from ignoring of my appeal there, and escalated towards a noticeboard because of my subconsciously negative perception of mass actions. I do not propose Sfan00 IMG to stop transferring files. I expressed a disappointment that many superseded files, virtually useless for wiki pages, are moved to Commons, without an apparent consensus to devoid en.wikipedia of all Commons-compatible files. I suggest some discretion about this, and I also deem that excessive deletionism towards superseded files is harmful. If an uninvolved person deems that nothing has to be said afterwards, then I do not object against closure of this thread. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Bank robbery by Commons? Count Iblis (talk) 13:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Unresolved issue...

Original here, and the behavior is continuing: [120],[121],[122], [123],[124]. MSJapan (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I would recommend a block for this user in question. Please do inform the user about this ANI too.  A m i t  웃   15:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

As it was the last post I made on his talk, and this is ongoing with no response from him, I assumed the original notice was valid, but I will renotify. MSJapan (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

As I am now at a location with internet access, I am responding now. The categories which I have created were never intended for the purposes of attack. They are simply meant to show that every profession, religion, and institution has had members who have failed to live up to the standards of common decency. This is every bit as important a part of the history of these professions, religions, and institutions as the positive work which each of them has done. Should you desire to remove articles from the categories which are not sourced within the article text, I have no objection. I also would have no objection if you were to create a sister category about Knights of Columbus with criminal or even political convictions. I would advise you, however, against jumping to conclusions about my motivations or presuming that I cannot prove what I write if the need arises. Personally, I think you are going on a fishing expedition in order to save a certain institution from bad press. Ironically, one of the reasons why I created Category:Freemasons with criminal convictions is because certain conspiracy theorists whom I know have attempted to persuade me that the Masonic Fraternity never allows its own to be convicted of anything. This I know to be preposterous. I desired only to prove it to those who do not wish to believe.Kingstowngalway (talk) 00:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:CATEGORY says "The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages...which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse...topics that are defined by those characteristics." The categories you have created (such as Freemasons with criminal convictions and the various police misconduct cats) are not dealing with defining characteristics; they are dealing with trivial intersection in the former case, and subjective misapplication in the latter. That the Freemason criminal cats were created to "prove something" (your words) is a violation of WP:POINT. This is also not a case of "no Internet" - you have plenty of edits over the last few days, and when the initial ANI was filed, rather than respond here, you appealed to another user instead, after which that user attempted to intervene on your behalf. MSJapan (talk) 01:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not the categories are legitimate is a separate question that this is not the right place to discuss. The discussion has already started somewhere else. The simple fact is that MSJapan is once again using WP:ANI to intimidate anyone who does not share his, erm, eccentric and ahistorical views of Freemasonry. Kingstongalway is a blameless editor who had no intention of creating attack categories - as shown by his behaviour when creating the categories (he was at the time creating a number of categories of criminals by occupational group including Catholic priests and policemen). He is also, unlike MSJapan, not a disruptive user as shown by the fact that he has only been on one ANI archive while MSJapan has been on 138 ANI archive pages - that's 17% of the total. Any disciplinary action against Kingstowngalway would be a triumph for the bullying and gameplaying of MSJapan, who really needs a good dose of discipline himself. JASpencer (talk) 10:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

White Queens and Madonna fans

I appear to find myself in an edit war with an individual who seems to be obsessed with two things, the utter dreadfulness of the current Wars of the Roses BBC costume drama The White Queen and the utter wonderfulness of female presenters on the BBC local-news show Look South. This person mostly edits from the IP 90.206.251.198, but also uses other IPs. I'm almost certain s/he is the same person as User:Paatv, who seems to have created an account solely in order to upload images, which have been uploaded with licencing claims that are, well, frankly, lies. File:Amanda Hale.jpg is a publicity still (a shot from the same set is used on the cover of a recent re-issue of the novel "The Red Queen" [125]). The editor claims "I took this photograph whilst working on set of the White Queen as an extra". The file File:Laura Trant.jpg is claimed to have been taken in the studio, but is clearly a screenshot, with a visible BBC logo in the corner. Since User:Paatv and 90.206.251.198 edit the same articles and use the same phrasing, I've no doubt they are identical. 90.206.251.198 has had a habit of adding uncited trivia of a rather childish kind to articles on female TV presenters: examples range from "she is a slut" [126] to uncited informnation about the subject's favourite Madonna songs [127]. Most of this is tiresome, but trivial. The editor seems, however, obsessed with the need to remove any content from the article on the TV series The White Queen that says anything positive about it - at all. The editors methods for doing this have become slightly more sophisticated of late, but the agenda remains unchanged. I don't want to be seen to be repeatedly reverting. I suggest that the article should be semi-protected. Paul B (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• I've removed the two images from articles and flagged them as copyvios at Commons. Black Kite (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Semi'd The White Queen for a week. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Paul B (talk) 17:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism WP:NOTFORUM/non-productive edits on Black Hat Briefings

A series of new editors has recently begun adding unsourced "scary stuff" alleging that Indian hackers are using Intel chipset features to remotely attack other people's his own personal computer. Same paranoia, different user. This content doesn't belong on Black Hat Briefings anyway.

History: [128]

Diffs:

• Deskshasty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

[129] [130]

• Randomname3234234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

[131] [132]

• Hackerwithin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

[133] [134]

• Hypothetical questions (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

[135]

Some of these have been bot-warned. I don't think an actual human has attempted to reason with him/her, yet. They seem WP:NOTHERE --R.S. Peale (talk) 02:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah - I deleted one of these paranoid 'Indians are taking over world via IT' rants a few days ago. Whether a SPI will achieve anything I don't know - basically, we'll just have to delete on sight, as there are far too many articles to protect. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Found it: [136] User:Leakuying at Flame (malware). AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Leakuying shares the same concern (delusion) as the other four, but the language and style are quite distinct. If Leakuying's edits were reliably sourced and factual, I'd almost think they'd belong here. And the location (on an article discussing the same malware) doesn't seem too outrageous.

The four I reported share a common style which is pretty sloppy, and seem to be engaged in a conversation with Intel or with the editors on Wikipedia. I don't see an obvious Master-puppet relationship between Leakuying and the others, but Deskshasty, Randomname3234234, Hackerwithin, and Hypothetical questions seem to be quacking in tune with each other. --R.S. Peale (talk) 03:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• I've semi-protected Black Hat Briefings for the time being. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal, take 2

This is an appeal of a topic ban imposed on me by the admin Bbb23.[137] The underlying content issue is whether or not unspecified sectors of the Men's Rights Movement should be described as "misogynist" in the lead of that article.

Last time around[138], I did not understand that I was supposed to include lots of diffs with my appeal. Sorry about that.

Here, the admin Bbb23 declines my appeal, saying that "there's no reason to go to any further dispute resolution if a consensus has been reached." [139]

Here, I challenge Bbb23 on several points, including the question of whether or not there is a consensus.[140] However, rather than admitting there was no consensus, and reassessing the situation in that light, Bbb23 says he or she has nothing to add.[141]

Here are seven diffs from seven different users other than me arguing against the material. [142] [143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148] Don't get me wrong; there was also plenty of support for its inclusion. But the number of different users arguing against the material shows there is no consensus.

Here are two different users explicitly saying there is no consensus on the issue. The first is an admin. [149] [150]

All of the above diffs were visible on the talk page at the time I requested the RfC[151].

In light of the above, the assertion that there is a "consensus" on this issue is simply not true. Furthermore, as Bbb23 appears to have been patrolling the article for some time, he or she should have known that there was no consensus on the issue.William Jockusch (talk) 04:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked that closely but I note a number (but not all) of your diffs are from late April or early May so they don't necessarily tell us anything about a consensus or lack thereof when you opened the RFC in late June. In addition, the examples you pointed out of people saying there was no consensus actually look to be people saying too much forum shopping and excessive comments from those already involved in the discussion had made problems achieving consensus in one specific discussion at RSN and another discussion at NPOVN. In fact one of them even suggests there was consensus but it had been confused by the multititude of discussions. So even if it's true there was no consensus, I'm not particularly sure that your opening an RFC would have helped in any way in the absence of widespread agreement on the parts of people already involved on a wording and code of conduct for the RFC. Also at least one of the examples you used is from someone who's understanding of policy and guidelines is likely poor as they suggest a 'criticism section' and comtrast with another article without apparently considering the possible differences in subject matter so their opinion is not going to count much in determining a consensus. In addition, it looks to me like the issue of whether or not there was a consensus was a minor issue when it came to your topic ban. Nil Einne (talk) 05:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Request sanctions against this user

I made some rational and productive comments that were removed. The removing editor shod be sanctioned. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=565615937&oldid=565603390 Stephanie Bowman (talk) 06:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

What sanctions would you like to see applied?--R.S. Peale (talk) 08:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Stephanie, I am trying to see how the comment that you added was an attempt to improve the article through the addition of new, sourced information in order to gain consensus. Yes, your comment might be true, but then again, it reads more like one person's perspective - but how does it help improve the article? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• For some reason, the current POTUS and Obama in particular seem to attract new editors who want to make some point. It is rare, however, for such editors to find ANI so quickly. Talk:Barack Obama needs constant supervision to avoid it spiraling into a NOTFORUM festival of non-actionable campaign talking points. Johnuniq (talk) 10:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

See the President Obama talk page warnings then start clicking some of those links. One is to article probation and mentions ANI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie Bowman (talk • contribs) 13:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• While I wouldn't myself have removed Stephanie's post, it was a bit forummy (sorry for the neologism). There is certainly no reason for the person who remove it to be sanctioned with a block or even a warning, imho. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The talk page is a forum to discuss improvements. My comments were a middle of the road suggestion to incorporate some, reject some. Also, do not accuse me of being radical by calling me right wing, as it was a crime. I am a very progressive and life long Democrat. In real life, nobody has EVER accused me of being a Republican.

In real life, I am for a living wage and other populists measures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie Bowman (talk • contribs) 12:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Stephanie Bowman" is just yet another in a long (long, long, long) line of serial disruptors to hit that article's talk page, in a variety of guises and names. Genuinely "new" editors do not alight onto one of the most hot-button [WP:BLP|BLP's]] on the project to make a typically right-wing argument, then run screaming for ANI here. We also have someone who uses a Hungarian proxy (91.83.28.51, 91.83.194.227, etc...) to make absurd editing proposals. This is, sadly, a rather typical day at Talk:Barack Obama. Tarc (talk) 12:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• The toxic environment on this talk page is symptomatic of a great American political controversy (yawn) and plays a part in keeping the article as poor as it is (it is laughably far off standard for an FA yet it still displays the star). I am sure there is scope for a re-examination of the way proposals to improve this article (which badly needs it) are routinely stone-walled, archived, reverted or faced with spurious warnings. Perhaps editors who evince frustration with the "work" they are doing there could or should be encouraged to do something more constructive for a while? I don't think anything stronger is needed, for now. --John (talk) 13:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• I'm barely awake right now, but thought I would just say that the 'new' user is a JB50000/GayDenver sock puppet, who mentions the same nonsense in the same manner every time s/he makes a new account. Anyway, whatever the community decides is fine with me. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Observation: The community did authorize a indefinite General Sanctions regime (WP:GS/BO) with respect to this page. And while it appears to have fallen into disuse (Last warning was September 2012) I see that there has not been a revocation of the authorization. I suggest that Admins and interested users review the authorization and if appropriate start using it as a lower threshold to combat the claimed disruption. If the GS is not appropriate we should begin a discussion concerning revoking the regime to deprecate it. Hasteur (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

David Rowland (property developer)

User:Fatherhope55 has frequently removed sourced content from this article, appearing to suppress sourced information that is mildly critical of the subject. The user has stated that he is connected to the subject. I have reverted these removals because they appear to be vandalism. I have attempted to address his concerns by removing the use of a blogpost ("Tory Diary") as a source, but he appears to be contesting the rest of the information on the basis that it is sourced to the Daily Mail newspaper. I'm not the biggest fan of that newspaper but it is a mid-market newspaper. The user is also removing information which is sourced by other newspapers and has threated legal action on my talk page. Thanks for your attention. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is a tabloid and cannot be used in BLPs per WP:BLPSOURCES. Fatherhope55 was (substantially) right and you were wrong to revert that material. How many times did you revert? I gave up counting after 6. I will take care of any WP:COI issues that may come up with the other user but I would certainly recommend you to be blocked if you do anything remotely like this again, Jmorrison230582. --John (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is not generally considered a tabloid in the same vein as The Sun or the Daily Mirror, though its content is infamous for providing a right wing view. While you should try and get a better source like The Guardian, The Independent or the Daily Telegraph if you can, I take the view you can use it for factual information, but avoid it for presenting opinions as facts. For a recent example, Bramshill House includes a short sentence from the Mail criticising expenses by the Police College - it's specifically attributed to the newspaper, so it's okay. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, sourcing requirements may vary somewhat, depending on whether the issue is BLP or a property. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The Mail is a tabloid for snobs who don't like tabloids. It is a horrendous publication for a variety of reasons, and should certainly not be considered a reliable source. Furthermore, where is the discussion on the article talk page? GiantSnowman 16:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

To interpret BLPSOURCES as excluding the Daily Mail is ridiculous. Some people may not like it's political views but it is a mid-market newspaper, not a redtop. Presumably you will be removing every instance the Daily Mail is used in every other BLP on wikipedia? I reverted because I considered his edits to be vandalism, which is exempted from 3RR. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of what one thinks of the Daily Mail or of User:Fatherhope55 edits, they were not vandalism by any reasonable meaning of the word. You were edit warring. -- cyclopia^speak! 17:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Blanking is a form of vandalism. Now we have the absurd situation where I have been able to substantially restore the article, but with reports in The Guardian used instead. No doubt the lefty types above will be completely happy now. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Blanking can be a form of vandalism. It isn't always. Vandalism on Wiki is usually understood to mean edits made in Bad Faith. A GF reversion, or deletion (even if it was inappropriate, or otherwise unhelpful) isn't usually recognized as Vandalism. Sometimes its a tough call. My impression is that the edits may have fallen under this.--R.S. Peale (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree; blanking can be vandalism, but isn't always. Nothing about this falls under the "Blanking, illegitimate" section of WP:VANDTYPES. The editor made a good-faith effort to remove information in accordance with WP:BLP. Even if that interpretation of WP:BLP isn't quite right, it's still nowhere close to vandalism nor is it vandalism to be wrong. Jmorrison230582, you were blatantly edit warring, going well beyond 3RR. - SudoGhost 20:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism is defined as any edit in which another user disagrees with. If you do not believe in that, then you should not be editing here. --MuZemike 06:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Short block for Jmorrison230582?

I am dismayed at this user's behaviour. Even after making eleven reversions against an inexperienced editor who was (correctly) trying to enforce WP:BLPSOURCES (albeit on an article where he probably has a conflict of interest), then falsely accusing Fatherhope55 of making legal threats, then being told here that he was out of order, he has

• Called our BLP policy ridiculous and absurd
• Stated that he considered the edits in question to be "vandalism, which is exempted from 3RR". This is not vandalism by a million miles.
• Restored one of the problematic Daily Mail sources to the article, with the edit summary "Happy now?"
• Again referred to our BLP policy as "absurd" and to those of us who support and enforce it as "lefty types".

What the user has not done is also illuminating; they have still not substantively discussed the matter of sourcing in the article talk page (which should have been their first port of call), and they have not shown any evidence of having learned from this fairly major set of mistakes. I am worried that without a block, this user may continue in the same very harmful way. --John (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. --John (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support Pass a Method talk 22:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support - anyone thinking that the Daily Mail is within a million miles of an RS is concerning; eleven reverts, plus the other things they've come out with... enough is enough, at least for now. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - any block now would be punitive rather than preventative as Jmorrison230582 has not edited the article in question for 18 hours. However, a stern/final warning should be issued to prevent further instances, and if the behaviour is repeated, then a block would be warranted. For what it's worth I've known Jmorrison230582 for a number of years and we have often worked together at WP:FOOTY; in the past they have been a quality editor and this recent disruption seems very out of character. GiantSnowman 11:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - As Giant Snowman said above, it would be punitive. Even more so, I agree with him that Fatherhope did vandalise the article, per the definition of vandalism:
  
  Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page.
  
  

He was removing (illegitimately) sourced contributions. It would be different if he was removing some garbage from "The Enquirer" or "The Sun", but as stated here, The Daily Mail is mid-market, and not expressly a tabloid. Sorry guys, he's right to revert Fatherhope.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  11:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The keyword there is "deliberate." Indeed, the fundamental differentia of vandalism is the purposeful harming of the encyclopedia. It's quite clear that Fatherhope reverted because he believed that the content was inappropriate - whether he's right or wrong is not what would make the edits vandalism. See WP:NOTVAND. N^oformation ^Talk 12:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Agreeing with Noformation, and the Daily Mail is basically as bad as the Sun anyway... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Dubious edits to female scientists

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

---

There have been many users posting at a user talk page of a WMF UK member with rather sockpuppet-like edits [152]. The member has a article on his user page that has been tampered by a lot by these users (they have also tampered with other articles about female scientists). I don't know the intention of these users, but I know there is something rather dodgy going here. Can anyone help? Insulam Simia (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

What's "WMF UK"? I think you meant WMUK. ;-) KTC (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, and thank Sam Sailor (talk · contribs) for raising this. Insulam Simia (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, is this possibly an edit-a-thon or related type event? It looks like people are practicing using a talk page. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

@Insulam Simia: Okay, yeah, there's definitely been an editing event that Richard is running, there's a Twitter hashtag for it and everything. If people are adding unsourced information or otherwise making bad edits that aren't to his talk page, then I recommend you ask them to fix it in a non-BITEy way. :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh, thank you for the info. There doesn't appear to be any info about this on WP, so I apologise for the confusion and bad-faithiness of me. Insulam Simia (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It's all good, the only reason I noticed was because Richard's talk page mentioned the Twitter thing. Thanks for keeping an eye on women scientist articles! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Erm, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History/NIMR2013 & wmuk:MRC, Royal Society, Wikimedia UK Women in Science Wikipedia edit-a-thons.... ? You could have just asked Richard on his talk page what's going on (or me, who were the first to post on his talk page today). And "tampered" and "dodgy" is rather strong words. Do we prevent new users attempting to improve women scientists articles now? :( -- KTC (talk) 19:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Timothy Sheridan

Look at the edits of 172.245.7.183 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 83.7.172.215 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 109.236.82.17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and tell me they're not all by the same person - IPs now added to Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Timothy Sheridan btw. But then look at the locations of the IPs - first USA, then Poland, then the Netherlands. Either we're dealing with extremely efficient meatpuppets or Superman has decided to sock. Either way, I'm scratching my head, and as they have started following me around Wikpedia and reverting my other edits, I though I would bring it here for wider attention. GiantSnowman 20:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't look at the socking issue at all. I looked only at the technical data. Mind you, I'm not an expert, but let's take the Netherlands IP address, 109.236.82.17. The first thing I noticed when I did a geolocate is the IP didn't have a "type". I'm not sure what that means. The IP is allocated by WorldStream, which has all its servers in Rotterdam ([153] and [154]). (The address is actually registered by the RIPE Network Coordination Centre, which is also in the Netherlands.) However, note that WorldStream has customers in the US. So, isn't it possible that the user is somewhere in the US but is using a Netherlands IP address? Perhaps others more knowledgeable than I am can tell me if I'm way off base here.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Two webhost ranges and an open proxy. Blocking them all as soon as I finish responding here.—Kww(talk) 00:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

For the untutored, can you please explain how you reached those conclusions? You can do so privately if you prefer.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

This is some seriously persistent and pathetic long-term vandalism going back almost a decade, all because this Timothy Sheridan guy (and sock Abmin) are upset that American Smokeless isn't an article? Yeesh. Tarc (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

That's pretty bad. I can think of a few editors that fought for years over adding a single line or two to obscure articles. (I hesitate to name them for fear of starting a revival.) But ten years might be a record. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The recent edit history at List of Internet pioneers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has a series of IPs edit warring over an unsourced soapboxing for a "Timothy Sheridan" - I noticed the range matches some of those at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Timothy Sheridan, likely more of the same. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Adam Kokesh

I'm pretty sure that the Adam Kokesh article isn't up to encyclopedic standards with that picture of Adam wielding a fork http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KokeshFork.jpg. I've tagged the image with a speedy.--Froglich (talk) 03:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Problem with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 26

Just drawing Admin attention to an issue which requires more wiki knowledge than I possess. An editor has incorrectly added several Afds resulting in messing up this page. I have tried to clean up the mess as best I can but think this should be fixed as quickly as possible. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• I've cleaned up the AFD log.

Obsession with oldest-living claimants? A particular obsession with Carl Berner? Complete inability to start AFDs? Sounds like yet another DogsHeadFalls sock to me. As such, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DogsHeadFalls. Stalwart111 06:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

And another IP from the sock-puppeteer's favourite range - 74.78.72.209. Stalwart111 06:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Indef'd as a quacking sock. IP blocked for a month. Anyone feel like closing or non-admin closing his 5 AFDs? Stalwart111 10:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Canijisimo

All this person does is vandalize. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Canijisimo MilesMoney (talk) 05:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

You should take these things to WP:AIV, but he's blocked now.—Kww(talk) 06:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Next time, I will. MilesMoney (talk) 06:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Morgellons and Talk:Morgellons

For the past couple of months or so we have had continuous problems at Morgellons and Talk:Morgellons. Most of these problems have been caused by tenditious editing by two users, User:Drgao and to a lesser extent, User:Erythema. They have repeatedly attempted to add low quality primary fringe studies to this medical article rather than secondary sources. There are numerous examples on the talk page, including this one [155] which is now in the archives (which, as an aside, gives a good indication of how long this has gone on). Many of us have explained WP:MEDRS and countless other policies to both of them, to no avail. Drgao has been asked, on his talk page to avoid personal attacks, to avoid commenting on editors and instead to comment on content, again to no avail [156]. Finally, User:Zad68 took the issue to WP:DRN [[157]. A clear decision was reached at DRN and the sources were deemed inappropriate. However, yesterday Drgao took these same sources to WP:RSN [158]. When this was done Drgao did not inform other parties to the DRN process that (s)he was doing this, so Zad68 let others know. Drgao then complained that Zad68 was stalking him/her and continued beating the dead horse of these unreliable sources [159]. I am asking that both Drgao and Erythema be topic banned from Morgellons and related articles. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban, but on all medical articles, as an involved editor. This editor (Drgao) has been a huge time sink, and a distraction to multiple WP:MED editors from content creation through their tendentious WP:IDHT behavior. Despite multiple attempts by multiple editors, they have shown no understanding of the issues involved, specifically correct application of WP:MEDRS. As they have expressed a desire to use the same bad sources in other medical articles (just yesterday in their posting on WP:RSN), it is necessary to topic ban them from medical articles to stop the disruption until they can show an understanding of how our sourcing guidelines work, and can work collaboratively. Yobol (talk) 13:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban on all articles related to medicine. Both users have persistantly refused to abide by a wide range of WP policies, including WP:MEDRS, and this problematic behavior is likely to occur not only on articles directly related to Morgellons disease, but to any other topic related to medicine. The length and intensity of their attempts to introduced unrelaibly sourced material into the article, coupled with their persistant tendentious and disruptive editting and dead horse argumentation, make it reasonable to assume that this behavior will continue both on the Morgellons article and elsewhere. Yesterday, I warned user:DRGAO several times myself about numerous violations of both our content and our sourcing policies and guidelines, as several other editors had regularly been also warning him for the same for the past two months. Administrator user:MastCell also told him that his "tendentiousness is becoming a major drain on the time and goodwill of other constructive editors" and that he would block him "for persistent tendentious and disruptive editing, in order to enable other editors to improve the article constructively and in an environment free of disruption." The editors responses indicated that he has numerous fundamental misunderstandings of what WP is and how it works, and has no intention of modifying his uncollaborative behavior, and indeed had plans on using unerliable sources in other articles as well. As such, he is incompetant to edit productively on any article where strict adherence to WP:MEDRS is expected. Would support a total community ban for this editor until he can reassure the community that he will edit in compliance with WP content and behavioral policies and guidelines. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Question. On what specific evidence is Dbrodbeck's suggested topic ban for User:Erythema based? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Red Dawn (2012 film)

Kelapstick recently fully protected this article due to a content dispute. The crux of the matter was an editor who kept expanding the plot well beyond the limits defined by WP:FILMPLOT, would not explain his actions, and would not discuss the matter on the talk page. However, the page is now fully protected with the inordinately long and terribly written plot summary in place. It needs to be reverted to the last stable version before the edit war. Kelapstick is on vacation, so I cannot ask him to do it. Would another admin. mind taking a look? Thanks! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

User:EuropeanHistory2011

Another sock has appeared in this user's draw: User:StopCyberStalkers2008.--ukexpat (talk) 13:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

And already blocked by User:Acroterion - thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 13:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)