Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at 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

Disruptive talk page notices by User:SPECIFICO

Stuck

 – This discussion has lost focus! – S. Rich (talk)

SPECIFICO (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

As noted elsewhere, User:SPECIFICO explicitly has stated he is an Austrian School economist who thinks those connected to the Ludwig von Mises Institute which he sees as a competing economics faction are "hijackers" and "multi-level marketing" schemers. He has made biased edits and reverts on several related articles and his POV is so strong he fails or refuses per IDIDNTHEARTHAT to understand clear explanations of policy. He now has taken to leaving me eight questionable and even baseless Talk page "Notices" over the last two weeks, including three under one header, that look like attempts to disrupt my comments and editing. He is starting to do this as well to User talk:Id4abel who also has problems with his editing on these articles.

• June 15: Edit warring warning regarding this diff at Austrian economist Jesús Huerta de Soto article, discussed at User_talk:Carolmooredc#SOTO.

This was a false accusation of 3rr where I had to explain his own edit warring to him.

• June 20: Three different warning notices at once regarding this diff at an RfC on another topic, discussed at User_talk:Carolmooredc#Section_header.

I did launch into a general soapbox discussion of editing issues, but it obviously was not a personal attack on another editor, one who I was quite unfamiliar with. And I did strike it.

• June 21: Disruptive editing warning regarding this diff at WP:OR Noticeboard, discussed at User_talk:Carolmooredc#OR_noticeboard.

Because I complained about User:SPECIFICO coming to the WP:OR noticeboard to dismiss policy issues and refusing to discuss policy. See the seven section discussion of his WP:OR entries to Huerta de Soto article.

• June 26: Edit warring complaint regarding this diff at Huerta de Soto article, discussed at User_talk:Carolmooredc#Skousen.

My first revert of WP:OR discussed at both Talk:Jesús_Huerta_de_Soto#More_WP:OR_using_Skousen and Talk:Jesús_Huerta_de_Soto#Removal_of_Barry-related_WP:OR.2FSynth.

• June 27: Edit war warning regarding this diff at Austrian economist Murray Rothbard article, discussed at User_talk:Carolmooredc#Rothbard.

My first revert of new POV controversial material. The article had been protected for two days previously because of my June 2 3rr/Edit Warring complaint about User:SPECIFICO trying to denigrate Rothbard. This time SPECIFICO was removing the fact that Rothbard is an economist from the first sentence, despite four solid refs saying so and despite previous talk page rejection of such a suggestion. This is a prime example of his extreme bias against competing Austrian economists which leads to his disruptive editing.

• June 28: Off topic personal remarks warning regarding this diff at Murray Rothbard RfC, discussed at User_talk:Carolmooredc#June_2013.

After taking my advice to start an RfC on Rothbard as an economist, SPECIFICO objected that I wrote "Sources are what counts on Wikipedia, not editors' personal opinions and WP:OR." (This in reply to his criticizing my RfC support for economist.)

Thanks for any help. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 19:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Note At first glance, there does seem to be some merit as to the unnecessary aggressiveness. I don't have time to dig deep tonight, but hopefully someone will. Bumping because they needs to be addresses and not just archived. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• Carolmooredc Addition: Thinking about it, realized the last three talk page notices came after I put a talk page message about Wikihounding on his talk page (corrected at this diff) because he followed me in 30 hours to 4 pages he had not edited before and there either reverted me or left a negative comment. So maybe this became his new mode of harassment. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 12:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  Editor SPECIFICO seems to be in a habit of handing out Warning with citations to WP policies to any user who has reverted his change as seen here or here or here or here(even this editor warned him for wiki hounding) (and might be many more - as edit history for user talk shows a persistent trend of showering warning to a particular editor for a period of time and then moving on to some one else - depending on who he is having an argument with) -as this usually seems to happen to any editor he might be involved in argument over content - Carol Moore just might be his recent favorite.  A m i t  ❤  17:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand this should be read through for the history these two editors have had  A m i t  ❤  18:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

[Insert]: FYI, I do refer to that ANI in my June 27th entry above. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 22:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The edit history shows a campaign to revise articles that touch upon Austrian Economics to push readers toward viewing that school of economics as a crank theory. Supposedly SPECIFICO is an Austrian economist so this whole thing makes little sense. I live in a mostly free country where people are allowed to support most any view they like, and advocate that view to others, but Wikipedia has different goals. The wikihounding that followed has not yet reached epic proportions, but it has grown well into the realm of unacceptable. Using reasonable sounding edit descriptions that conceal the actual actions taken, making a few useful edits to make finding the dishonest ones harder, citing respected sources and half sticking to what the sources actually said, deleting a claim with a valid cited source and attempting to defend the delete with no source whatsoever, and so on. It is masterful gaming of the system. I applaud the intelligence behind the campaign. There is dedication and craftiness that would be one of the biggest assets ever if applied to improving articles rather than used to push unsupported propaganda against a theory onto an unfamiliar population.

My first encounter with this editor was at 20:42 on 8 June 2013 where I replaced uncited and badly slanted text with cited text that better follows the neutrality policy within the Hans-Hermann Hoppe article. I think the second encounter is when the wikihounding began. This is were I think this Wikipedia system has a giant flaw in that it is much easier for an editor dedicated to making the article push one point of view rather than easier for the collaborative effort that Wikipiedia is supposed to encourage.

The first abuse of the edit war warning only resulted in a prolonged argument about how the three revert rule means whatever SPECIFICO says that it means.

The second abuse of the edit war warning had no response from SPECIFICO at all. Abel (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

User Abel's analysis of User:Specifico's modus operandi is excellent, though it would take a huge WP:ANI to document it all with diffs. It's just easier to document the most obviously behavioral manifestations.

As we all know, such subtle disruptive/tenditious editing can cause a lot of anger, hurts collaboration and can lead to edit warring. I'm quite burned out after a couple months of it with User:Specifico and barely have the energy to finish off several new or improved sections on articles on other topics that were interrupted when I first noticed this destructive editing pattern on a couple articles I've watched for a few years, as well as related BLPs. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 04:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• In my opinion, supported by my inspection of his editions and my encounters in talk pages with him, he doesn't edit articles about austrianism trying to enhance the material, with definitions, perspectives, and critics in a neutral way. Instead, I believe he destroy the articles when he tries to harm the intelectual reputation of austrian thinkers. He doesn't respect Wikipedia policies about consensus and references in the way to achieve the goal of destroy those reputations, and his way to talk to users is totally wrong, it seems he believes he is an battle field with "enemies" that should be exterminate. I don't know if he is concious of the diference of an hostile schoolar debate and what are the porpouses of Wikipedia talks.--Sageo (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• More evidence to support my point about how this system has an enormous design flaw in that it took SPECIFICO seconds to pepper[1] [2] [3] the article with failed verification, not in citation given, and such tags with completely blank edit summaries yet took me I don't know how long to hunt down and type up exact quotes to show how each and every one of those tags was complete and utter nonsense. Abel (talk) 18:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I should note that this one article alone has more of that type of attack. These three were together and so easier to find. Usually the attacks are performed with far more stealth. Also, this is just one article. Given the number of edits made, there are likely hundreds more to track down and correct. Abel (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• How many boards have you been to about Specifico now? As I recall they all failed to get any response. OR, NPOV, BLP etc Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

June 15th - Notice that you appeared to be edit warring. Edit warring does not require 3rr. You can edit war with less or more reversions. Given that you were repeatedly removing sourced content, this can be considered edit-warring without crossing the 3rr bright line.

June 21st - Given you had already raised this as various places, it could quite easily be seen as disruptive editing. Close to forum shopping.

June 26th - More reversion despite no traction on the OR arguments.

June28th - Given that you have repeatedly tried to get Specifico sanctioned for NPOV, OR, BLP violations at various noticeboards (and failed), your comments could certainly be taken by Specifico as a personal attack on his editing. I read that comment as you accusing him of editing out of his opinion and OR rather than from a source-base.

In short, specifico should not be templating you so much. You should not be dragging him to every noticeboard under the sun when you are in a content dispute. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

So those were all responses to CarolMooreDC's original dated comments above?Abel (talk) 21:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

To User:Only in death: First, of course, you only are summarizing his/her claims all still at User talk:Carolmooredc, not my responses and corrections. Also, note that two editors were against Specifico's addition of WP:OR content unrelated to the subject of the Biography on the talk page but we didn't want to edit war by reverting User:Specifico again. I went to WP:BLPN with the OR issue and no one responded; who knows why. I asked at Editors assistance (my question) if it would be ok to go to WP:ORN since no response. Two longtime editors said yes. So I did. So that is not "dragging him/her to every noticeboard under the sun when you are in a content dispute." And this WP:ANI is a behavioral issue.

Not to ignore your mention of NPOVN - This NPOVN was regarding another editor soapboxing; when Specifico demanded evidence, and since s/he often collaborated with that editor in soapboxing, I provided evidence of them both doing it together and/or in his/her biased soapbox. That was Specifico's disruptive behavior of the month of May. I'm sure after this ANI, whatever the outcome, Specifico will find a new disruptive behavior. The only thing that keeps Specifico from totally destroying BLPs of those s/he detests seems to be taking her/him to various noticeboards. And when there are only two or three editors on an article (and s/he ignores the other two even when they explain policy clearly) that is the standard WP:Dispute measure. (I'd try dispute resolution noticeboard but s/he tends to ignore or mock usual Wiki dispute resolution processes.) CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 00:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Id4abel has been canvassing like-minded users in order to bring them to this noticeboard thread.[4][5][6][7] — goethean 12:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

How is notifying people who are already involved but possibly not aware, regardless of their feelings, canvassing? Canvassing is trying to recruit people to jump on your side. I only asked that they share their experiences to make this report more complete. Abel (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Four points:

1. For CarolMooreDC (and Abel) – just what course of action would you recommend?

• You got me, what options are available? Abel (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

2. I have found SPECIFICO to be extremely reluctant to tone down the various warnings posted. This has been disappointing and frustrating for me because I've pointed out that the warnings were ill-founded.

3. Advice on Abel's user talkpage was posted about the need to be more neutral with ANI notification's. A positive response was made by Abel.

4. With this in mind, the concern about votestacking is not a major one. For myself, I consider myself more of a Wikipedian than "like-minded". – S. Rich (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Possible course of action: I can see from user contributions s/he is laying low right now, so I don't know if a short block would even phase her/him. I think User:SPECIFICO would take seriously something like a short topic ban, say a month from Austrian economics topics and related BLPs (and any related topics, like libertarian BLPs and topics, should s/he disrupt them). Then s/he might show some respect for Wikipedia processes and for other editors who have an interest in these topics.

Also, Austrian economics/libertarianism/various BLPs involved here are very complicated topics and there are a wide variety of views that different individuals can hold in relation to any of them. Therefore, it should not be assumed that those who are interested in a topic and argue to follow WP policies have some overwhelming bias regarding any topic that is in any way as strong as the explicit negative biases expressed by User:SPECIFICO in user and article talk pages, biases which have led to his/her repeatedly ignoring Wikipedia policies. This false and simplistic allegation has been made by User:SPECIFICO in the past with no real evidence and inferred by one or two others since then. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 21:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think a topic ban is appropriate. A substantial portion of SPECIFICO's topic edits have been worthwhile. He has more of a problem with editor interaction, which I've seen and described as high-handed at times. Rather, a one-way WP:IBAN would work better, where SPECIFICO could not violate the 4 restrictions described in IBAN. Who would be the beneficiaries of the IBAN? CarolMooreDC and Abel are certainly two candidates. For myself, I would not care to be included (as SPECIFICO may interact with me). If other editors wish to be included as beneficiaries of the IBAN, then (assuming they'd had some difficulties with SPECIFICO), they could say to him "I want your IBAN extended to include me because of ....." – S. Rich (talk) 02:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not dispute that 90% of User:SPECIFICO's edits were more or less within policy guidelines. The problem is the 10% which were very biased and where he refused to follow policy, or listen to other editors in regard to policy, and would ridicule other editors or the subjects of BLPs when he was challenged.

Moreover, User:SPECIFICO's refusal to interact and reply to policy concerns, including ones raised by you (SRich32977) on several articles, has been part of the problem, so it's not the solution. Only after I left the following in a response to one of his alleged edit warring alerts did he quickly respond to four or five outstanding issues raised on article talk pages. At this diff I wrote: Also note per various edits of yours, quoting WP:BRD, "If one skips the Discussion part, then restoring one's edit is a hostile act of edit warring and is not only uncollaborative, but could incur sanctions, such as a temporary block." And I've noted several cases on several articles where you have done problematic edits of materials others have reverted without bothering to respond on the talk page. Any IBAN would be just an excuse for User:SPECIFICO to keep doing biased edits and then ignore others complaints and revert them.

It would help if noticeboards were more responsive on complicated/abstruse/non-sexy economics-related issues we need to put before them. (And with BLPs it can be hard to figure out sometimes which noticeboard we should go to first, etc.) User:SPECIFICO has been known sometimes to give in to community opinions which go against him. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 13:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Carol makes a good point that an IBAN would likely lead to more of the problematic behavior rather than less. Clearly the recent lack of editing after prolific editing is mostly, if not completely, due to this discussion. Which suggests that some type of sanction is needed, and would likely be followed. Which would be a benefit to the entire project. Of course it also shows how a temporary ban of any kind will likely be followed, but not have any permanent impact on behavior. On the issue of duration, "Bans are not intended as a short-term measure. Sometimes a ban may be for a fixed period of some months. More often no period is specified, because the ban is a decision that the editor may not edit or participate in the specified matters on this site." That seems to suggest any limited ban should at least be a period of no less than a few months. That agrees with the evidence that a quarter or more might actually be seen as meaningful, and so has a chance of making a lasting impact on behavior. The topic ban looks like the most logical option. Abel (talk) 14:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I was tossing up commenting on this thread but I'm jumping in for a couple of reasons: 1, Carol's very first diff is from a conversation between myself and SPECIFICO - part of a 3-to-4-way discussion about cleaning up the walled garden that is the collection of Ludwig von Mises Institute-related BLPs. (Which brings me to...) 2, Carol's last point, which I think is the most pertinent one here. The community isn't responsive to threads like this because a few minutes of looking at the history suggests this is all one giant content issue, because there is one giant content issue here. Editor behaviour is distinct from that, and should be dealt with, but it is obviously difficult to separate the two when they are so intertwined. Without any prior knowledge or interest in the subject, I was asked by another editor if I could help clean up a couple of related BLPs. I did (a bit) and then organically progressed to a couple of related BLPs (and they are very much "related"). For notability, many rely almost entirely on "significant coverage" from other institute figures, whose articles in turn rely on coverage from other institute figures, whose articles in turn rely on coverage from other institute figures, and so on. Each is published extensively in blogs and journals and periodicals that are related to the institute because those are the publications most interested in their views. Very few of them would be considered "mainstream". That doesn't mean they aren't notable but many of the issues relate to how their work is responded to by institute colleagues. Should the views of institute colleagues count for more or less than external non-institute responders? Should we allow notability to be established only (or even primarily) by institute-related coverage given many are unquestionably reliable sources with regard to libertarian economic theory. Part of the problem is that the walled garden was established long ago and those responsible have had no desire to clean it up (some of those editors being the subjects of the articles themselves). Editors like SPECIFICO have tried to clean it up (that 90% Carol refers to) but being of a different school of thought there is obviously a motivation for doing so. Such a clean up requires some frank discussion, some hard decisions and some ruthless weed-whacking. The issue is where that weed-whacking becomes editor-whacking. If anything, I would suggest a short topic-ban to give SPECIFICO a chance to calm down and re-find that line between weed-whacking and editor-whacking, though it would seem he has self-imposed a short break as a result of this thread anyway. As for the content, there's probably a good opportunity for interested editors to get together and work on a mini-project/editing drive to clean up economics BLPs (and not just institute-related ones). Stalwart111 06:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for Stalwart111's comments. There's no doubt that many of the Mises/Rothbard/Rockwell/etc.-related articles are filled with WP:OR and primary sources by fans (and sometimes detractors). (I watched and tweaked Murray Rothbard for years but never bothered to correct the obvious issues; so many articles, so little time.)

However, when we actually start to beef up articles, there are lots of secondary credible and even notable sources that can be used. The Murray Rothbard lead and Jesus Huerta de Soto's whole article are perfect examples of improved material since SPECIFICO started complaining. But see the talk pages and they are filled with sections with a couple editors arguing with SPECIFICO about her deleting things that might make the individual or group look credible while adding questionable, biased or WP:OR/synth info. When s/he can't stop us from complaining about or modifying or reverting biased or policy-violating edits, or asking for help from other editors per WP:Dispute, s/he resorts to various serial questionable behaviors from soapboxing, to ignoring to templating. S/he needs to chill. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 18:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Specifico, as he has in all of these NB discussions, has laid low. In this case his behavior is a bit different. Not only is he letting the discussion go along without input, he's not edited anything for the past week. (Unusual for him.) So the "chilling" effect is in force, even without formal action. But what about those additional 90% positive edits that remain for future posting? Would a topic ban (e.g., enforced additional chilling) end up in a permanent retirement from WP? (I hope not.) But a topic ban, of whatever length, would not address the 10% problem, which is his interaction with other editors and POV. So, I will again argue for the IBAN. Specifico would not be able to post 3RR or OR or any other warnings. Specifico would not be able to castigate or admonish or correct or criticize other editors. His talk page comments, which should be focused on article improvement, would be tempered by the requirement to consider and heed IBAN restrictions. Any proposed controversial changes to articles would have to be resolved through other methods. An IBAN would be effective in achieving the goal of article improvement, which a topic ban cannot do. All Specifico has to do at this point is post a notice here that says "I agree to an IBAN with editors X, Y, and Z." Then we can close this and see if the results match my predictions. – S. Rich (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstand. The 10% is the POV, WP:OR, edits or reverts he does that need discussion. If you want to talk about what percent of his talk page/noticeboard behavior is soapbox, mocking, irrelevant, non-constructive (or just ignoring people and threatening to take to edit warring if they revert him because he's ignored them), etc. you are talking 66% of his edits. So unless this means he cannot complain when we revert his problematic edits (or revert our reverts) - this makes no sense to me. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 18:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at the 4 restrictions that IBAN entails. He would not be able to make threats, mocking comments, NB postings, etc about you or other specific editors. The fourth restriction addresses your concerns about reverts. IOW, if he did not like an edit that you made, he'd have to post the reason on the article talk page and justify a desired change (without referring to you as an editor.) Then you (or someone else) could make the change to your edit. – S. Rich (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:IBAN#Interaction_ban: I should have read down to #4. Gave up too soon. Too good to be true! CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 00:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

With respect to both Carol and SRich, I really don't think an IBAN is the right solution for this particular problem and I'm questioning the wisdom even of a topic ban. These are long-term content issues that can really only be resolved by a group of editors working together. As Carol quite rightly points out, "so many articles, so little time". There is obviously a clean up effort underway, though still among a small group of "expert" editors. Banning one of those editors from interacting with some of the others is counter-productive, I think, especially when his remaining interaction/collaboration options will be limited to only those who agree with his world view. It creates an "us-and-them" mentality. I think he's frustrated by Wikipedia's long-term acceptance of questionable content in this particular area and then frustrated again when some of his enthusiastic efforts to clean it up have been delayed/questioned/opposed. He's taking that frustration out the editors themselves - "you haven't cared about cleaning this up for the 5 years it has been here, why are you opposing my clean up efforts now?" I think there is agreement from other editors that SPECIFICO's behaviour was unacceptable. I think there is tacit agreement even from SPECIFICO himself (given his self-imposed wikibreak). If it continues, I think there would be strong community support for sanctions to prevent further disruption. But I think anything now would be a punishment rather than damage-prevention. I've had positive, collegial interactions with almost everyone involved here so I know each person is capable of moving forward from this in a manner that lets bygones be bygones. I also think there's some value in everyone having a read of WP:DTR. Everyone involved is perfectly capable of crafting a well-written line or two and really nobody here should be using templates to "talk" to each other. New rule: if you add a template to another user's talk page about an economics BLP, it had better be a barnstar! Ha ha. Stalwart111 03:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

S. Rich has won me over to the permanent IBAN idea. Not an ideal solution, but probably the best solution available. Abel (talk) 06:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Surely the "best solution available" is to accept that Carol's well-explained post and your subsequent endorsement of it have together had the desired effect of prompting a wikibreak and a re-think? You'll not likely get community agreement for the implementation of, "not an ideal solution". Sanctions are for stopping disruption. The disruption has stopped. Anything beyond that is punishment, which is not what bans/blocks are about. Stalwart111 10:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

One-way interaction bans do not work, and have never worked. They are unfair in that almost always it takes two to cause an issue. Also IBANS are for problematic editor conduct towards other editors. Not for good faith content disputes. An IBAN would impact just as strongly on Abel or CMDC. You have issues over content, deal with it on the talk pages. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The only reason the disruption stopped was the pending ban or block. Choosing no ban or block would put us all right back to disruption, making all this effort a pointless exercise in futility. Abel (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I did remain skeptical of IBAN despite my comments. RE:User:Stalwart111, obviously one reason an admin hasn't dealt with it by now is User:SPECIFICO's (probably temporary) disappearance. Hopefully later s/he will not claim that there was "no problem" and it was a "frivolous complaint" and start with some new disruptive pattern. Coming here with a new complaint now hopefully would be taken more seriously.

I just wish someone would look at and comment constructively Wikipedia:ORN#WP:OR.2FSynth_argumentation_in_biography, an aggravating dispute in all this. Even Specifico admitted s/he would not like it if I went around to his favorite economists' articles and added WP:OR mentions of Friedrich Hayek's views that contradict some point made by the economist; i.e., material from a source that makes no mention at all of the economist in question. (per WP:OR we only use "published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented"...) We really have to start beefing up community input with some sexy/exciting new program to get more former, experienced editors back. Sigh... CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 14:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• @Abel - there was no "pending ban or block". Bringing an editor here is no guarantee that a ban or block will be applied. There was a request for action which was effectively ignored by the wider community (as Carol pointed out above) not because it is without merit but because it is more complicated and there are obvious content issues involved.
• @Carol - I have little doubt that any subsequent meritorious complaint would result in action. If he feels this complaint was frivolous, he should have said as much and he had the chance to do so. Instead, he took a breather and self-imposed a wiki-break. I don't think he could now come back and claim otherwise and I, for one, would be back here calling for sanctions if he did.

On content - I'll have a look at your ORN post (for whatever little I could add) but part of the problem is that many of the articles I helped to clean up suffered from the same problem, but the other way around. In many cases BLPs included claims like x supported y and the citation was y's blog or journal article suggesting that the correlation between x's view and y's written work was self-evident, even though y's written work mentioned x not at all. Pure synthetic OR. Given that lax "standard", I think it is difficult for some editors to now accept that the same should not be done when talking about criticism or disagreement - ie. x opposes z, y supports z, therefore x opposes y, all cited to z's written work. Also OR. The other issue is with some of those "former, experienced editors" given many had obvious conflicts of interest. We don't want them back editing their own articles - that's how we ended up with the walled garden in the first place.

• I'm not out to have the last word on this but I really don't think we're going to get anything productive done by hanging out here for sanctions that aren't going to be imposed or by thinking that ANI can help resolve content issues. Can I suggest we allow an admin to close this and that we all get back to productive editing? Stalwart111 00:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I finally realized there actually is an essay called Wikipedia:Walled garden. Editor's laziness or lack of expertise in finding unrelated and outside sources should not be read as meaning no other solid WP:RS write about the topic. And it's particularly annoying when one brings in a good WP:RS from academic scholars and editor(s) who yell "Walled garden" try to remove them as not notable enough! (Not to mention removing good sources that actually compare Friedman and the economist in question.) Hopefully won't be a future problem... sigh... CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 03:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

A pending ban or block need not be inevitable, hence pending. The final results of this discussion could go any number of ways. You clearly favor doing nothing and hoping that an editor with an identified problem will mysteriously end that problem after experiencing no reprimand whatsoever. While that is certainly one possible outcome, I find it extremely unlikely. An outcome of zero reprimand sends a very strong and clear signal that the disruptive behavior will only bother a few editors that all-in-all no one really cares about, and so the disruptions can freely continue. Why would any rational person worry about a second incident when the first incident resulted in not even a slap on the wrist? They would not worry and should not worry. Sure the disruptive behavior was discussed. Some people mentioned a possible ban or block. With no sanction of any kind resulting from the identified disruptive behavior, the project obviously does not have any real plans to enforce any kind of punishment. Incentives matter. Doing nothing provides a powerful incentive. I prefer some type of action other than nothing. The sanction could be small, like S. Rich's proposed IBAN, but the sanction must exist in some form to avoid condoning the identified disruptive behavior. Abel (talk) 05:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

We don't reprimand, punish, slap on the wrist or ban to make a point, we prevent disruption. What disruption are you seeking to stop that hasn't already stopped? The disruption can't "continue" because it has stopped. It would have to "restart" which would then be considered obviously disruptive. By taking a step back he has acknowledged he has done wrong. Even if he hasn't, we have collectively agreed to interpret his actions that way and he hasn't sought to "correct" that. The idea is that we give him WP:ROPE - if he now chooses to hang himself with it, so be it. Stalwart111 07:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I’ve taken a look at this thread and I have a few thoughts:

The overriding problem on these articles is the dogged campaign of battleground and ad hominem which carolmooredc has pursued. This is manifest in various behaviors, among them, 1) a persistent strain of hostile personal remarks about other editors in her edit summary, article talk and noticeboard postings where the valid purposes of WP would be fully served by statements confined to WP content and policy. 2) A string of noticeboard postings that appear to be motivated either by personal animosity or her unwillingness to engage with those who disagree with her preferences regarding content. 3) A pattern of unsubstantiated statements and out-of-context or half-truth assertions on talk and noticeboard pages on which she is seeking validation for her views. (I am not saying these are intentional deceptions, but their effect is to confuse and derail the process on talk and noticeboard pages.)

All in, carolmooredc’s behavior is disruptive. She’s been told that on many, many occasions. Some recent examples:

• Here, she brought an ANI against me for using allegedly improper wording on various project pages to solicit comment on an RfC. After discussion by numerous editors, it was discovered that carolmooredc had posted wording substantially the same as my own on another project page. The issue boiled down not to what I had written but the fact that it had been I who wrote it.

[8] [9] [10]

• Here, with no prior warning, she brought another unfounded ANI against me:

[11]

• There are many more instances of her disruptive editing and personal attacks. Any reader who wishes to find them can do so on the noticeboard talk page and edit summary archives. Her messages are full of gratuitous ad hominems and other hostile remarks.

[12]

She’s been warned over and over about her disruptive behavior, for example: [13] [14]

With respect to the talk page templates referenced in this complaint: Each of them was preceded by my clear statement of the content and policy issues on the article pages. In each case, I posted the templates after the editors declined to respond to those statements. That is not apparent from the tone and content of OP’s complaint. Even if carolmooredc feels that 8 talk page templates were “baseless,” how does that stack up against the same number of noticeboards initiated by her, several of which resulted in her being rebuked for having brought them? She does not seem to get the message when others warn her about this behavior but I think it would be constructive for many articles if she would focus much more on content, and much less on editors, in her editing activity.
SPECIFICO talk 13:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Stalwart111, well put, thank you. Now I think I see how this is supposed to work. Doing nothing is not condoning. This is meant to be a notice that the behavior is now identified as disruptive. The editor is free to continue the disruptive behavior and face whatever comes with that, or change the behavior and happily ever after. Abel (talk) 14:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I hope editors will ignore User:SPECIFICOs exaggerated comments which are not supported by diffs. Regarding the actual diffs:

• After WP:DRN said cavassing was a behavior issue, I brought an ANI vs. SPECIFICO for doing 10 Wikiproject announcements which I thought at the time was totally out of proportion; as it happens others said that was too many. Live and learn. The closing admin did agree it was a "bit much." (I don't know what happened to the closing box; it's not in the archive.)
• Yes, I did a 3rr, after a brief notice; but SPECIFICO was busy removing so much generally positive info about Rothbard in a pattern of negative editing I'd see on other articles it seemed necessary; and the article was protected for two days because the admin did see that there was problematic editing going on.
• Actually the Talk libertarianism diff was a humorous one in the context of a group of disputing "radical" editors who would get the political point. But not relevant to our dispute.
• Re: the two diffs to User:SRich's comments. SRich comments constantly on other editor's alleged bad behavior, collapsing sections, removing comments, putting notices on user talk pages, etc. Sometimes he's right, other times he's being hypersensitive. But since he's good on editing policy issues, I cut him some slack. I don't see what he was commenting on but I have had to remind him a few times that Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors recommends we publiclly comment on biased editing. Since article talk pages are the first place to bring up issues under WP:Dispute, that's where I did so.

Obviously I have lost patience with User:SPECIFICO's biased editing. However, if I really was edit warring and those notices were legit I should have been taken to the appropriate noticeboard(s) long ago. The text of every notice and my responses are linked above and/or remain on my talk page. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 15:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I’ll respond to carolmooredc’s concern by giving two more examples, with diffs:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hans-Hermann_Hoppe&diff=561365894&oldid=561295338

carolmoore states she opposes user:Steeletrap’s edit due to the fact that it was Steeletrap who made the edit. carolmoore subsequently undid Steeletrap’s edit without further discussion or resolution of the matter on talk or elsewhere. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hans-Hermann_Hoppe&diff=561365157&oldid=561310951 carolmooredc’s derogation of user:Steeletrap and myself as “colleagues” and as “academics” is a persistent refrain.
There is no relationship between us. Per user pages: I am a businessperson. Steeletrap is a student.

• From this ANI: carolmooredc supports her condemnation of me writing: “Even Specifico admitted s/he would not like it if I went around to his favorite economists' articles and added WP:OR mentions of Friedrich Hayek's views that contradict some point made by the economist” [15] In fact I did not state or (nice word) “admit” that. She provides no diff and there is no such diff on WP. This kind of misstatement, (again I do not know or assert that it is intentional) is very damaging to the editing and dispute resolution processes here.

I stopped editing the Hoppe article due to carolmooredc’s harassment there. I also stopped editing Rothbard for an extended period but recently returned, erroneously thinking her behavior might not recur. Meanwhile, editor Steeletrap, who experienced these same behaviors from carolmooredc on a number of articles, appears to have left WP permanently. Any editor who is interested in looking at carolmooredc's tone in talk page, edit summary, and noticeboard comments will note that her statements habitually include gratuitous statements about editors and personalities instead of article text and policy.
SPECIFICO talk 17:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, User:SPECIFICO is blame shifting and focusing on me and others, rather than dealing with his/her specific incidents/behaviors listed at the top of this ANI. To reply: Re: this diff I provided ample evidence of the distain User:Steeletrap has for the subject of that BLP at this NPOVN. S/he doesn't try to dispute this in the relevant talk page section, does s/he? As for what I say SPECIFICO admitted, yes, I should have provided a diff. Saying he admitted actually was an overly generous interpretation of SPECIFICO saying "No" as his last entry in this talk page discussion. As you can see, he didn't bother to reply to my more important policy point regarding WP:OR. Thus I later removed the WP:OR in question. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 18:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that a frank discussion of our difficulties can be a constructive part of the ANI resolution process, per WP:BOOMERANG SPECIFICO talk 18:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Some comments on Abel’s remarks.

The first paragraph of Abels initial statement does not warrant a reply. It’s unsupported opinion and undefined accusations. Moving on,

1. Abel cites an edit of hers on the Hoppe article, 20:42 on 8 June 2013 [16]. The text Abel replaced was not written by me. I stopped editing Hoppe on May 24, Two weeks prior to Abel’s first edit of that article. I ask Abel either to explain the connection the inference he expects us to draw from his statement or to strike it through and retract it.

[Insert: text] Have never had a sex change. Have no plans to do so. Maybe one day I'll change my mind about that, but until I do, calling me a girl is inaccurate and not polite. Think SPECIFICO is right about Hoppe article. That interaction was actually from an anonymous editor who uses the exact same techniques as SPECIFICO, and while SPECIFICO has had plenty to say about that article, the edit that I was thinking was SPECIFICO's work could have been anyone. Abel (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

[Insert: text] Second time that I was called a girl by SPECIFICO. Seriously, this childish nonsense isn't helping you. Abel (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

[Insert: text] So after twice calling me a girl, SPECIFICO is now calling me a sexist. Abel (talk) 00:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

2. Abel says I began WP:HOUND him on June 21 at the Austrian school article. That’s an article I have been working on continuously and frequently for the past 9 months. Abel’s edits on that article are 2 edits in Feb. 2012 and 2 edits in June 2013. Abel, please review the policy statement that describes wikihounding and reconsider your statement that I hounded you at Austrian School. In the talk page comment Abel links at Austrian School, he complains that I reverted some text with a terse edit summary “removing unsourced content.” The text I reverted was in two parts, first an uncited and erroneous statement that the earliest group of Austrian economists included two later figures, Mises and Rothbard. The second part was Abel’s re-write of some text that had long been in the lede after extensive and detailed discussion on the article talk pages. Abel’s version, aside from not being supported by the cited reference, was poorly written and added a weasel reference to econometrics and some other very unclear text. My edit summary was terse but accurate and if Abel had posted a talk inquiry with anything less hostile than this out-of-the-blue personal attack on (me) [17] an editor he’d never previously encountered, the process might have gone perfectly smoothly. Instead, with some encouragement and ad hominem from carolmooredc, he posted an additional personal attack on me: [18] Another editor admonished Abel on his talk page and removed the second personal attack, [19], but Abel undid the removal and reinserted his personal attack on me at the article talk page and posted one more on Srich’s talk page. This is hard for me to understand. We’d never previously crossed paths and she has a detailed conspiracy theory to present.

[Insert: text] The hounding followed those edits, not a part of those edits. You followed me to another article that you had no interest in until I edited the Austrian School. Abel (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

3. Forgive me, I had planned to write about the rest of Abel’s complaint but I think that to do so would needlessly aggravate the discussion at this point. It is disappointing and troubling however that, after Srich had mentored Abel concerning his personal attacks on me, Abel then makes personal attacks in this noticeboard discussion. For the moment I am less optimistic than Srich that Abel has understood Srich’s remarks about good faith and civility. SPECIFICO talk 19:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

[Insert: text] So "would needlessly aggravate the discussion" is the same thing as "can't think up any nonsense that would sound plausible to someone who already agrees with me much less anyone else." I do like the cheap shot where you leave out that I discussed the personal attack claim with S. Rich and S. Rich agreed that his personal attack claim did not hold up. The only claim anyone had left against me was not assuming good faith. Ironically, this discussion has shown a complete lack of good faith, hence I did not need assumptions. The evidence that I considered to be obvious now has a plethora of support right here in this report. Abel (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

As before, I submit that an WP:IBAN is a viable solution for these editors. I suggested a one-way IBAN because SPECIFICO had not commented on this ANI. Now that he has, and reinforced the idea that this dispute is about the interaction between editors, I suggest the IBAN be two-three way. Give it a 30 day test run. Enforce it with blocks if an editor violates it. Editors should consider the wise words of WP:ANI Advice. To be truly courageous, mutually volunteer for the IBAN! Then we can post {{resolved}} at the top of this "discussion" and be done with the drama. – S. Rich (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Srich, I'm at a loss to understand why my silence would prompt you to propose a unilateral sanction against me. However, what's relevant at this point is that we should try to reach some common understanding of the problem before we moot various potential solutions. In short, I think you're jumping the gun here and we should let this discussion unfold according to the facts on the ground, so to speak. I would have remained silent were it not for several statements which seemed to indicate that some editors were taking my silence as an acknowledgement of the allegations presented here by carolmooredc and Abel. In fact, as you've noted before I have purposely avoided contentious noticeboard threads in the past and will do so in the future where silence is not seized on as an endorsement of various flawed accusations and misstatements. Anyway, first let's sort out the problem, then figure out the solution. There is some progress being made via the Hoppe, Rothbard, and Soto RfC and ORN threads, so it's all good. SPECIFICO talk 20:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

As a procedural matter, the ANI was focused on you, so I did not want to (and really could not) suggest a mutual IBAN without evidence – and doing so would have prompted more drama. (Moreover, I was not going to carry your water in this regard.) Consider, if the discussion had reached a conclusion during the week before you spoke up, then whatever sanction decided upon would be effective as to you. At that point, you could have brought up your points, in a new discussion, and argued for a mutual IBAN or relaxation of the uni-IBAN. (All you would have to do is say "I was out on a camping trip and didn't know the Japanese had attacked Pearl Harbor.") This particular ANI, in comparison to the other NB discussions, has more umpf to it, and I had expected a response from you. My suggestion was more geared towards getting a response. And now that you have responded, it reinforces my contention that this is an editor interaction problem. (Rember, I had suggested the IBAN for everyone in the past.) As you state above, there are a variety of accusations and misstatements. The accusations and misstatements are what have prompted this drama. Terse comments have not helped allay the tension. It is time for everyone to layoff from comments about each other and their particular edits. An IBAN, even if temporary, is the only way to go. – S. Rich (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO: I think I stated the problem as I perceive it clearly in the first couple sentences of this ANI:

As noted elsewhere, User:SPECIFICO explicitly has stated he is an Austrian School economist who thinks those connected to the Ludwig von Mises Institute which he sees as a competing economics faction are "hijackers" and "multi-level marketing" schemers. He has made biased edits and reverts on several related articles and his POV is so strong he fails or refuses per IDIDNTHEARTHAT to understand clear explanations of policy.

You are under the impression other editors' POV is as strong as yours and that their opposition to your edits comes only because they have some "fringy" POV as opposed to your allegedly mainstream one. (Not that you can quote much evidence of that from Wikipedia postings in the case of the editors who have commented here.) You don't understand that long-term editors, no matter what their POV, develop a dedication to policy for more reasons than I can detail here. Hang around a few more years and maybe you will get that. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽

carolmooredc, your statement above this is entirely ad hominem and includes several of your personal speculations and inferences as to my beliefs and motivations. Please consider. Could you state your concern in a way that refers solely and specifically to editor behavior, which is the subject of the current ANI? I think it will be help focus and advance this discussion. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:50, 7 July 2013‎ (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors recommends bringing POV concerns to noticeboards as part of behavior, as I did earlier in greater detail at this NPOVN. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 21:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The harassment continues even now

• Yes, I screwed up the notice/question here but does that mean I have to endure intrusive comment after comment as I try to correct it? (just continue through the diffs to see them.) I just scratched the question because under that pressure it was hard to focus on what the general question that I was trying to direct only to the policy talk page was.
• Yes, User Abel screwed up the [Insert] format but SPECIFICO had to comment and criticize here and then comment and criticize in another thread on another topic here. S/he doesn't realize sometimes it's better to just let people screw up on talk pages rather than nitpick and harass them. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 23:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

At this point, it is all just sad attempts to avoid responsibility. Which leads me to, even more, see the value in Stalwart111's argument for largely doing nothing now, and just wait an see if the behavior continues or stops. Also, thank you to Carol for telling me about the [Insert] format, didn't know that was even a thing until you mentioned it. Abel (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for Dismissal as WP:Battleground. This ANI is a straightforward case of WP:Battleground. As SPECIFICO's numerous diffs posted above indicate, and I (or the talk page of any article where SPECIFICO and Carol are both aactive) can attest to, Carol's criticisms of SPECIFICO's edits are centered around personal attacks. The only references to content issues she makes in these criticisms are vague, unspecified charges rather than substantive citations of policy. For instance, on the talk page of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Carol repeatedly asserts the term "BLP" but virtually never details specific BLP policies that are violated, instead focusing on how SPECIFICO or myself are out to defame people when she disapproves of edits we make to Hoppe's entries). This ANI is about a personal grudge, and therefore should be dismissed. Steeletrap (talk) 03:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

That WP:Battleground claim, which might be totally accurate for the interaction between Carolmooredc and SPECIFICO, completely ignores every diff I cited showing disruptive editing. There are many. Abel (talk) 13:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

(EC)Well lets see, you linked to his edit-history, not exactly useful as no one is going to trawl through it to find out what you think its showing. You accused him of wikihounding without providing any evidence/supporting diffs. Interacting with an editor who has been editing in that topic area needs more than mere accusations. For wikihounding you need to present clear evidence that the editor has followed your editing and has been making edits to be disruptive. Bear in mind, if an editor notices a problem with another editors editing, it is good practice to check they have not been making similar mistakes elsewhere. This is why its very difficult to proove wiki-hounding. Most of the rest of your links to revisions show SPECIFICO editing articles. You have not said *why* his editing is disruptive. Only that it is. Which is pretty much the same for both you and CarolMooreDC, lots of links and vague hand-wavy accusations but very little on outright evidence or explanations. This is why none of the previous noticeboards took much notice. Absent actual clear evidence and supporting diffs of policy-violating editing, nothing will be done. If you want something to be done, the clearest and best way is to say 'Here is the policy they are violating' 'here is a diff supporting it' 'this is why this edit violates it'. Merely being in a content dispute with another editor is not 'disruptive editing'. (EC) See below. Lots of accusations and soapboxing but no actual evidence Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Given this comment elsewhere by User:Stalwart111:

"The Mises/Austrian stuff has been going on for years but has been particularly nasty over the last 6 months or so. You are witness to the latest battle in a long-running war (I'm not sure whether you've experienced any of the history). Editors have been topic banned, indef'd, etc. and the POV has proven to go both ways. The benefit of the "walled garden" I've mentioned is that most of the conflict has happened behind those walls. But bringing it to ANI means more attention. Maybe that's a good thing for WP as a whole, but I don't think it would be pleasant for those involved."

It seems to me that I can no longer waste my time on any contentious articles - especially BLPs where I get most annoyed - since blatant POV pushing is dismissed even when several editors complain. I much better spend my time on personal writings and political activism than on trying to make Wikipedia editors abide by NPOV regarding people/views they despise, be it Palestinians/Critics of Israel/Austrian economists of one narrow school/libertarianism/libertarianism that's too capitalist or too socialist/Sexually abused women falsely accused of murder(Casey Anthony - IMHO)/Uppity Women, etc. So feel free to trash away, I won't be watching those pages any more. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 14:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

If by "elsewhere" you mean on my talk page in the context of a day-long conversation with the person who supported your complaint here, then yes. I made that comment and I stand by it. Even you have recognised and noted this thread is not the first "salvo" in this conflict. But I honestly have no idea what the connection is between that comment and "sexually abused women falsely accused of murder". You've lost me there. Stalwart111 15:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

[Insert: Just to clarify, I was moving from your good insight at your talk page to a generalization that was not about you, in case there's any confusion. Just ranting about too many articles I've wasted time on for 7 years where the bias and hatred were all pervasive and disruptive and appeals to the community were time consuming and effective only sometimes, and often then only for a short time. I'm taking the advice of editors who have said they just stay away from those types of articles to ensure a more pleasant experience. I've been waiting a while for the straw to break the sexagenarians back and blessed be!, it has finally floated down from the heavens! User:Carolmooredc 18:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't be a jerk now. Arkon (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing jerk-like about giving up on a horribly flawed system. Above Only in death does duty end said I had no support for my claims when that would only be valid if we were talking about SPECIFICO, yet I am not SPECIFICO. I can see how enough of that would drive anyone up a wall and giving up would become the only rational course. Abel (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

FYI, he's referring to one of my little meta messages which I put up temporarily when I'm annoyed but this is the first time someone noticed. I actually found an extremely similar and even better one I can use permanently, linking to Don't Be a Dick. Which not that I think of it neatly summarizes the basic message of this whole complaint and thread!

To quote the essay: "Don't be a dick" is a fundamental rule of all social spaces. Every other policy for getting along with other humans is a special case of it. Although nobody is expected to ban or block somebody for dickery (as this itself would be an instance of such), it is still a bad idea to be a dick. So don't be one. If a significant number of reasonable people suggest, whether bluntly or politely, that you are being a dick, the odds are good that you are not entirely in the right.

While not the best solution, good enough for this Specifico ANI, I guess. The end?? User:Carolmooredc 15:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

My experience suggests that Wikipedia policy means whatever the most aggressive person says it does. When it takes minutes to dismantle and hours to rebuild after who knows how much work, this whole system is a mess. Seems like any effort is just going to waste. Abel (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

User will not understand original research

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

---

Could we have some OR-experienced eyes over at Talk:Manor of Molland, please? Lobsterthermidor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and I have reached a clear impasse there, and one of us must be completely in the wrong. Either he has been adding original research to many articles for a year or more, or I am obsessing about nothing at all. I'm asking here, rather than taking the dispute resolution route, because if I'm right he ought to be stopped quickly before he can damage WP any further. That he does not understand the significance of OR is indicated by this statement he made on 3 July: "I am acutely aware of the problem of OR, which is why I have been studying the WP guidelines on how to make citations."[20]

The discussion that led up to the impasse is on CaroleHenson's talk page here, though that was just the latest round of discussions that have taken place on several talk pages from earlier in June. Other relevant messages were posted on his talk page, from this one of 21 June onwards.

Other problems include incivility (some of which I summarised in para 2 here), and less importantly his failure to provide clear references (see 2nd collapsed list here, for example) and non-compliance with WP:MOS. I can provide more examples etc., if requested. Thanks,  —SMALLJIM  21:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Here are some diffs of removal or flagging of OR that was added by Lobsterthermidor: [21], [22], [23], [24] (see under Tardrew), [25] (removal by Lobsterthermidor), [26] (see bottom), [27], [28] (interpretation of primary source), [29].  —SMALLJIM  23:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

"I am acutely aware of the problem of OR, which is why I have been studying the WP guidelines on how to make citations" the purpose of which was so that I could add proper in-line citations to provide sources for text tagged OR! The context of that comment was during a very recent whirlwind series of edits to an article created by me (Annery, Monkleigh) by a third editor (auto-confirmed user) who changed all my citation styles to one preferred by her and gave me the impression that I had to follow that style. That I was determined to do, relying on her experience and authority, hence I decided to make no more edits, including supplying sources to OR tags, until I had learned the new style. (See my talk page 29 June 2013: "Thanks Carole, I think you'll like my citations better in future. It was a bit of a rough lesson, but if that's how it's got to be done, I'm willing to do it"). During that self re-education process, I learned to my surprise that I was perfectly OK to use my existing cite style (which doesn't use cite templates) per WP:CITEVAR.

There is no question as to my great goodwill to every aspect of the WP project or of my total good faith. To read that I am accused of "damaging WP" is a great surprise to me and wholly inaccurate. I think the good quality of any article I have created will support that. I don't claim any is perfect or error free, but I'm proud of all my work contributed and believe it improves Wikipedia.

I would estimate that over 95% of all my challenges in 3 years editing have come from this one editor above, (as my archived talk page will evidence) whose demands for sources are becoming in my opinion increasingly unreasonable, obsessive and hysterical. My article contributed on Manor of Molland already had over 100 line-refs provided and is well sourced, albeit not perfect. I'm trying to improve it and my other articles all the time. Why is no one else demanding sources from me all the time? Where are the OR and cn tags on all my other articles contributed which this editor hasn't critically reviewed? I draw the conclusion from lack of cn tags elsewhere that the community and readers are generally happy with my work.

See the latest exchanges on Talk:Manor of Molland between this editor and myself. Even when I have supplied a clear-cut source, most recently for example the simple and totally non-controversial fact stated by me in Manor of Molland "that the estate of Wonwell was in the parish of Kingston, Devon", (I replied: "My source given was Risdon, p. 182, which under the paragraph heading "KINGSTON" (in capitals), states 8 lines below "In this parish is Wonwell") he continues to challenge this simple point to an absurd quasi-forensic level. I have expressed my opinion to him on that article's talk page - in the most civil terms - that his behaviour has become unreasonable and is in my opinion bordering on the obsessive and that I will not be drawn into endless argument about a challenge I have sourced to the standard required by a reasonable person. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC))

Staying on topic of original research: I have yet to see sources provided where there are questions of original research or uncited information.

There seems to be a new tactic to cover up original research / uncited information of Prust family members by putting in notes instead of true citations, which makes it look on the surface that there's a citation: fifth paragraph of the Coffin section. I had researched Hugh Prust for the Annery, Monkleigh article to address the original research tag and not found sources for Hugh Prust at [30]--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I am confident that the matter can be resolved by reference to the will of Hugh Prust, which should qualify as a source under publicly available archival material in WP:Verify (in footnote 6). This is a source I am aware of, thus not OR, but which is difficult to obtain. I will order it by credit card and share the results with you. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 03:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC))

Will now consulted [31] and does not support my text. I was in error to mention Hugh Prust (d.1651) as "of Annery", I should have mentioned instead his brother Joseph Prust (d.1677) of Annery, where this fact is clearly stated on a verifiable source, namely his ledger stone in the Annery Chapel of Monkleigh Church, which I have myself transcribed as follows: "Here lieth interred Joseph Prust of Annerie gent...obiit (he died) Oct 1677...". I am able and willing to supply a photograph of this ledger-stone with inscription in evidence if required. This was careless with regard to proper sourcing, and would thus qualify as OR. I regret this error of mine and any similar I might have made in not following with adequate care WP guidelines in this area. I undertake to continue my editing activity with much greater regard to meeting this OR guideline. I trust this matter may now be adjudicated. Many thanks, and my apologies to the wider Wikipedia community for any breaches I have made. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 09:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC))

At this late stage let me try a different tack, Lobsterthermidor, because I still can't see that you understand. I hope you'll listen to me in this venue, because if I'm wrong I will be quickly corrected.

As the OR policy (not guideline) states in its nutshell: "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source."

So the error you mention above regarding Hugh Prust is indeed technically OR, because there was no reliable, published source for it; but is of the very simplest sort – a mere mistake. OR goes far beyond this. It covers matters such as:

• making comments on sources: [32] (in reference), [33]
• personal observation: [34] (at bottom), [35]
• drawing inferences that the source does not state: example 4 on Talk:Manor of Molland and here under Tardrew
• interpretation of primary sources: [36]
• the expansion of text in an inscription: [37]
• and the addition of content that looks as if it's part of the source, but which is not: [38] (I've seen more examples of this, but can't locate at present).

This last example is potentially the worst because it also misrepresents the source and can mislead readers who don't (or can't) check.

Even if all of these additions are valid and correct, we cannot include them because WP does not publish material for which there is no reliable source.

Does that make it any clearer?  —SMALLJIM  13:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I have studied all your comments and the links given above and I fully understand the points you have made concerning OR. It does indeed make it very clear. I would like to confirm again that I regret these errors of mine I have made in not following with adequate care and attention the WP policy on OR. I undertake to continue my editing activity with very great regard to ensuring my full compliance with the OR policy. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC))

A quick comment. From what I've seen of Lobster's editing, I think he's making good faith edits. He clearly researches deeply into the topics concerned, cares passionately about the topics he edits and I'm strongly inclined to assume good faith in terms of any mistakes. I would urge him, though, to pay very close attention to the policies on OR, whether in terms of interpretation, speculation and use of primary sources; I can well understand the frustrations of others who are faced with checking the details of his edits! It would be a real shame to lose a committed and well-informed editor, but I can see that happening unless more care is taken on the OR front. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be great progress - and I've seen a bit of good work on resolving a couple of uncited sentences for Talk:Manor of Monkleigh. Since there's acknowledgement that WP is not a forum for original research, and the need for reliable published sources, does it make sense to identify a couple issues to start with to tackle open issues from the Talk:Manor of Molland#There are still problems page/section?--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary, Carole. As I've pointed out, they are individually not very significant issues. I'll amend them and trust that Lt will agree with the (minor) changes.  —SMALLJIM  19:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec)

Thanks for that, Lobsterthermidor. On the basis of what you say, and in agreement with Hchc2009's remarks, I'm happy to leave this section to be archived now, even though we've had no true third party input. After archiving, I'll tag the pages with {{Original research}} (per this), add a brief talk page message pointing here (as it provides a good summary) and for ease of reference, will keep a temporary list of the pages so tagged at User:Smalljim/Pages I have tagged with OR. I'm sure that when we bump into one another again (as we doubtless will do somewhere in Devon-space) we'll both have benefited from what we've learned here. By the way, I sat in the sun this afternoon with a printout of the latest version of Manor of Molland and can definitely say that it reads better on paper.  —SMALLJIM  19:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

If there's an interest, LT:

• there's just a couple of minor things for Manor of Monkleigh - I've researched the best I could and there's just a little bit more information needed to create citations. See Talk:Manor of Monkleigh.
• citation needed tags for Joseph Watson, 1st Baron Manton‎. I couldn't find good info for Joseph Watson, so I did all I could there, too.
• Original research? tags and citation needed tags for Siston. This a work in progress.

There are other articles, too, but these are the ones needing the most work - or in one case, just needs a bit of info.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Or, should I just assume that content is original research - and remove it - if I'm unable to find sources for it?--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

In general, yes. If there's no source in the article and you can't find one either, WP:OR is a good assumption. Don't get in over your head, though: if someone is looking at an article on particle physics and doesn't know a lot about particle physics, a lot of things can appear to be WP:OR when it's actually just a comprehension problem.—Kww(talk) 21:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I have benefitted greatly from all the points made by all the contributors above and my editing style will change to follow the OR policy, which I now fully understand, scrupulously. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 08:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC))

After all this conversation about uncited, original research information - there is continued attempts to add detailed and mostly uncited information to Annery, Monkleigh. See Talk:Annery, Monkleigh#Lots of biographical info duplicated in articles about towns, villages and manors.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Continuing incivility

I pointed out in the first post here that one of the other problems with Lobsterthermidor is his incivility, and that I've cautioned him several times about this [39], [40] and here (point 1 and last para). Yet he persists, today, in belittling CaroleHenson when she makes a mistake [41] (edit summary), [42]. Since my last message to him about this behaviour he has also been extremely rude to me - in terms which do not bother me, but which, I am certain, would upset others. e.g. [43] (last para in particular), [44], [45] and [46] (on this page). I note that he was blocked when he was a newbie on a related issue. Might it be time to apply the cluestick a little harder? I'm obviously well involved, so can't do anything. Thanks,  —SMALLJIM  15:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I am very sad today because I thought we had made progress - and then I found messages on my talk page. Please see Talk:Manor of Monkleigh#Recent comments (original at User talk:CaroleHenson#Attention to detail. One of which he blamed me for something he did.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Daniel Case

I was surprised with Daniel Case (talk · contribs) would not act on a blatant username policy violation reported to UAA but really surprised when he chose to taunt on my talk page here when I questioned the decision. Is this the kind of behavior that other admins expected when he was granted admin privileges? This is not something expected of such an experienced editor. Some additional admin perspective on both the UAA decision and Case's comments on my talk page would be appreciated here.--RadioFan (talk) 03:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll leave it to others to comment on that, but one thing most people expect whether you're an admin or not is that you will notify people when you start AN/I threads on them and not leave it up to the notifications system. Daniel Case (talk) 03:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, which is why I did precisely that on your talk page here. You must have missed it since you posted the above 5 minutes after I added the ANI notice to your talk page.--RadioFan (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• The UAA decision was sound. Blocks are not enacted on editors that are not actively editing, period. If someone isn't editing Wikipedia, there's no need for any blocks. --Jayron32 03:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• My perspective is that the username was editing AFC pages for the same name (as its username) as seen by the history, this is promotional and should be blocked under WP:SPAMNAME, (Though this is admin discretion most times if they notice other aspects around it). This other than violating username policies is also a promotion only account dealing with edits with a promotional intent. As for the conversation issue brought here, WP is an area with a wide variety of admins and editors, from different regions and age groups. The kind of language some editors regard as cool or hip is sometimes termed as rude by others, I do see some issues with rudeness here but nothing to bring it to an ANI.  A m i t  ❤  05:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I concur with Jayron32. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 06:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Not sure where the taunting is... you were snarky to Daniel, and he was snarky right back at you... I would suggest dropping the WP:STICK. Crazynas ^t 06:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• There was no snark intended in my reply to the UAA or question posted on his talk page. Intention was to question the decision. --RadioFan (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

It certainly was snarky, and you know it. You know, User:Orangemike was brought to this very page a couple of weeks ago for instantly blocking usernames ... and WP:CONSENSUS has been to give the benefit of the doubt and give them a chance to change their username once they have been advised of their error. This is an editor who has not edited in exactly a week ... and you want them blocked? If they make a single additional edit that is promotional without changing the username, I'll block them myself ... but chastizing an admin for following consensus seems a bit odd. A block right now is most certainly not preventing anything ... except for perhaps your own aneurysm (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I actually think it's beyond snarky to say " I've reported many of these over the years as I new page patrol and I've never had something so blatant rejected." That is, to me, insulting. As if it's my job to just bow down, genuflect and execute what His Majesty pleases. It is deficient in good faith and in every way contrary to how Wikipedians are supposed to interact.

Further problematic is the fact that, after I explained briefly why I didn't make the block, he came right back with the same exact arguments as before. He also made sure to repeat them at UAA.

Sorry, I should just let him drop the stick but I felt the discussion was a little better with my perspective. Daniel Case (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Timeline

• 14:18, 6 July 2013 RF declines User:IntelCapital's AFC nomination
• 18:20, 6 July 2013 DC declines RF's UAA block request
• 19:30, 6 July 2013 RF questions DC's decision on UAA
• 19:21, 6 July 2013 RF questions the decision on DC's talk page
• 19:56–20:35, 6 July 2013 Discussion on RF's talk page
• 21:35, 6 July 2013 RF templates IC's talk page with user name warning
• 02:35, 8 July 2013 Discussion on RF's talk page continued

The user name warning that RF put on IC's talk page seems strange. In part it reads "I noticed that your username, "IntelCapital", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because blatant violation of wikipedia's username policy." "Blatant" seems weird. The nearest likeness I could find was Template:Uw-username but it doesn't contain "blatant". Is it usual for patrollers to amp up the rhetoric on template warnings? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• I would also point out that 'Intel' has other meanings than just a chip company, which is why allowing them to actually edit is important. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think it reasonable to assume that the meaning here matches the meaning in the one and only article this user edited. --RadioFan (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• The last time I looked, an editor could be called Coca Cola provided they didn't edit Coca Cola. But that was a while ago and things may have changed. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I would still let someone edit under those circumstances. Daniel Case (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes true, it doesn't mean that if an id with name apple is there and he cannot edit apple inc's article. Unless the intent is not promotional it is not causing any issue. But in this case the only edits the user did was create an article of the same name and push for publishing of it in article space, i.e. it became the sole purpose of the account. That said - in this context - this is surely not an account naming issue.  A m i t  ❤  20:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Tony1

Tony1 (talk · contribs) to gain the advantage of a favored position, with any objections to the way he went about matters, which included email canvassing, for a proposal at WT:FAC, has three times moved edits which were properly put where they are, to a place where editors' eyes will not see the objections readily. In other words, he is edit warring. I would ask an admin to revert and to render a preventative sanction to Tony1 which is justified by his past record, which is not small. The reverts are here and here and [47]. The canvassing included this. Notice to him--Wehwalt (talk) 09:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Note that his initial statement there is far longer than fifty words. Why should he be entitled to set rules which he is not prepared to abide by?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it relatively commonplace to do this in RfCs? The initial proposal would obviously be longer than fifty words; I'm baffled as to why you think that's an issue, or why you're starting a storm in a teacup over this point... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not think one person can fairly be both an advocate and a judge.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure this is WP:EDITWARRING?? Has the editor continued to move other editors comments after you said to him to not touch the comments. If not then this is a non-issue. If he is continuing to mess up other peoples contributions to the talk page then I feel he needs to be explained about what talk page vandalism means and in this case this is not the users talk page to set rules or own it in any manner.  A m i t  ❤  17:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Wehwalt, your first and third diffs are in fact two consecutive edits by Tony1, and thus would generally be considered a single revert (as a long-term admin, I'm sure you're aware of that). Your second diff precedes the first and third diffs chronologically, and appears to represent an initial move and not a revert. The way you've presented this edit-warring complaint makes it very difficult to parse. It appears that Tony moved the comments, you reverted, then Tony reverted you - that is, technically you're both at 1 revert. If I'm wrong, please correct me by providing a clearer chronology, as one would expect from a formal report on edit-warring.

  I'm not condoning any of the reverting; right now, I see two (well, actually more than two) editors who should know better arguing about incidentals like comment placement and length, and I see a discussion filled with so much personalized venom that it's impossible to make sense of the actual issue under discussion. I think all of you can do better. MastCell ^Talk 18:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

MastCell, please don't imply that any venom is coming from me. Tony (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• This would seem to be an interesting and instructive knee-jerk. WP discussions are usually resolved on a "weight of arguments" basis, but the supposed "upgrading" of vote seems to have been vendetta-backed and not policy-backed. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 02:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• It looks like the discussion is back on track now. [48] Hope everyone is well. Neotarf (talk) 03:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• I do not see that any sanctions are warranted, but I would like to comment that normally a proposal such as this[49] is discussed before presenting it as an RfC, and the 50 word limit is particularly unusual considering that the proposal consisted of over 300 words. Normally it is counterproductive for someone to attempt to micromanage a discussion by attempting to move user comments around from one section to another, and certainly the first thing that should have happened was a question on the offending users talk page, "do you mind if I move your comments to the discussion section", instead of just moving them. Apteva (talk) 03:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for Article Page Ban for Binksternet for Consistent Inappropriate Edits on the Mitsuo Fuchida Page

Since March of 2012, Binksternet has been reverting and altering the Historical Controversy section of the page on Mitsuo Fuchida, contantly shaping it to produce as unfavorable a picture of Fuchida as possible without regard to historical accuracy, references, or qualifications. I, TheLeopard or T Martin Bennett, have spent eight years researching the life of Fuchida, have the endorsement of the highest qualified experts on both Fuchida and Pearl Harbor, and am a full-time researcher/writer and cannot maintain the integrity of this page no matter what I do. I am not as skilled as Binksternet on Wikipedia as I cannot devote much time to it.

After an edit war with Binksternet in late November 2012, I requested a page block to at least protect the page from damage during the week of December 7, when it receives the most visits. A block was put in place for about 6 months, for which I am grateful. As soon as the block was removed, the "Controversy" section was highly altered, leaving Parshall's full paragraph of anti-Fuchida comments, while deleting my information and replacing it with a single sentence falsely presenting a view as being mine. This is the very reason people do not trust Wikipedia.

Most recently, I added four references to articles appearing in the Naval War College Review showing Parshall's full arguments and my own. It is very, very difficult to get published in this Review, even in the "Letters" section. I also updated my counterpoint to Parshall's charges against Fuchida. You can see these two edits here: [50]

Within a day, Binksternet reverted my counterpoint section and replaced it with the opionion of someone else falsely speaking on my behalf, and completely deleted the entire four references to the Fuchda dispute article series in the Naval War College Review.[51]

Understand that these articles are highly academic, highly researched, highly vetted, present both sides, and are extremely germane to the "Controversy" section of this page. The Review allowed two articles on the subject from each author – point and counterpoint, and two letters – point and counterpoint. There is no good reason to simply wipe them off the page when at the same time, Parshall's book, entitled "Shattered Sword" is listed in the Bibliography section when his 640 page book has only a few mentions of Fuchida's name and has virtually nothing to do with the Fuchida article.

Binksternet has implied that I have a Conflict Of Interest because I have written on Fuchida, which is absurd. I will be the first to show that Fuchida was a corrupt person and I have altered my own writings based on criticism giving others the benefit of every doubt, as my only interest is in the truth. I am one of the most knowledgeable people in the world on Mitsuo Fuchida. I have indeed written about Fuchida, (good things and bad things) which in no way disqualifies me from commenting on his page. In fact, it is quite the opposite. On the other hand, Binksternet has yet to demonstrate the least qualifications to edit this page.

I am requesting a permanent article page ban of Binksternet from the Mitsuo Fuchida page based on the fact that he consistently bends the page against Fuchida, violating WP:NPOV while demonstrating no personal qualifications or documentation to add to the content of the article. There is no way I or anyone can keep up with the constant erosion of the integrity of the page if he continues to edit it.--TMartinBennett (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried Dispute resolution before coming here? Do you have extensive input from people not previously involved in this dispute? --Jayron32 02:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I have gone over the issue on the talk page at length, but there are few, if any, with the knowledge to participate who are also Wikipedia-savvy. I am not involved enough in Wikipedia to find competent WWII experts to participate, although I have looked. Binksternet has never made any contributions of substance to the Fuchida page, whereas I (and many others) have. He deletes and reverts to promote his POV. If you can bring in some WWII experts who are disinterested third parties, that would be great, but even if there is a temporary resolution, what would prevent Blinksternet from going back to his old ways? He has no business fiddling with a serious page like this and does not respect the guidelines. This has become a serious problem.--TMartinBennett (talk) 22:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The only knowledge required on Wikipedia is how to read sources. There is no other requirement for working on a "serious page", whatever that means. I certainly know how to read sources—I have taken four articles to Featured article status, and none of them were topics I was previously familiar with. The call for experts is a fine sentiment but not necessary.

I intend to keep an eye on the Fuchida biography because it has been the center of a real-life dispute between T. Martin Bennett, entrepreneur and would-be filmmaker who is working on a Fuchida story, and Jon Parshall, a respected military historian. Let's not allow this dispute to boil over into Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Mr Bennett, Binksternet is a highly experienced Wikipedian who can help shape the article to meet Wikipedia standards. He's knowledgeable about WWII topics. You are a person with knowledge of this particular topic who is not as familiar with the particular requirements of this website. This is a good opportunity to cooperate to make the article better, as there should be some synergy here. I would suggest by starting with providing reliable sources for all the material in the article – not just the Controversy section – as presently there's entire paragraphs that are unsourced. Mr Bennett, the reason why it might be deemed that you have a conflict of interest is because you are citing your own article as a source for the corresponding Wikipedia article. While this is not forbidden, you need to be careful not to give your own point of view undue weight. See WP:SELFCITE. Binksternet or other experienced Wiki editors can help you with this aspect to make sure that you inadvertently do not commit this error. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, and thanks for your thoughts. It's important that disinterested third parties (not friends) help remedy this situation, so please state for the record that you have no prior relationship or communication with Binksternet. RSVP, thanks.

I have provided many substantial contributions with accurate references to the Fuchida page already and will continue to do so as time permits. There is no prohibition against citing your own material (although there are guidelines) and Parshall, who started the "Controversy" section in the first place, only quotes his own book and no one has yet to object. It is only information that contradicts his assertions that is quickly deleted by Binksternet and violating the NPOV that continues to damage the accuracy of this page.--TMartinBennett (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I am a Wikipedia administrator and part of that job is to try to help answer inquiries on this board; that's why I responded to this thread. Binksternet and I have edited a few of the same articles as we both work on WWII topics so I cannot say we have never communicated with one another, though I would not class us as friends. If you want the help of a disinterested third party, your best bet is to try one or our dispute resolution protocols. There's more information on this at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Diannaa. You realize that Binksternet is altering content and helping to falsely attribute opinions to me on the official page that are not my opionions at all, right? As soon as I post accurate, referenced material, he deletes it immediately, apparently not even bothering to read the sources or material. If any entry gives the balance of opposite information to Parshall and Binksternet's POV, it is immediately excised. I have a job and much work to do and cannot maintain the integrity on this page so long as Binksternet runs free to shape the page to his own POV, which he's been doing since early 2012. For the life of me, no matter how hard I try, I cannot even list the four highly academic articles that appear in the U.S. Naval War College Review. Binksternet deleted them immediately. It is unfair to the readers of Wikipedia to not be able to read for themselves the most thorough examination of the "controversy" re: Fuchida that exists today. Also, Binksternet is not adding any substantial valuable content to the page, only deleting information and adding opinion. So long as he has access to shape the page, it will never be accurate.--TMartinBennett (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I've been on both sides of a discussion such as this, so believe me when I say that neither user is thinking about page content anymore. At least, not from the edit history I saw. This looks like an edit war, plain and simple. Binksternet and I have history, as we've "fought" over things before, but I don't see how his edits help the page at all. On the other hand, Bennett, you should have alerted someone of this issue as soon as the pattern became clear; since you waited a bit before bringing in a third party, it looks like you're simply rallying support for your point of view. Trust me, I've been there, too. Now that another editor, Theleapord, has become involved, this whole thing has devolved into a game of tug-of-war, with the page as the victim caught in the crossfire. As for citing your own works as a reference, that may not be prohibited, but it's an extremely precarious leg to stand on. Published works by two authors, both contradicting the other, that are being toted by their authors. That's a recipe for disaster in my view; both of you are just asking for trouble. Magus732 (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Magus732, you and I have worked together successfully on the Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory article as well as on the Boeing XB-15 article. I do not agree with your assessment that "neither user is thinking about page content anymore." I have not been building the Fuchida biography but I believe I have been valuable to the wiki by removing unsound timber from the construction. An important part of page content is the removal of poor content, which must be done with the reader in mind, and Wikipedia guidelines as the anchor. My point is that Bennett is not very well known so his contribution must not be given undue weight, especially in regard to more highly respected authors such as Parshall. Binksternet (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

@Magus732, User:Theleopard and T Martin Bennett are the same person. @Everybody, this is a content dispute, and is beyond the scope of this board. The first step a content dispute is to discuss the proposed edit on the article talk page. If that doesn't work, the next step is dispute resolution. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE: Binksternet is now deleting content on the Talk page in direct violation of WP:TPNO in order to bolster his POV. Binksternet is not concerned with who the experts are, from Dr. Goldstein to Dan King, he's consistently bent on producing the worst image of Fuchida in the controversy section, as he has deleted comments from these experts as well. Parshall is also highly disrespected by extremely qualified and well-known experts. This is no longer a content dispute, but a behaviour problem that is far outside the Wikipedia guidelines. Why is Binksternet allowed to delete Talk page content without consequence? For the record, I started using my own name, T Martin Bennett, when Theleopard became confusing to others. I appeal to the editors to prevent Binksternet from further damage to this page.--TMartinBennett (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Sockblock requested

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

---

File:Rubber Duck.jpg

"Quack".

174.226.192.25 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 66.191.153.36 (talk) 04:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:SPI is thataway and it would be a good idea if you provide evidence of what editor or IP you think this is a sock of. MarnetteD | Talk 05:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I know where it is, thanks. Or, you could just look at the history of the RfA they're bitching about and see those recent IPs that forced Dennis Brown to protect it for two days. You might be interested in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jackadvisor, which after two weeks is still waiting on closure. Or you could just block them for quacking, of course. 66.191.153.36 (talk) 05:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Blocked. Quacking is a very serious offense on Wikipedia and taken very seriously. Such an ugly and annoying sound to make, really. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

A rubber duck award for Fut.Perf., whose talk page I cannot edit, apparently. 66.191.153.36 (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Possible copyright violations

Perhaps someone who's also active on Commons, preferably as an admin, can have a look at the contributions of BLACKBOY135 (talk · contribs), who's been uploading images there like crazy and adding them to our articles here. A spot check of two of their images suggests that they've copied them from the internet before uploading them as their own. Or Blackboy is going through their archives, collected while they got a front row seat at major sports events all over South America. 66.191.153.36 (talk) 05:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting; warned and reported on Commons. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I reverted his image additions. MER-C 12:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both. Your bonus will be in the mail after the actual block, if that happens. There's no bonus payment for diplomacy. 66.191.153.36 (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal

I wish to appeal a 3-month topic ban imposed on me by user Bbb23. [52]

I don't know if one is expected to provide lots of detail with such an appeal. Both sides are pretty much summarized on my talk page.[53] If more summary here is desired, I am happy to provide it. I will say that I take particular issue with Bbb23's implication that there was a consensus in favor of describing unspecified sectors of the Men's Rights Movement as "misogynist". The talk page for that article does not suggest that any such consensus exists.William Jockusch (talk) 07:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I see no plausible proof that the topic ban imposed was improper in any way - there seems to have been plenty of warning, and this topic area is both well-"policed" and highly volatile. As such, your responsibility for an appeal is to show that the topic ban is no longer necessary, which of course there's no evidence thereof (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Question Can someone enlighten me in 25 words or less how an Admin can impose a ban when WP:Banning policy specifically does not give authority to individual Admins to impose bans?? (Thanks.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation#Remedy and WP:General sanctions. Any more details would be beyond 25 words. Singularity42 (talk) 11:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Besides that, a unilateral ban can be something like "Stop doing X for the next three months. If you continue, I will block you". (24 words!) Nyttend (talk) 19:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per lack of any particularly convincing reason to do so. I see no evidence that undoing the topic ban would benefit the encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support The reasons given for the ban are a previous EW block, a comment confessing his own biases, and a bad faith assumption (by the ban imposing admin) that an RFC is "abusive". None of these things justify a topic ban, and the bad faith assumption by itself would make me question it's legitimacy. Arkon (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: The topic ban was necessary to put a stop to long-term disruptive and tendentious editing on that article by an editor who disregarded policy and consensus that certainly would have continued had the topic ban not been imposed. I see no credible reason to lift it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. If a topic ban is so grossly out of line as to justify an appeal 48 hours later, I'll undo it myself. That's not the case here, though. The best and simplest way to get out of a topic ban is through compliance with it for a time. Stay away from the topic for a few weeks (at least!) before appealing. Piling up a series of good and reasonable edits in other areas would tell me that you're willing to work within policy, and makes the decision to lift the topic ban that much simpler. Plus, honestly, some time away from the article might be beneficial, long term. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

May need attention

The Tikun_Olam_(blog) article and the blog's author Richard Silverstein, appear to be under attack. Perhaps it's the same person that threatened to kill various people and bomb Wikipedia yesterday (here, who knows). Special:Contributions/Jonah_silverstein may need to be blocked, the article Tikun_Olam_(blog) semi-protected and perhaps the edits revdel'd. The account is, by the way, probably named after the subject's son. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Blocked and revdel'ed. Shall we wait with the semiprotection to see if it continues first? I'm not seeing a longer-term pattern at the moment except for this one account. (But no objection if somebody wants to be on the safe side and protect now.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I think they probably continued elsewhere via Special:Contributions/Hharghj, which has already been blocked. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Hharghj is clearly a Runtshit sock. JS probably is, too. RolandR (talk) 11:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Request speedy closure of BLP violating AFD

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

---

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_people_with_attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder looks like WP:SNOW, and possible G10, but one !vote has objected to speedy closure. If someone could take a look and take whatever action they think is appropriate... Gaijin42 (talk) 14:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Legal threat by User:Otisnaguzici

This editor, who also seems to edit as an IP, says " If you dare to remove anything i update on these pages ... your ip adress will be sent to bhutan royal police and the king jigme wangchuk himself will put you in jail!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" PamD 15:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I have blocked Otisnaguzici indefinitely for the legal threat. If/when it is withdrawn, any admin may remove the block. I have also blocked the IP sock 78.3.30.101 for disruptive editing. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

CFB North Bay and User:22WHERO

1. Conflict of interest: The CFB North Bay article has been mostly written by User:22WHERO, who has asserted many times he is an employee of the base. In fact, maintaining this article seems to be an official policy of the base: [the page] was a dog's breakfast of omissions and inaccurate data, that reflected badly on our base. Our command and senior staff were unhappy, to say the least. In 2011 we began a wholesale re-write of the page.
2. Unverifiable sources: CFB North Bay uses unusual and unverifiable sources, such as "22 Wing Heritage Office Photo Archives", "22 Wing/Canadian Forces Base North Bay Archives, various documents", "remark to NORAD officers in training at North Bay, fall 1986" and "E-mail to CFB North Bay Wing Heritage Office, 21 December 2011". In fact, a footnote explicitly says: "Referenced documents cited in this and following sections are from the air base's archives and active files, which have file numbers, publication numbers and registration numbers that may be unfamiliar to those without a military background, although the information's accuracy is assured."
3. Unreferenced material: Although some of the content has references (but mostly unverifiable), many large paragraphs and whole sections have no citations.
4. Improper behaviour: User:22WHERO has written on the talk page of several users who tried to modify the article and asked to refrain from modifying anything without contacting himself by using an official forces.gc.ca email address. The tone is rather striking: "we request that you contact me -- the Wing Heritage Officer -- by the Wikipedia Talk medium before attempting more edits. Not only am I the Wing Heritage Officer, official subject matter expert on 22 Wing/CFB North Bay and its history, but I am a NORAD officer with over 25 years' service on the base. You can also contact me at Raymond.Newman@forces.gc.ca"
5. Reverts: User:22WHERO has a habit of reverting edits without discussion or edit summaries. I have attempted to add OR, primary and refimprove notices, only to have them reverted twice today without discussion. I did not want to trap the user by allowing him to revert a third time. There has been several threads started on the talk page, but the main editors have never responded constructively.
6. Sockpuppets: It would seem that User:22wingheritageoffice is another account used by the base's employees to modify the article, but it hasn't been used since 8 September 2009, the same day User:Benlisquare notified the user on the talk page (last edit of 4) that his behaviour was inappropriate. User:22WHERO later attempted to remove this message, but User:Benlisquare restored it. User:22WHERO then added a personal attack as a follow up.

I'm not exactly sure what to do with this. The article is in a very poor state, but I'm honestly very uncomfortable with trying to do anything with it. The aggressive stance of User:22WHERO, as well as his credentials, made me hesitate before posting this. But I think it's important. I have no specific recommendations for now, I just wish to make this public and get advice on how to proceed. pm (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I have subsequently received a message on my talk page from User:22WHERO, but it was probably written before he had knowledge of this ANI. pm (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It just occurred to be that all this may have been done in good faith. The latest message posted on my talk page gives me the impression that User:22WHERO has little to no knowledge of how wikipedia operates. pm (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I've left a personal note on 22WHERO's talk page, hopefully to get them to reduce (or stop entirely) blind reverts and use the article talk page. Personalmountains, you can also help by being more specific about your concerns (see my note on the article talk page about that) and trying to draw 22WHERO into discussions. I think there is some WP:OWN here simply from the massive amount of work that's been done. For better or worse, they are a WP:SPA but not a hostile one. Some patience and pointers/explanations/education about the various wikipedia policies may prove all that's needed here. Ravensfire (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I assumed that the user was aware of the various policies, which may have been a mistake. I felt the comments left on some of the editor's talk pages were highly inappropriate, but again, I may have read too much into them. I'm looking forward to reading 22WHERO's feedback.

As for specific concerns, the whole article is undercited, with complete subsections without references. I decided to put the refimprove on top because it applies to the whole article as well as several subsections. The original research and primary sources also apply to the article as a whole. The whole thing sounds like a personal essay from a base's employee (in fact, it was already tagged as such). I'd be happy to go into more details in the article's talk page once 22WHERO weighs in. pm (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't have time for more input, so I'll just comment on your #3 "Unverifiable sources". These definitely sound like high-quality archival sources, and any solid secondary source will use documents such as them — they're nowhere near unverifiable. The problem is that "22 Wing Heritage Office Photo Archives", "22 Wing/Canadian Forces Base North Bay Archives, various documents", "remark to NORAD officers in training at North Bay, fall 1986" and "E-mail to CFB North Bay Wing Heritage Office, 21 December 2011" are all primary sources, so we shouldn't be using them except in rare circumstances, and the extensive use you describe is inappropriate. Nyttend (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Without investigating further, those are not only primary sources, but self-published, and they are reported to be unduly self-serving. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Request to block User:Lobsterthermidor from my talk page.

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

---

Based upon many requests to stop personal attacks (see #User will not understand original research#Continuing incivility), I request that my talk page (User talk:CaroleHenson) is blocked to prevent edits by User:Lobsterthermidor.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

A block would be from all areas of Wikipedia, not just your talkpage. Normally, you formally request them to no longer post on your talkpage. If they continue, then you report them for harassment. I do not see anywhere where you have distinctly requested that they leave your talkpage alone. You might also want to review WP:WIAPA for definitions of "what is a personal attack" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

You're right, I had not specifically asked him to stop uncivil comments on my talk page - it was requested that he stop uncivil comments totally.

If I don't have the right guideline (personal attack), I am happy to use whatever is the correct guideline.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• I have left the crustacean a note to empahsize: a) that Carole has requested he remain off her talkpage, under possible penalty of blocking for harassment, and b) that civility is not optional. If the Lobster violates your request to stay off your talkpage, let us know ... if they continue to be uncivil, then be aware that they're not quite close to the chronic level ... yet (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Long term incivility from User:BrandonTR

Articles involving the JFK assassination have always been a target for POV pushers and civility violators. User:BrandonTR has had long term issues with interacting with other editors on these articles (which are mostly the only articles he edits on Wikipedia) in a civil manner. Here is a small sampling of his incivility that he has directed at myself and others for about two years: [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60]. He has been aware this has been an issue for some time, as it has been pointed out to him on talk pages again and again and offensive comments of his have been removed again and again. Attempting to avoid interacting with him has not been successful as he will just insult you in the edit summary. I would appreciate it if another administrator would attempt to impress upon him the importance of this core policy. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Update: I forgot to link to my most recent attempt to get BrandonTR to discuss his behavior before bringing the issue here. It was reverted without comment, which I suppose is an improvement from reverting with an insulting edit summary. Gamaliel (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It looks to me as if most of the incivility provided is not serious and where it seems serious there is usually some inappropriate action on your part. When you alter a passage to say "bringing the sanity" and someone refers to that edit as insanity, that seems more like petty bickering between two disputants. Similarly when you seem to claim there has been discussion over including a conspiracy-related detail in an article on the conspiracy theories by pointing to a discussion on an article on the actual event, then you are being deceptive as any editor familiar with this issue knows inclusion of fringe views on an article about fringe views is different from including them in an article that is not about fringe views.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

First, I didn't "alter a passage", that was a snarky edit summary which was not directed at an individual but only reflected my opinion about a section that was one sided and POV and, as far as I know, not written by BrandonTR BrandonTR responded with a personal attack on me in his next edit summary. If you want to throw out that example of BrandonTR's incivility, fine, there are plenty more to choose from.

Second, I have no idea what you mean when you say that I am "being deceptive". What are you referencing specifically, with links? That's a serious accusation and you should make it clear what on earth you are referring to and why it is relevant here. I'm not sure this claim is relevant anyway, since this discussion is solely about editor behavior, not article content. I have no interest in discussing BrandonTR's article content in this forum as I feel it would only muddy the waters.

If you have a specific accusation against me, please start a new thread. This is not about me versus BrandonTR, as his incivility is not directed solely towards me. It would not be appropriate for other editors to continue to be the victims of his behavior because you think I did something inappropriate, whatever it is. Gamaliel (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The pot calling the kettle black A bit of incivility on Gamaliel's part -- referring to me as a "troll":

Okay, it's been fun, but we're done here now. I've had fun poking the troll, but from now on I'm going to be removing your comments per WP:BLP when you use this page as a forum to libel living individuals. Gamaliel (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lee_Harvey_Oswald&oldid=539562246 BrandonTR (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course, you left out a large thread full of days worth of your incivility and libelous comments towards BLPs directly above that comment. I would love to never have to say another word to you in my life, and we can make that happen if you can just restrain yourself from directing offensive comments towards me and other editors. Gamaliel (talk) 20:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. Your act of incivility at the time was justified by what you regarded as my acts of incivility? BrandonTR (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, you had spent several days insulting myself, User:Canada Jack, "lone-nut theorists", unnamed editors on the Jack Ruby article, and multiple living authors by name. That said, no acts of incivility are justified. I am trying to get this nonsense to stop entirely, in an manner satisfactory to all parties involved, but you have constantly refused to change your behavior. Gamaliel (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It's interesting that you pretend to speak for other editors who I have allegedly offended, when none of these editors who you propose to speak for has complained. Could it be that you're a little thin-skinned? As for Canada Jack, causally looking at a thread of his comments reveals that he is notorious for insulting other editors, but when they take digs back at him, he doesn't whine. He can take it. BrandonTR (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

That's the problem here is your refusal to understand how Wikipedia works. Nobody should have to "take it". Gamaliel (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you are confusing sarcasm with incivility. BrandonTR (talk) 22:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

To your first point, I see you added a section so I guess you didn't alter a passage per se, but the point is that your edit summary was a swipe at people editing that page and, I should note, you were editing a section that Brandon had just previously edited. As to what I said about being deceptive, I was referring to what prompted the comment in this diff. You made the comment, "We've already dealt with this some years ago, and this material still doesn't belong in the article." However, you linked to a discussion page for a different article, one on the assassination and not one on the conspiracy theories about the assassination. As the discussion concerned the CT article, it is a serious misrepresentation to act as if the earlier discussion was about the same article as there are different criteria for inclusion on the two pages.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Or perhaps, it was just an error on my part? This error (or alleged "deception"!) is irrelevant as the editors on both pages decided not to use the material based on its factual inaccuracy. Even so, what does that have to do with the issue of BrandonTR's behavior? Do you feel it is appropriate to make accusations of deliberate deception and abandon WP:AGF? Do you feel this error gives BrandonTR permission to violate WP:CIVIL in this manner? "In your typical troll fashion, your reference is deceitfully pointed to another article". If I made a mistake regarding article content the appropriate response is not childish insults or sandbagging an unrelated discussion with it months later. The appropriate response is to discuss the issue like mature adults at the time the error was made. Gamaliel (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I find it odd to suggest that you didn't realize one discussion was about one article and the other discussion about a different article. That said, it seems there is personal history here and he got annoyed because your comment mislead him. Why someone makes a comment is just as important, often more important, as the comment itself.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The previous discussion was several years old, and both articles were about the JFK assassination. Why is that mistake odd? Besides, it is irrelevant, as the material was factually inaccurate and thus inappropriate for any article. Even if I unintentionally misled him, his response is in no way appropriate behavior. And that is one incident among many where he has engaged in incivility and namecalling. Perhaps he has a good excuse each time, or was prompted by something that annoyed him in each case, but it adds up to an inappropriate pattern of behavior that he has repeatedly refused to address. I am tired of it and other editors are tired of it. Gamaliel (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Nobody's perfect. Everybody gets a little snippy now and again, especially on these sorts of contentious subjects. Are you saying that you have never been snippy with him or other editors in the topic area? Looking at the entire discussion that followed, it seems it was relatively civil and Brandon wasn't posing any unique problem.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, everybody gets a little snippy. Lord knows I do. But I'm baffled you can look at that discussion full of namecalling on his part and just dismiss it. This is a two year pattern of behavior directed at multiple editors. I'm coming here for assistance, but your idea of "assistance" is the same as the offending editor. I should just shut up and "take" his abuse. Gamaliel (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

it's interesting, why do you excuse BrandonTRs long term pattern of behavior as "nobody's perfect" but I make one mistake about a discussion from six years ago being on one JFK article talk page instead of another, and you accuse me of "deliberate deception". Why the blatant double standard? Gamaliel (talk) 06:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's try this again

I can understand if other admins don't want to read that wall of text. Most of it is irrelevant anyway, like a distracting and inappropriate accusation of deception because I thought a six year old discussion was on one talk page instead of another. Here's the situation: for two years a user has been acting as if civility doesn't apply here. Sometimes we ask him to stop, sometimes we remind him of policy, sometimes we get snarky. Nothing has worked. We are not requesting anything extraordinary, just for outside parties to let this user know this pattern of behavior cannot continue. His response above was that I should not "whine" and just "take it". Is this what we want from wikipedia? I'm not a perfect editor or admin, and neither are the other editors, but let's not pretend there's any kind of equivalence here, nor should we require editors to be impassive saints when confronted with an unchecked pattern of negative behavior. All we are asking is for existing policies to be enforced when it comes to his behavior, and for that matter ours. Gamaliel (talk) 06:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Gamaliel has a point. It's true, I give as good as I take, but with Brandon I've found that virtually every time we've debated something it descends into a tirade where everyone who disagrees is some CIA troll or one of my pro-Warren Commission minions. And quite often, he is factually wrong or ignoring basic wikipedia policy which makes the process all the more frustrating. The longest discussions on the Kennedy assassination pages are typically sparked by changes he has made or has attempted to make. And almost all the time, no other editor agrees with the point he is making, which usually boils down to using material appropriately, not, as he claims, using "inappropriate" material (i.e., material which tends to negate the lone-gunman interpretations). Canada Jack (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the point should be made that it's not a content issue here. Brandon uses the talk pages as a battleground to sling insults because he can't always get his way with content, while there are other editors who disagree with us we get along with just fine, like User:Joegoodfriend, who is pretty much a model editor. Gamaliel (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

A casual reading of these threads will reveal that critics of the Warren Commission like myself are often denigrated as being on a par with those who believe in alien abduction, lizard people, or something else way out there. But that's okay. My retort is to bring out the facts as best as I can ascertain them. I've been wrong a couple of times and when I have, I've corrected my mistakes. I have also compromised several times on issues of wording and other matters. Regarding Canada Jack's criticism of me, one will note that it is long on generalities and short on specifics. BrandonTR (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I have limited Internet access this week. I will comment in a few days if this discussion is still open. Thanks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Editorializing at Every Nation

• Every Nation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Olympic1012 (talk · contribs)

Sorry to start this here, after initially requesting help at the BLP noticeboard, but this seems appropriate now. A WP:SPA is using the 'criticisms' section to load original research and editorialize about the church and its positions. I've attepmted to explain policy at the user's talk page and via edit summaries. 76.248.144.216 (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Olympic1012 here. I am trying to respond but having difficulty. I having trouble understanding the concerns. Willing to go through the process to clear this up. I don't understand the concerns as currently stated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Olympic1012 (talk • contribs)

For starters please read WP:BLP and WP:RS.--ukexpat (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

If this edit is any indication, then you should spend more time to familiarize yourself with what we do here on Wikipedia. This section you've written is full of loaded language ("Disney's Gay agenda") and is written like you are arguing a position. Wikipedia should use neutral language and present facts in a neutral way. Please see WP:NPOV. For the time being I suggest the involved parties should use Talk:Every Nation to discuss large edits before they are made so these issues can be identified and discussed. Gamaliel (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Olympic1012 (talk) 02:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC) Olympic1012 again. There is a disconnect here. It is as if the words criticism and neutrality have the same meaning to people here. Any criticism is going to have a point of view. It, cannot by definition be neutral. My concern is that the individual who deleted my post has his own agenda. Even after I modified the post, it was deleted again. I still do not under stand the objection to the word "agenda" or "gay agenda". This especially true when considering the statement represented a group which opposed the activity of gay activity at Disney. I am concerned that the objection is not about neutrality, but covering up the fact there is support for homosexual positions which occur at Disney. A similar objection might be raised is someone used the phrase "evangelistic agenda". In both cases I see that because the words do not have a precise meaning. Rather, they have a general meaning - referring to the activities as a whole associated with the word "agenda". If someone wants to substitute a word or phrase for agenda, such as "history of actions" or "plans of actions" would that be sufficient? I

Gamaliel, I brought the topic here because I ascertained rather early that discussion at the talk page won't do the trick; the verbiage may have toned down, but Olympic1012 has something to say, and is determined to use a Wikipedia article to say it [61], guidelines be damned. If this isn't handled here then a page protection or user block is the logical next step. The problems are inherent in all the edits since late June, and include other sections of the 'criticism' segment as well. 76.248.144.216 (talk) 03:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I've watchlisted the article and I'll talk to Olympic if s/he tries to place that section in the article again. Gamaliel (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

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. [62] [63]. His response to questioning his decision-making has been to immediately issue AE warnings.[64] [65] 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[66]. 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). [67] 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. [68] 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)

• 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: [69]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)

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)

"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 [70], 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;" [71] 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)

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

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

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

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

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

Clarification request

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)
• 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)

User:AndyTheGrump

WP:DENY. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Look at the contribs of User:AndyTheGrump, and you will begin to see a pattern of assuming bad faith. --ßaenburger (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Technoquat. New User. Vandalism: [72][73] followed by ref desk posting on 'The psychology of trolls and vandals' [74]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC) I am a new user, but all I did was ask a question at the Ref desk, only for it to be deleted. Not a troll, not a vandal, just look at my edits and make up your own mind. AndyTheGrump is biting newcomers. --ßaenburger (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC) CheckUser supports AndyTheGrump's theory. ßaenburger (talk · contribs) has been blocked. Tiptoety talk 20:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism of So Fresh: The Hits of Autumn 2012 by IP users from the 49.189.80.0/20 address range

In the last three or so weeks, there have been 12 separate vandalism incidents on So Fresh: The Hits of Autumn 2012 by the IP addresses 49.189.85.18 ([75][76]), 49.189.81.13 ([77]), 49.189.81.106 ([78][79]), 49.189.91.14 ([80]), 49.189.80.208 ([81][82]), 49.189.91.50 ([83]), 49.189.85.230 ([84][85]) and 49.189.82.42 ([86]), which all fall in the 49.189.80.0/20 address range. No vandalism edits to that article have been made from outside this range since January, and between the above IPs there is only one edit to any other article (an apparently constructive edit to List of programs broadcast by ABC Television by 49.189.85.18: [87]). Given the narrow range of edits from these addresses and the fact that they are numerically similar, it is likely that they are the same user. If it is possible to implement a rangeblock for a specific article, I propose that the 49.189.80.0/20 range be blocked from editing So Fresh: The Hits of Autumn 2012. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done Gamaliel (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Upped to much longer, as there's no collateral via CU and this has gone on for months. WilliamH (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! The (presumably) same person has been vandalizing the related article So Fresh: The Hits of Summer 2012 + The Best of 2011 for quite a while. Favonian (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Assistance with Arizona State University

Hi all. I am hoping that someone might chime in on a minor ongoing dispute at Arizona State University. A while back, a new editor (often posting via IP, sometimes as JavierPHX2013), began making edits--some of which are fine, and some of which are a bit problematic. The general issue is that some of his edits are inserted without adequate sources, and the editor will claim "common knowledge" (see, for example, the discussion Talk:Arizona_State_University#Lede_-_to_Anon_editor here). Perhaps a bigger issue is that this editor inserts info first, and then reverts any attempt to change it, arguing that the burden is on me and others to prove that his info is not correct (even if it is unsourced). Perhaps it's because I'm geting old and cranky, but I can't stand to see somebody presenting unverified, opinion-based, or marketing-department info as fact. I think the editor means well, but nothing I say seems to sink in. One current example can be seen here, in which the editor claims that the school is a "metropolitan" university in the first sentence of the article. I don't know what that is, ASU doesn't claim itself to be that (except in random PR-text from a decade ago), no external source or official list defines what that is, and as far as I can tell, it's a totally arbitrary term. There is debate on the talk page about it, but this editor still reverts any attempt to remove the term while it's under debate. -Nick^talk 23:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, it sounds like they are engaging in sockpuppetry right now (or meatpuppetry at the very least), so they could be blocked for that, in addition to the above issues, which are concerning in their own right. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

User:STOPhaus violating NPOV and threatening "war"

I'm not really sure what to do about this, so I'm going to bring it here and see what everyone else thinks. Specifically, the problem is that User:STOPhaus has been violating the neutral point of view policy on The Spamhaus Project, and since his edits there have been reverted, he's threatening "war" on this site on his user talk page and on The Spamhaus Project talk page. I thought about bringing this to AIV, but it seems like this isn't normal vandalism, so I think here would be a more appropriate place. As far as I can tell, based on his edits and his username, this user isn't here to build an encyclopedia. Lugia2453 (talk) 23:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I caught this on AIV. I've blocked them for legal threats. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 23:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The user name is also a violation of WP:ORGNAME. See [88], although I imagine this is a moot point at the moment. Voceditenore (talk) 05:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Appears to be evading the block as 174.120.156.50 and continuing to post legal threats, e.g. [89]. Voceditenore (talk) 05:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 24h. Legoktm (talk) 07:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

See news.admin.net-abuse.email for further details. This is a very dedicated spammer who isn't going to go away. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe create an edit filter or blacklist entry to stop their website from being used here? It won't stop them but might slow them down a bit. Ravensfire (talk) 13:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing regarding Talk:Tech Nine#Requested move 2

I would like advice about how to handle this requested move in light of the canvassing by STATicVerseatide (talk · contribs). Let me emphasize right off the bat that I am not seeking sanctions or punishment against this user; I've had a discussion already on their talk page and they have noted they were unaware of the guideline. The violation of WP:CANVASS occurred as this user notified 13 editors [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] asking them to comment "to overturn another horrible move". This was not a neutral message to them, and the users were pre-selected as the same ones supportive of the recent requested move of Deadmaus to Deadmau5 or in the case of the last user, supportive of the move Sunn (band) → Sunn O))). Thus it is a large group of editors who would be expected to support the move of Tech Nine to Tech N9ne. My question is, to people who might have more experience dealing with canvassing than I do, what do we do with the discussion Talk:Tech Nine#Requested move 2? I'm tempted to speedily close it as inherently problematic due to the canvassing. (A large outcry of WP:NOTBUREAU would be sure to ensue.) Or do we leave it but add {{Canvassed}} next to the comments of people who were canvassed? Or just add a comment to the discussion and leave it for the closer to sort out? Or do we canvass other editors who would be expected to hold the opposing position? (I am doubtful about reacting to canvassing with yet more canvassing.) Thanks in advance for any guidance. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Just let the discussion take place, this way it is receiving a better full consensus (the last one had a very low amount of voters). It would have been the same if I had posted it on the talk page of Deadmau5. I had not picked and chose editors to leave the message on their talk page, I just chose a group from the last requested move, and in the case of the last one had nothing to do with the Sunn RM and another two other due to their previous comments on the talk page. I already admitted to never hearing about canvassing before and agreed the original message should have been neutral, but the debate should continue as it is as it is just their opinions, I did not go on a big campaign and tell them how to vote. If there was a template on the article page to notify of ongoing move discussion I would have not even bothered sending the message out. STATic message me! 02:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I noted that editors were participating in the discussion and ignored the canvassing notice on my user talk page. If necessary a canvassing notice can be placed on the discussion, but that is as far as I would go. Apteva (talk) 02:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I assume there's a reason we (the 13) weren't notified, but I feel a need to make a comment - I'm not sure this person was acting in bad faith at all, a requirement for canvassing. They wanted people who had recently formed a consensus regarding the use of 5 in Deadmau5 instead of Deadmaus to come and comment on this new thread relating to the same thing. Yes, they notified only editors who supported the change, but in my opinion they did such because there was a consensus that it's okay to include the numerals/other characters in the name. Not because they wanted to influence the discussion one way or the other, but because they wanted people to see the other article discussion. Has anyone asked the editor if they were acting in bad faith? Don't scream canvassing until you do. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 02:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The number 13 above may have been a reference to there being 26 who supported the Deadmau5 move (two of whom voted twice, probably inadvertently) and 13 of those were canvassed, and 13 not. Apteva (talk) 03:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Uh, canvassing does not need to be bad-faith to be "canvassing" and this is clearly a targeted campaign to supporters. I've already once mentioned the appropriate action for these discussions, and I stand by that. Canvassing was done; that much is obvious, just like it was done in Deadmau's/5' matter, but this one is more egregious because it is on-wiki and it targeted the supporters - I can only imagine why I wasn't contacted as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Charmlet I explained to Paul many times on my talk page I was only doing it in good faith in order to get the proper consensus the discussion needed, but he ignored that and took this here still. And ChrisGualtieri I was also going to notify you along with a couple others, I actually remember opening your talk page too, but my internet had crashed when I was in the process of sending the word out. By then I assumed I had invited enough anyways, it was not even my intention to only invite supporters thats just how it turned out, and by then I had gotten into a discussion on the talk page of Tech N9ne so I stopped sending the message out. STATic message me! 03:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's all go home now. @STATicVerseatide: Go forth and sin no more. No more messages that aren't neutral (I find that a link is the least biased thing to give! Just a straight link!). ~Charmlet ^-talk- 03:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I still think the take away from this is "don't do it again please", you aren't going to get in trouble. It is a beginner mistake and most people don't know such policies even exist. Though I wish the overarching issue is raised at the proper venue. Though which the Chinese character matter, I'd wait. Too much drama on wiki is making "i didn't know" into a TV drama, I just wish more energy was spent on content and maintenance of the encyclopedia. My arguments were bested; I have no need to entrench myself - it was a 3O that made me switch sides and offer strong evidence against 'maus' in the RFC. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, all of you. Again, my intention here is not to get STATicVerseatide in trouble. I am here out of concern that a biased sample of editors is being pulled in to the discussion about the requested move of Tech Nine / Tech N9ne. Apteva offered a helpful suggestion about how to deal with the RM; thank you for that. I would welcome comments (additionally) from anyone who has not so far been involved in the Deadmau5 and Tech N9ne discussions. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• It was my mistake, not a "beginner mistake" I have been here three years and surprisingly never heard of canvassing. Anyways its all unnecessary drama as we all have much better and more constructive things to be doing on here, it is not a biased sample as all the contributors to the Deadmau5 RM have commented on the Tech N9ne one (outside of 5-10 supporters, and 3 opposers two of them being IPs). The thing is the large majority of the last RM were supporters. STATic message me! 03:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I do wish I had been notified of this discussion, as is the rules; I happened to stumble upon this by sheer chance. — Richard BB 15:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Tech Nine/Tech N9ne RM come up a few times during the Deadmaus/Deadmau5 RM discussion? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes many times if I am not mistaken. STATic message me! 18:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thought so. That means these notifications weren't fully necessary, as people were notified about the debate in the Deadmau5 discussion, but it also means that there shouldn't be anything more than a caution from this thread, as it was already being discussed. Maybe this thread should be closed? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Without meaning to discount others' contributions to this thread—some of you have provided some details that are very much worth taking into consideration—I still have not received any input from anyone who has not previously been a part of the deadmau5 and/or Tech Nine move discussions ... which I was looking for in a "third-opinion"–uninvolved kind of way. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Qwh claiming to be a professor

I first came upon Qwh (talk · contribs) when they posted on the Education Noticeboard asking to be given Course Instructor rights. I asked for clarification and they removed the request, indicating that they would do it later. The reason I asked for clarification was that the dates of the class didn't make sense with any academic calendar and there was no professor by the name of Jacob Smith at the University of Maine. Anyways, I recently was poking around the page history and clicked on his userpage, which now states that they are Jacob Smith and work at UMaine. In the time since the request was withdrawn, they added information that seems to show that they are trying to construct an online persona around being a non-existent professor. In light of the whole Essjay thing from years ago, I figured I'd bring it here to see what others thought, as I could see the potential of this getting out of hand down the line. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

For those who forgot or don't know who User:Essjay is (and what it was about), you can find the information on this page. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I should mention that another thing that I noticed is the fact that their grammar is quite poor for a professor, and their talk page is a mess, which is not something I've seen of professors on this site. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support block I can think of all sorts of reasons why one might pretend to be a fake teacher/professor online, and none of them are even slightly good. At the very least, they can't do it here. Might be worth contacting the school and letting them know what's going on too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• I don't think an immediate block is in order; they haven't done anything harmful yet. I seriously doubt they are a 34 y.o. Professor based on their edits (this one is enlightening). Suggest blanking their userpage and notifying them on their talk page further falsifications will lead to a block. Rgrds. --64.85.216.200 (talk) 06:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• How do we know there is no such professor? Many adjunct professors have little or no online presence at their schools and as non-permanent employees many not be present in staff directories and the like. Gamaliel (talk) 06:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• I would think a Ph.D would be able to pronounce kept in the proper tense, not to mention capitalize everything that should be capitalized. This suggests absolutely the opposite. I mean, I know some academics do live "under the radar" as far as computers are concerned, but I seriously see how somebody could have possibly gotten through typing a dissertation on a computer through with communication like that (aside from cheating and/or gross academic dishonesty). --MuZemike 06:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Having worked at a couple of colleges, I've met professors who couldn't spell their own names half the time. Gamaliel (talk) 06:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• (ec) This can be resolved by having them email info-en@wikimedia.org using their University of Maine email account. --64.85.216.200 (talk) 06:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, seems like a reasonable requirement. Gamaliel (talk) 06:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• I don't believe that the editor has currently done anything that merits a block, however I do see a potential risk if he tries to take advantage of his supposed position. Having bad grammar is not definitive proof that he is not a professor; we are making assumptions when there really is no need for it. Simply asking him to email us using his university account (as stated above) will be more productive than posting it on ANI. —Dark 07:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

A block strikes me as killing a fly with an atomic bomb. Plenty of adjuncts are master's level degree holders, and depending on the campus, may not have access to a university e-mail address. A bit more AGF seems in order until there's a better reason not to, as worrying as this situation is. --Drmargi (talk) 08:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

This user gives an email address on their userpage. Checking this on Google seems to lead to several drugs-related sites. This user has edited mainly drugs articles on Wikipedia. I strongly doubt the claim to be a "professor of history". RolandR (talk) 10:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how that's the least bit relevant. Being interested in drugs and being a history professor are not mutually exclusive conditions. That said, some of the user's other activities here are suspicious, and the claims made on his user page are strange or misleading. He's done nothing blockable (yet) but it would be good if editors would keep an eye on him. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry i will not do it again Qwh (talk) 10:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

@Qwh:, you won't do what again? What are you admitting to have done? GiantSnowman 10:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry for doing that i used to work there i do not any more Qwh (talk) 10:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Is Jacob Smith your real name? Or the name of somebody you used to work with? What was your role at UMaine? GiantSnowman 10:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

My real name is Jacob Smith i was a cleaner from 2000 to 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwh (talk • contribs)

OK, thanks for explaining, I hope you see why pretending to be someone/something you are not is simply not acceptable on Wikipedia (or in real life!), and that you won't repeat your actions/behaviour. If you need any further help or guidance please ask. GiantSnowman 10:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Now i know i remove the thing from my user page and i now know that its not acceptable Qwh (talk) 11:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

What about the email address on your user page? Is that really your address? Do you realize it's associated with illegal drug sales and a Long Island phone number? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I find it even harder to AGF here. The contribs from his IP 65.175.255.73 (talk · contribs) (which comes an unblock-auto request Qwh requested here) are extremely questionable, and a few of them are outright vandalism. --MuZemike 15:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Going off of what MuZemike said, it is a bit hard to assume good faith if someone comes to the Education Noticeboard and falsely claims to be a professor in order to get a right. I know in discussions with another Regional Ambassador, we were perplexed over this whole thing, because of how little sense it made. Even the above comment by them that they worked there is something I doubt, in light of the past actions of the editor, but that is another story for another day. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedians need to remember that assuming good faith doesn't mean ignoring evidence of bad faith. Falsely claim to be a university professor and the Good Faith ship has officially sailed without you. Wikipedia (quite rightly) took a lot of heat and bad press for the Essjay fiasco, and even in that case there was substantial good contributions to outweigh the bad. This time there isn't. I see absolutely no reason to continue to extend editing privileges to someone who has clearly taken the community for a bunch of gullible idiots. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

While it is inappropriate for someone to misrepresent themself as a professor, the only remedy I see is to ask that and insure that the incorrect information is removed, as it has been. While their grammar may not be perfict,[103] such errors are easily corrected,[104] and I see no reason to restrict them from participation. Apteva (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I do not think that we should block them, as it would be unproductive to get rid of someone because they likely didn't know that there was a rule against this sort of thing. That being said, the IP evidence is concerning, so that should be taken into account in any further action. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Sadly Qwh's two different attempt were rather feeble. First time, Qwh requested for course instructor rights which is only granted to professors/teachers that use Wikipedia as a learning tool. Qwh decided that he wants that right and claims to be an instructor so that he can obtain it. When his ruse was discovered, he took that request down. But he didn't stop there. In the second time, he made a userpage to assert himself as a professor. I can draw many similarities between Qwh and Essjay (lying about being a prof, using the prestige of an academic to obtain rights, creating a userpage to deceive others). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Concur - no need to block based on very misguided actions, but they should read this article,and re-think falsifying credentials either on the internet or in real life (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• "didn't know that there was a rule against this sort of thing"?! Please tell me that was some bizarre attempt at sarcasm. If not, what strange alternate universe do you live in where it's generally considered okay to fraudulently pass yourself off as a university professor? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps the rule isn't written, but it's still a problem. Read Essjay controversy to see what happened some time ago when someone wrongly gained influence based on a false claim of being a professor. Nyttend (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Based on the IP that MuZemike provided, I strongly believe that Qwh is socking. Qwh was using good hand/bad hand. The IP is being the bad hand by vandalizing and Qwh being the good hand by immediately reverting the vandalism on multiple pages and large timespan that it couldn't be coincidence. See this list

Date	Article	IP (65.175.255.73)	Qwh
2013-02-22	Loperamide	[105]	[106]
2013-02-24	Persoonia levis	[107]	[108]
2013-05-19	List of the poorest places in the United States	[109]	[110]
2013-06-02	Grand Theft Auto (series)	[111]	[112]

OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

•  The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says: the following accounts are  Technically indistinguishable:
  • 2013xd (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Qhw (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Qwh (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • ثلج (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Xylem52013 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Officialpsy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Ipod3g (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Korbat (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Raju Dab (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Bidgee using editnotice to defame other editors

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

---

Hi. User:Bidgee's editnotice on his talkpage clearly bans me from his talkpage in a rather rude and inconsiderate manner. I recently, and wrongfully, had such messages on my own talkpage, but they were removed. I have requested Bidgee twice to remove the message, only to be insta-reverted.

I would note that Bidgee in his edit summaries is effectively throwing a fit, in what I presume is an attempt to whip up sympathy for himself.

I post here hoping that someone will tell Bidgee to remove the editnotice about me, which ANI removed from my own talkpage for pretty much the exact same reason. Thanks, ★★RetroLord★★ 14:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I question the point of such an edit notice, especially since you have decided to ignore it anyway. Regardless, it seems pretty neutrally worded to me. In what way is it "rude and inconsiderate"? It's nothing like your large bolded "These users are banned forever!" message you had on your page. Also, he seems to be throwing a fit because you keep posting on his talk page anyway, not to whip up sympathy.--Atlan (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

So its perfectly fine for a user to keep a list of banned users, aslong as its in an editnotice, not their talkpage? I'll keep that one in mind for later. ★★RetroLord★★ 14:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Nobody said that ... but you do recognize you were being extremely insulting to Bidgee on their talkpage, and could be blocked right now for harassment? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I edited his talkpage twice, to place "an important notice or warning". I'd consider ANI notifications important warnings, hardly harrasment. Can we get back to the topic? Bwilkins surely you remember the similar notices removed from my talkpage. ★★RetroLord★★ 14:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Calling them "Bidgeroo" was somehow considered valid/useful/positive/not-insulting? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Well you said "extremely insulting", not "somewhat annoying". Its the equivalent of someone calling you Bwilky I guess, not really an insult. ★★RetroLord★★ 14:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Your messages prior to the edit notice where quite condescending. I can sympathize with Bidgee here. To then come over here to act all sanctimonious doesn't make you look any better.--Atlan (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• On topic, any editor has traditionally been allowed to ban others from editing his or her own talk page; I don't see why it would be inherently problematic to say so in an editnotice, and I don't see any insult or offensive material in the editnotice itself, so I don't really see any merit to this ANI thread. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The merit was that I wasn't allowed to have similar notices on my talk page. Why are edit notice bans allowed, yet talk page ones not allowed? ★★RetroLord★★ 14:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Your most recent edit was a neutral ANI notice, which is fine. Bidgee removed it without comment. Your previous edits, asking to be removed from the edit notice, were met with hostility - likely because you threatened to take him to ANI. You also seem to have attempted to out Bidgee here, just yesterday. This is one of those situations where you need to walk away and not interact with Bidgee in any way, shape, or form. He has asked you to stay off of his talk page, and you need to honor that request. Doing it in the edit notice is unusual, certainly, but not out of line at all - and the request seems to be made without attacking you personally. If it were me, I'd remove the caveat about notices, as I would want nothing to do with an editor who harassed me so clearly on my own talk page. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm getting sick and tired of Retrolord commenting on my talk page (after this comment), even had the guts to remove the notice. They have made attacks ([113][114][115]) against me, harassed me on my talk pages and articles I'm connected[edit] to (Charles Sturt University[116] and JetGo Australia[117]) Bidgee (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Someones pretty riled up over what? 3 or so edits? As for charles sturt and jetgo, i clicked the links on your talk page, and removed promotional material, or unreffed stuff I disagreed with. Its generally accepted policy you ref things on wiki. ★★RetroLord★★ 14:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

You did it to make a point after the I said that the burden was on you to provide sources for your claim on the Australian Greens talk pages. Bidgee (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Okey Dokey. Interpret my actions as you wish. ★★RetroLord★★ 14:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

So to clarify, it would be allowable for me too to ban people via editnotices? ★★RetroLord★★ 14:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I think you can agree never to post at User talk:Bidgee and he can agree to remove the notice. I also think that comments such as this one continue a pattern of harassment that is going to get you blocked, either by myself or someone else. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• • I'll be happy to remove it if Retrolord agrees to stay off my talk page unless it is important. I have no intention to comment on their user talk page. I also seek to have their harassment cease. Bidgee (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• I don't know of any prior consensus, but if Retrolord already knows that the user doesn't want him to post there, then making it a notice that everyone must see every time they post does look a little on the polemic side. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

So can we A) remove the notice like mature adults or B) keep the notice and throw a wiki-fit because someone was mean on the internet? ★★RetroLord★★ 14:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

There's a difference between a honking "so-and-so is permanently banned" on your userpage, and a gentle reminder in an edit-notice. No you cannot ban them via and edit notice - you might be able to remind them via one, although it does smell of WP:POLEMIC. Banning someone from your talkpage is typically childish, and should only be a very last resort when actually being harassed. The fact that you have to do it (yes, I've done it once or twice) shows more about you than it does the other person. Plus, you of all people are one to talk about wikifits...did you actually just accuse them of "crying over" it? Seriously asking for a block right here on ANI? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

RetroLord, will you agree to stay off Bidgee's user page if the notice is removed? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Well we all seem happy to admit it is a bit wrong, but we are all so caught up in faulting me that its irrelevant? Right? ★★RetroLord★★ 15:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, since clearly you are the "most wrong" here, looking at the total picture.--Atlan (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

REtroLord, I asked a simple question. Please respond. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I am the most wrong, implies the other user is also wrong? Now I know everyone's favourite game is "burn retrolord at the stake hold an ANI discussion" but can we atleast do something about Bidgee too? ★★RetroLord★★ 15:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure. He's already agreed to remove the notice if you agree to stop editing his talk page and harassing him. Seems like a good deal. I would advise you to take it. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually me agreeing wouldn't be required. What would be required by the WP:POLEMIC policy is for him to remove the notice though. ★★RetroLord★★ 15:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

He asked you to stop editing his talk page. You ignored him. An edit notice (that was clearly effective, in that you saw it) is reasonable. Now, if it said "Retrolord is an asshole and can't edit here", then yeah - polemic might apply. But that's not what he said. Hell, he even gave you a loophole to continue your harassment with "important notices". There is no cause for him to remove the edit notice - quite the opposite. But he's said that he will if you agree to leave him alone. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, if Retrolord posted after being told to please stop, then a neutral notice makes more sense, as does removing it once Retro will just agree to avoid that page excepting as required for notifications. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't really seem to be much to sweat about, I pretty much tell all IP editors to take a hike in my edit notice. I should return the middle finger image though, that was more amusing than the faces. Tarc (talk) 15:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Big diference between a huge range of people and one account, obviously singled out for the purposes of defaming them. If Bidgee wanted me to stop he would tell me, not put an ad in the New York Times. This is the WP equivalent of doing that. ★★RetroLord★★ 15:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

You seem incapable of understanding that your conduct has been a problem here - as noted above, you've been harassing Bidgee. But they, in a quite unwarranted show of good faith, have removed the notice (as seen here). So now what do we do about your actions here? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Bidgee deserves a knighthood. Can we close this case now? ★★RetroLord★★ 15:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec)I never defamed you! It was a request that all you had to do was acknowledge it (without uncivil or harassing comment) and I would've removed it. Bidgee (talk) 15:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: That RetroLord be formally banned from making any edits whatsoever to Bidgee's talk page or other user pages. Any essential notifications are to be made by requesting a third person to make the necessary postings. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• • Unnecessary and heavy handed. The page notice has been removed, I suggest closing. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Self-removal of report from WP:UAA

I reported the user Stowmarket Stingers (not going to link here or notify, or this report will likely end up removed too) to WP:UAA for having a promotional username. Stowmarket Stingers then removed my report (diff). --71.199.125.210 (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Deleted and when an editor does that (self removed) revert. Be mindful of an edit war but it was clear from talkpage rationale they are here for promotional reasons. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I've softblocked the account per {{causeblock}}. January (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Dogmaticeclectic blowing things out of proportion, again.

On an admin's talk page, User:Dogmaticeclectic is suggesting that I should be blocked for edit warring (despite this only being over one sentence in a single article which I declared to be trivia and fancruft; he argued that this change required consensus on the talk page).

My concern comes upon his comments; he specifically went to Bbb23 because of his involvement in another edit warring case that involved me and himself, asserting that I should be blocked for making two reverts because he got blocked for making two reverts. While I argued that this was a very different scenario (I only disputed one sentence that was trivia in comparison to the rest of the article, and he wiped out every change I did to Microsoft Office 365 by claiming that it was vandalism, whilst assuming bad faith because of my past disputes with him), he also asserts that it would be a violation of Wikipedia policy not to block me for my actions because "administrators should consider all sides, since perceived unfairness can fuel issues."

I personally think this is unfair because of the bias he's expressing by going back to an admin that he clams I fooled him into being on my side. He's effectively performed canvassing. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I consider this entire report a personal attack and have warned this user accordingly. I would ask that an administrator close this immediately to prevent this report from further disrupting Wikipedia. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Posting here is not a personal attack, but templating someone for it when said person did not commit personal attacks is a personal attack (and to some extents, a blockable offense), and you should know that. I'd recommend you to not template regulars, specially when there's no reason to. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Citation needed for the second part of the first sentence... and WP:DTTR is just an essay. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Which part of this constitutes a personal attack? Said policy reads that "discussion of a user's conduct or history is not in itself a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion" (which Administrators' Noticeboard is considered to be). And how can a dispute between only two editors disrupt Wikipedia as a whole? ViperSnake151  Talk  20:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

This is not "the appropriate forum for such discussion", at least right now, given that the discussion at the administrator in question's talk page is still ongoing. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Is there something stopping you two from discussing the content dispute on the article's talk page? That would be a better idea than block-shopping like this. Also, stop templating each other. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• (ec) DE, it was entirely inappropriate for you to template Viper. I don't understand what you think the personally attack is. And Viper, you're just as bad templating DE for templating you. Both of you should be a little more grown-up about this. Looking into the dispute, the material in question has been around for a bit. Viper tried to remove, DE restored. From there, it should have gone to the talk page. Viper, you are editting warring and you should probably stop. DE, rather than discussing your concerns with Viper, you ran to Bbb23 48 minutes after templating Viper in an attempt to get him reprimanded. He was warned, that's it. There is no need for anything further unless it happens again. I suggest this be closed with a caution to Viper to avoid edit warring in the future and a strong warning to DE to stop the vindictive behavior. Ishdarian 20:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The problem with this is that certain administrators keep supporting User:ViperSnake151's consensus-violating positions over and over again (in no small part by blocking me or threatening to do so). I've therefore pointed out this particular instance early on to one of the administrators in question. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you, although I am starting to see the potential bias concerns you're raising. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• Gee, why does this look like my talk page? I second Mark's suggestions.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Doug Tushingham / user:Proudly Canadian

I think that user:Proudly Canadian has plenty to be proud about but copyright violations at Doug Tushingham isn't one of them (and it is a copyright violation unless he is the author of the copied piece). Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Helen Oyeyemi

Anonymous users keeps deleting picture without explanation. Maybe some protection template should be used. Thanks, --RomanM82 (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done - Protected by Nyttend -- Diannaa (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Removing AfD tag, planning to canvass, and personal attacks

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

---

Copied from WP:AIV which may have been the wrong place -

• Elite spark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On KPassC: actions evidently indicate a vandalism-only account. Multiple AfD tag removals. Personal attacks such as violating human rights, vandalizing by sending the article to AfD, acting out of malice, being elitist, and being bias. The editor also said to partake legitimately or get lost. SL93 (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC) Now the editor has expressed a plan to canvass the AfD discussion. SL93 (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC) Another personal attack in the AfD debate after being told twice that it was wrong - "There is a fine line between opinion and fact and some of your response incorporates emotion I suspect which may or may not impair your reasoning skills.". SL93 (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)."

He then proceeded to call another editor a Nazi and said "I'm gay, like hairy chests and a seven inch ding-dong. Yaaay! nazi won.". AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KPassC. SL93 (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Any help is appreciated. This has been going on for a few hours. SL93 (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• This is bad. Dude probably should be indeffed pbp 22:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Two of my comments on my articles deletion discussion have been removed.

GiantSnowman removed two important comments I made on my article's deletion page. I feel this violates my free speech and is just rude and wrong.

He claims there was a problem with them. I can understand that about one of them. But he removed two comments. One was very long but contained important information and one was short and concise and it was deleted too.

This is giving my subject's detractors the ability to put on a smear campaign on Wikipedia trying to damage his reputation (their words have been stricken at times) and trying to get his article removes. My subject is VERY notable, very well know and very well documented and passes all WP:GNG notability requirements and then some. I have 10 sources and I have several supporting editors with long standing histories on Wikipedia.

I also have evidence that shows reason for this smear campaign and I have shown it to C.fred (that's his username.)

There is no reason why a certain user should try for 6 years to delete this page of a soccer player who has played professionally in 3 continents and is well documented.

So I request that my article's page be protected and not deleted since my ability to defend it has been prevented. I'll notify the person who deleted my comments and C.fred of my posting here. Thank you. Fussballspieler11 (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Sigh, this all relates to this AFD. As Fussballspieler11's comments above clearly show - "my article" - they have OWNership issues regarding the article that is nominated for deletion and seem to be personally offended that people are questioning notability. The edits I reverted to the AFD was this - a mass wall of text, including copyrighted material, that was simply disruptive. I've not much more to say on this matter, any admin picking this up needs only to look at the AFD history to see what a mess it is and how Fussballspieler11 edits. GiantSnowman 22:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and don't worry - I received no notification, and I have notified C.Fred (talk · contribs) about this thread. GiantSnowman 22:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

This is complete rubbish. User:Fussballspieler11 has engaged in ad hominem attacks against me simply because of my !vote in an AfD (both on my Talk page and the AfD itself). GS has been far more patient with Fussballspieler11 than I would have been. Jogurney (talk) 22:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

He's doing that with anybody who votes delete the article. The bottom of my talk page and the AfD shows it too. This is a case of WP:BOOMERANG. LionMans Account (talk) 23:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Ownership" seems to be a bit of an understatement with this spa Fussballspieler11 (talk · contribs) Taroaldo ✉ 23:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

—————→I notified GiantSnowman and C.fred on their talk pages. I have nothing personal in this except I can notice an injustice when I see one. You deleted a simple Google search result showing just how notable my subject is. Pretty much satisfying your doubts. I also refuted yours and your friend's claims about assuming that not finding information is proof of some kind of sham. You're trying to make a proof because of your lack of ability to do research or your refusal to believe factual references from reputable 3rd party sources that have already been used as sources on Wikipedia over 500 times. I'm not taking this personally and I am not the only one who has noticed the strange attention to an article that is obviously perfectly notable in subject and references. Heck the subject has played with pro teams in USA, Brazil, Sweden, Switzerland, Germany, Slovakia and maybe more and he founded the Ventura Film Festival and gives awards to Academy Award winning celebrities. He was also in the US Dream Team training camp with the Michael Jordan's of USA soccer. It's incredible the denial. There are videos and pictures of him giving the awards and pictures of him with Pele and David Beckham on his site and his family are award winning, famous actors and musicians. Clearly notable. Your smear campaign is obvious to me and becoming more obvious to others. If 10 references, mulitple official league stats, multiple official pro team blogs, multiple features about him in newspapers and highly regarded news portals, staring in world wide and national tv commercials isn't enough then what is? This reference alone satisfies Association Football notability ALONE http://uslpro.uslsoccer.com/stats/23496.html. The others just back it up. There should be no need for discussion. There are two other good standing Wikipedia editors who have also noted that they sense a strange suspicion of mal-intent by the "deleters" here and at least 3-4 maybe more people who have voted to keep the article.Fussballspieler11 (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

One, that is not "your" article, read WP:OWN. Two, talk of a "smear campaign" by those who do not believe the subject is notable is over-the-top and offensive - but then most of your edits/comments are. Three, do you have any connection, personal or professional, to Jordan Older? GiantSnowman 23:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

It does appear that Fussballspeiler11 has corresponded with Older, based on this comment on my user talk page. Whether there's any pre-existing relationship, that's for him(/her) to answer. —C.Fred (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)While I think the CSD G3 tag on this article was inappropriate, I don't think it was done in deliberate bad faith. I am starting to have reservations about Fussballspieler11's conduct and whether (s)he is assuming good faith in the edits of other users. The comments about "injustice"s and "smear campaign"s do seem to come a little too readily. —C.Fred (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Note. Here is a link to the article's first AfD [118]. The lack of reliable sources was evident then, and there is no indication that this has changed. Taroaldo ✉ 23:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:VisualEditor/RFC

Please participate in the Visual Editor Request for comment. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)