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

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
342	343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351
352	353	354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361
Incidents (archives, search)
1136	1137	1138	1139	1140	1141	1142	1143	1144	1145
1146	1147	1148	1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
463	464	465	466	467	468	469	470	471	472
473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481	482
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320	321
322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

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: [1]

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.[2]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

In my opinion, the Historical controversy should have more reliable sources and/or references. Having just three of them is too few. At the same time, it should be noted that when reliable sources and/or references are added not to have too many. To have controversial content should be backed-up with at least two or more references. Can I also request that the talkpage be auto archived as well? If anyone doesn't mind, I can set that up. Adamdaley (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet should not have removed your remarks from the talk page. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the same material from the article and from the talk page, both per WP:BLP. I do not see Bennett's own letter as being a good enough source to demean the reputation of Parshall, especially in the manner that this disparagement was presented, with belittling remarks presented without specific point-by-point criticism of Parshall's work. The Fuchida biography (and its talk page) is not the platform for generally denigrating comments about Parshall. Only specific criticism of his Fuchida research should be brought in, and that criticism must not be given undue emphasis. Binksternet (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I'm not sure I agree with your perception that it was disparaging enough to warrant removal, but it was a logical thing to do and done for good motives. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet erroneously refers to my "letter," by which he means my vetted article. As I've pointed out on the Fuchida Talk page, the Naval War College Review has no "letters" section. Parshall is an executive of a small software company who co-wrote a single book six years ago that puts forth some controversial, and widely rejected theories regarding Fuchida, especially by those who are experts on Pearl Harbor and Fuchida. Parshall's credibility, or lack thereof, is of paramount importance. Goldstein is a doctored professor of many years in law and history and the author of over a dozen books on Pearl Harbor, The Pacific War, and Fuchida, yet Binksternet has immediately wiped his statements from the page. Parshall conceded that his ideas are conjecture so there is no belittling in stating simple facts. Binksternet has now shaped the page with a full paragraph on Parshall's theories and helped to dumb down the the other side of the issue to a single statement supposedly showing my viewpoint, which it does not. Is this the bar for Wikipedia editors? For articles?--TMartinBennett (talk) 03:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bennett, here's a quick timeline of your involvement at the Fuchida biography:

[3] December 5, 2008. A series of edits which added Fuchida present on the Missouri battleship for the signing of the Japanese surrender (an assertion which has been called a Fuchida "fabrication" by historians[4] because no hard evidence supports it, and nobody else remembered him there), and a self-promotional link to a Youtube video that was uploaded by T Martin Bennett, a 90-second clip about the Bennett film project known as Wounded Tiger, a Fuchida biography under development. Both of these additions are changed by others: one editor removed the promo video link, and Jparshall toned down the Missouri bit by changing it to "Fuchida claims to have been part of a delegation"...
[5] January 4, 2009, Bennett insists that Fuchida was really on the Missouri.
[6] February 19, 2009. A series of edits which adjusted some text but which removed 10 fact tags without answering them.
[7] Mid-October 2009. Assorted changes, no harm.
[8] January 4, 2010. The day before this, Jparshall once again toned down the Fuchida assertion that he was on the Missouri during the surrender. Bennett follows with his preferred reversion.
[9] December 4, 2011. An IP editor added a "reappraisal" of Fuchida based on the Parshall and Tully book, Shattered Sword, and the Parshall piece about Fuchida's "Three Whoppers" (fabrications.) Bennett reverted this addition.
[10] December 5, 2011. An editor restored the "reappraisal section, so Bennett removed it again.
[11] December 16, 2011. Bennett sees that he cannot remove the section so he adjusts it, writing that, even Fuchida's story was doubted by Parshall and Tully, it was believed by Prange and Goldstein, using only the argument from authority fallacy.
[12] December 16, 2011. Bennett rethinks the previous strategy, taking out his addition, and he removes most of the Parshall-based text he didn't like, along with the "Three Whoppers" reference.
[13] March 13, 2012. Bennett removes the whole "reappraisal" section. He is quickly reverted.
[14] November 3, 2012. Bennett tweaks the link to his promotional video clip about Wounded Tiger
[15] December 4, 2012. Bennett gets his own letter published in the Naval War College Review, so he uses it as a reference to say Parshall's work is "riddled with errors... conjecture and speculation... misplaced confidence in unreliable sources... all of his charges are groundless." No detailed rebuttal is supplied, only this denigration and dismissal.
[16] December 4, 2012. Seeing his wording reduced to the essence, Bennett reverts to the larger, more wordy version.
[17] December 5, 2012. Same as above.
[18] December 5, 2012. Same as above.
[19] December 5, 2012. Same as above.
Article is fully protected from content warring. Binksternet (talk) 05:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your list is very incomplete as I've added entire paragraphs not included above. Perhaps my variation of names, Theleopard and TMartinBennett have interefered with your search. Please feel free to list your additions of content to this page. Thanks.--TMartinBennett (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Bennett, I see where on the talk page of another editor you have made the assumption that I am Binksternet's friend. I am not his friend; we are-co-editors who share an interest WWII topics and therefore have edited some of the same articles, but that's all. In fact we had a disagreement at Manstein when I re-wrote the article for a WP:Good article nomination (the material is still on the talk page). No other administrators, indeed no other editors, have responded to your complaint about Binksternet. Perhaps it's time for you to step back and think – perhaps the reason you are not getting the desired result is because there's no administrator action that can be taken at this time, other than yourself being blocked for edit warring if you continue to insert your preferred version of the Controversy section into the article. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa, you and Binksternet are acquainted and have very similar POVs re: Fuchida, so I will try to limit it to that. Two Wiki history editors I contacted said they have given up on issues like this as they felt it was a waste to spend their precious time updating and fixing damaged articles only to have their work instantly reverted, so I understand their hesitation. I'm not the only one exasperated with Binksternet's POV editing as he's earned himself quite a reputation: <redacted link and quotation from attack site> The fact that roughly 50 people openly opposed his being granted a request for adminship speaks volumes. I've seen much of the same behavior myself. He was rejected. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Binksternet%7CWikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Binksternet--TMartinBennett (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I again suggest that you try dispute resolution using one of the processes listed here. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet's admin or non-admin status is irrelevant to the content dispute. Your sole interest in Wikipedia is to insert reference to your article and that's why Binksternet and I are both suspicious that you are not here to improve the encyclopedia but rather to promote your own interests. You have a clear and obvious conflict of interest, as you have a screenplay and book in the works on the subject of this article. Linking to that attack site is not permitted on this wiki and I warn you not to do it again or you could be immediately blocked without further warning. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment TMB is now canvassing others to come support his position here and here Ish dar ian 00:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked Theleopard for 72 hours for disruptive editing, including canvassing, promotion, and POV-pushing. The two instances of canvassing highlighted by Ishdarian are just the tip of the iceberg - there are many more. And they are the most egregious canvassing I've seen, including leveraging the canvassed user's supposed antipathy for Binksternet to convince the user to come here. I also looked at some of Bennett's recent edits to the article, which are also atrocious, including putting in such choice sentences like "Author and screenwriter T. Martin Bennett spent eight years researching the life of Mitsuo Fuchida and believes Parshall has no case for any of his charges and has rebutted Parshall's arguments in two articles in the Naval War College Review." My only difficulty was deciding how long to block him. I initially was going to block for a week, but I decided based on his apparent inexperience at Wikipedia and it being his first block, 72 hours was more fair.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Bbb23. Obviously I am partial in this matter but Theleopard's canvassing was egregious, very disruptive. Binksternet (talk) 01:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban appeal

I wish to appeal a 3-month topic ban imposed on me by user Bbb23. [20]

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.[21] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oppose. I consider compliance with the topic ban, for its full term, to be a prerequisite for any sort of continued Wikipedia contributions by William Jockusch. If this disruptive editor cannot cool his heels for three months before resuming his work on the topic, then an indefinite block or a full community ban is the next step. Binksternet (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OP comment Do any of the Oppose commenters want to defend the assertion that my RfC was against a consensus? As I understand it, the basis for the topic ban was, to quote the denial of my appeal on my topic page, "there's no reason to go to any further dispute resolution if a consensus has been reached". So, was there, or was there not, a consensus in favor of the material?William Jockusch (talk) 04:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OP request to any admin considering closing. I know it's easier to just count votes, but I would appreciate it if you would take the time to look at the relevant talk page as of the time I proposed the RfC[22] and decide for yourself whether or not there was a consensus. Since that time, it turns out that Federales was a sock, which I could not have known back then.William Jockusch (talk) 05:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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: [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. That response is precisely what Gamaliel is talking about. While Brandon says that Gamaliel needs to get a thicker skin like me, that's not really the point. The point is that every time someone takes issue with an edit of his, Brandon, that is, he shoots back with some paranoid line like that. And, despite his characterization that me and others are "censoring" Warren Commission critics, the usual truth is that Brandon either has posted material which doesn't apply, is factually wrong, goes against the consensus without any attempt to engage editors beforehand, or is simply irrelevant. I could cite many examples, but this is Gamaliel's complaint, not mine and I want to avoid the bogged-down back-and-forth as per the above. Canada Jack (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So the original complaint has evolved from accusations of incivility on my part -- a Wiki violation -- to a complaint that I am paranoid and have "...posted material which doesn't apply, is factually wrong, goes against the consensus without any attempt to engage editors beforehand, or is simply irrelevant." This is an interesting transformation. I have searched the Wikipedia guidelines regarding "paranoia" violations, but have come up empty. Maybe Canada Jack can help here. BrandonTR (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do cite them actually. I don't see this as "my" complaint as I don't see this as a me versus him situation. He does, apparently, and that hostile attitude is precisely the problem. Gamaliel (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from uninvolved editor:After looking at a few of the relevant edits, it appears that Gamaliel is pushing some conspiracy theories. Looking at the very first revert Gamaliel cites in his original post[30], Gamaliel appears to have been editing in support of an assertion from a certain Jim Marrs that:

~~Jim Marrs later presented a list of 103 people he believed died "convenient deaths" under suspect circumstances.~~

While it is true that BrandonTR does not appear to have much patience for such things, I believe that Gamaliel's sin is considerably greater. Therefore, suggest severe, long-term boomerang against the OP, together with a warning to BrandonTR to tone it down.William Jockusch (talk) 06:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jockusch, I think you are misreading this - Gamaliel is clarifying that authors critique Marrs' list of suspicious deaths by citing Posner who says some listed in fact died of natural causes, like a heart attack. Brandon removed the specific cases. Far from "pushing a conspiracy theory," Gamaliel expands the critique of the conspiracy claim. Canada Jack (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I withdraw my suggestion.William Jockusch (talk) 15:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CJ. Next time I'll try to cut down the snark in the edit summary to avoid this sort of confusion. On an unrelated note, would you be willing to sign on to an RFC regarding BrandonTR's behavior, assuming the wording is to our mutual satisfaction? We don't seem to be getting any outside assistance here, so I guess that is the next step. Gamaliel (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The same uninvolved editor again, doing a complete about-face Looking at this some more, it does appear to me that the OP has a point. Just look at the polite and effective response from CJ to my mistaken post above, in contrast with several of the BrandonTR posts in this thread. Based on my misimpression of the situation, I had just suggested a "severe, long-term boomerang" against the OP. But CJ didn't call me a troll, an idiot, or anything like that. He simply said that I was misreading the situation, which was both civil and true. Meanwhile, look at how BrandonTR has responded in this very thread. If someone is raising issues about one's civility, a great start to refuting such an accusation would be to respond in a civil manner. However, BrandonTR writes in this thread that CJ is "notorious for insulting other editors" and that the OP is a "troll". So at this point, I agree with the OP that BrandonTR is causing a problem. Such long-term incivility can grow quite annoying over time. And CJ's entirely civil and helpful response to my earlier mistake is not at all consistent with BrandonTR's accusation.William Jockusch (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth repeating The pot calling the kettle black Gamaliel's incivility -- referring to me as a "troll." i.e., the one making the accusations is himself guilty:

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) 03:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So? I have never pretended to be perfect. But what you leave out is your days of uncivil and libelous comments prior to that mild remark of mine, and the fact that I've been the one trying to bring civility to these articles and your response is for me not to "whine" and just "take it". So while I broke a rule once, you act as if that rule does not exist. Gamaliel (talk)

Again, looking at Brandon's own example, Gamaliel appears to have it right. In the edits preceding that diff, I see BrandonTR being gratuitously incivil here [31] as well as repeatedly going after some third-party authors here [32] and here [33] and several other places as well. While it is true that there is more than zero incivility from the Gamaliel/CJ side, the incivility from BrandonTR is considerably greater and also earlier in the discussion.William Jockusch (talk) 04:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done with this discussion. We're just talking in circles. It's been nice talking to you. BrandonTR (talk) 04:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. [34] [35]. His response to questioning his decision-making has been to immediately issue WP:AE warnings.[36] [37] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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[38]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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). [39] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

Support Sandstein is using his admin tools and sanctions to deflect criticism, all in pursuit of covering up a widely known identity.→Stani Stani 00:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Andreas. Hillbillyholiday ^talk 00:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Support per above. Neotarf (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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).[reply]
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. Reso lute 01:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support Sandstein routinely has issues in this area and has for a while. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Not everyone believes that consensus applies to AE. [40] 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)[reply]
AE is not a creature of WP:ARBCOM, it's a self-selecting WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of editors, most of whom happen to have the admin bit, who want to run WP:ANI with fewer checks and balances, specifically focused on the outcome of WP:RFARB cases (except where they inevitably scope-creep it to include more and more authority), and pretend that it's somehow magically immune to any form of community watchdogging or dispute resolution. It's Wikipedia's equivalent of the USA-PATRIOT Act's secret, unconstitutional tribunals to illegally detain and punish people accused of certain things. It's abuse, and the community's confused tolerance of this abuse, is one of the reasons I don't volunteer my time here any longer. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 09:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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: [41]TCO (talk) 09:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Oppose: Blocking would be too drastic. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If only Sandstein were just employing a "gun-toting sheriff" model, as someone called it. It's a Judge Dredd "I am the law!", judge-jury-and-executioner model, as my fate at his hands amply demonstrates (I cover this in more detail in a subsection later). This new case is just part of a long-standing, to-hell-with-the-consequences attitude of superiority and trigger-happy abuse of adminship on Sandstein's part. Overturning the sanctions? Definitely. Blocking? Given the damage Sandstein's been doing, it's about time, but I doubt ANI would ever go that far (when's the last time ANI ever took any non-wrist-slap action against any admin at all?). RFC/U? Pointless and toothless. RFARB? By all means, but who has time for that legalistic morass that almost always sides with admins and against non-admins anyway? Short of desysoping, some kind of defanging is seriously in order, like a topic-ban from banning, blocking, warning or otherwise sanctioning any other editors for any reason for a year, perhaps, including administrative participation in AE and AN/ANI where he does the most harm; there are lots of far less destructive and antagonistic things someone can do with administrator privileges, that are better suited to restraining Sandstein's aggressive, repressive behavior pattern. [Un-disclaimer: No one canvassed my appearance here; possible resolution of Sandstein's continued modus operandi of censorious, arrogant abuse of the admin bit is one of the loose ends I still log in occasionally for, after resigning as a regular Wikipedia editor in the wake of Sandstein's months-long campaign of pointed, personal harassment against me.] — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 09:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS, as to the specifics of this case: Just because the "Church" of Scientology has lied to the IRS and falsely obtained tax exempt status as a presumptively legitimate religious institution doesn't mean it actually is one. There's about 15 mountains of proof that Scientology's founder specifically set it up as a scam, and it's been banned as a criminal organization under racketeering and similar laws by several countries now, as well as been continually embroiled in more US litigation, including criminal charges against it (up to an including murder), than virtually any other organization other than mob syndicates. We do not offer special deference out of "religious respect and tolerance" for people who think the earth is flat or that grown men having sex with young boys is right and a right; the fact that the Flat Earth Society and the North American Man/Boy Love Association are real organizations with members who really believe in their respective messages doesn't mean we have to start treating them like Buddhism or Episcopalianism. Scientology is not magically immune to WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, WP:CIVILPOV, etc., etc., just because they claim to be a religion. They're a patently fake religion, and everyone knows that. Censuring regular editors for not beating the bush out this fact is way off-kilter.
So is trying to hide behind bogus privacy issues that don't really exist in this case. It's like corporate trade secret, or an elected official's sexual affair – when the secret is out, it's just not a secret any more; the information genie does not go back in the bottle, sorry. Don't treat Wikipedia's editorship like a pack of morons by playing infantile "let's pretend" games, much less harming good editors' reputations in the course of trying to force everyone to play them. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 09:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Oppose I've disagreed with Sandstein on occasions before. But disagreement is not a reason to take action against, certainly not at this level. I see nothing here to warrant such actions.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If there is a problem with an AE enforcer, that is an issue that needs to be taken on by ArbCom. If they feel that Sandstein is overstepping his authority on that board, they should be the ones that tell him. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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. Reso lute 13:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Reso lute 13:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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.
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Arbcom does not have the right to override the outing policy either. The "findings" Prioryman contested were those proposed by Roger Davies [42], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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;" [43] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Support

--Andreas JN466 21:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support - I agree that Arbcom needs to clarify but this case clearly identifies why the terms "broadly construed" need to stop being used. It isn't reasonable to assume that a blocking admin will be reasonable in their block, so we shouldn't give them unnecessary latitude to use their own discretion. This case also presents a shocking and dreadful example of the us and them mentality between admins and editors. An admin who makes a mistake that would earn an editor a block, should themselves be blocked. Period. We shouldn't be making exceptions for admins. I have seen several editors above mention that admins should be blocked, desysopped, etc. All these are completely wrong. Kumioko (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support—it's got out of hand. And I used to admire Sandstein's legal skills. Now I just see the damage; and why does ArbCom allow AE to proceed without let, given the departure of among our finest editors because of Sandstein's misplaced cautions, warnings, and blocks? Tony (talk) 02:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reading through this jumbo thread, particularly comments by JN466 & Peter Cohen, it is very clear that no outing has occurred. This situation could & should have been avoided by Sandstein explaining their position to TDA and Peter Cohen (instead of trying to stifle discussion by waving the blockhammer). I hope folks around here understand that it can be very depressing for users to have the blockhammer waved at them without explanation, and as an attempt to gag them.OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support a block at this point will not happen as it isn't preventing damage, I do think that this can be a valuable tool to let Sandstein know that AE isn't his private Fiefdom which he often behaves that way. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but I'd go further and vacate/reverse Sandstein's destructive warnings and blocks of Noetica and SMcCandlish as well; maybe we can get them to come back if we show that Sandstein's rampage can be curtailed. Dicklyon (talk) 05:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - there is absolutely no valid reason, policy or logic based, for these warnings/topic bans to be applied. REGARDLESS of the validity of Drg55's block, it is plain to see that the warnings were heavy handed from an WP:INVOLVED admin, with no real grounds for them. Most of the oppose votes don't make sense, or aren't policy-based. ARBSCI wasn't oversighted, nor should it have been - if ARBCOM reveal an editor's identity, then it is NOT outing to bring it up again, plain and simple. And regardless of that, there is no way that either user mentioned in this proposal engaged in outing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly specify why Sandstein is involved, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support What Dicklyon said. –Neotarf (talk) 08:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 08:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Discussion ought not to be stifled. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Dicklyon, and further vacate Sandstein's other similar false accusations ("warnings"), specifically against Neotarf and Ohconfucius, made at the same time as those against me and Noetica at AE. Correction: I was topic-banned for a month, not blocked (Dicklyon said "blocks", above, and I don't think any of us go blocked during or after that initial "Judge Sandstein" encounter). My topic ban from Sandstein should also be vacated, for the record; though it has already expired, it was a gross abuse of process and remains a bogus black mark on my record as an editor here. I'm going to say all of this, in detail, just once and go away again. I am not here to engage in a big argument with people about any of this, as the facts speak for themselves, and I'd rather eat my own feet that spend a week bickering over interpretational nitpicks with admin "brotherhood" types.
My topic ban was made by Sandstein wildly un-recusing himself (has anyone else ever done that?!?), after recusing himself because too many others kept clearly said he was too personally involved; he just couldn't resist sticking it to me himself, after harassing me for two months. There wasn't even anything like a consensus for such an action against me; one of the few who suggested something along these lines said I had gone "too far" in successfully reporting a repeat topic-ban violation by someone else, at AE (i.e., other admins agreed with me that the user in question was being disruptive in direct violation of a topic ban after innumerable warnings and second, third, etc., chances, and the user was - get this - violating his topic ban specifically to disrupt AE of all places with personal attacks in a case that didn't involve him, just to personally pick a bone with me; I guess he found a friend in Sandstein). So, just to shut me up and make an illegitimate might-makes-right WP:POINT, I was punished, personally, vindictively, seemingly obsessively, by Sandstein for properly using Wikipedia's dispute resolution system! In the very AE thread Sandstein abused WP:BOOMERANG to censure and topic-ban me in (a later AE report than the one that generated Sandstein's accusation-warnings against me, Noetica, et al.), various other admins were agreeing with my report (about a pattern of blatantly, though sometimes evasively worded, racist attack edits by another user), and only declined to take action when they realized that some of my evidence was too old for their liking. Yet Sandstein simultaneously used evidence at least that old against me: It's a farcically obvious case of a double-standard. This (and there's plenty more - I'm just giving a few highlights from the entire first quarter of 2013, with Sandstein in my face again and again, at one point hyperbolically and psychodramatically seeking a year-long total block against me, simply for being disagreeable) is probably fertile ground for an RFARB case against Sandstein, but I have better things to do with my life right now that waste hours and hours and hours over many days or weeks, possibly even months, proving a case that ArbCom is liable to ignore because it's against an admin, and various people in the IRC in-crowd don't like me for rocking the boat with my loud mouth; I'm not part of the Good Ol' Boy club and never will be.
I just hope this stuff is useful as an example of what Sandstein's been doing to other – long-time and genuinely constructive – Wikipedians and why this can't continue any longer. Noetica stated (several month ago; I don't know if this will stay true indefinitely) that he would return if his "warning" (false accusation) from Sandstein were vacated/voided as inappropriate/false. I have more than just Sandstein as an issue to raise before devoting any more significant time and effort to this project, so in no way should my comments here be interpreted as any form of quid-pro-quo demand or ultimatum. I am emphatically not saying "rein Sandstein in and I'll come back", but rather "rein Sandstein in because it's the right thing to do; I may not come back regardless". My abuse at Sandstein's hands was the final straw for me, not the first one.
If anyone doesn't understand why Sandstein's "warnings" in our case (me, Noetica, Neotarf, Ohconfucius) were provably false accusations, it's in their wording. They were not neutrally worded warnings or citations to policy, but direct accusations of wrong-doing, namely of violation of WP:ARBATC's prohibition of making unsupported negative statements about the contributions of other editors in MOS/AT disputes. Yet: a) the statements (against a repeat disruptive editor, first at ANI later at AE - he was forum-shopping at AE to avoid a finding at ANI, and we alerted AE to this fact) were supported, by mountains of evidence at ANI; b) Sandstein refused to read any of it, even after being repeatedly directed to it at ANI, and refused to rescind his accusations even after being provided with this proof that he was wrong; and c) ARBATC cannot rationally apply to ANI/AE meta-discussions about whether particular user conduct patterns are appropriate, just because the underlying dispute somewhere had something to do with a MOS or AT page (otherwise this would be a massive loophole against any form of enforcement for disruptive editing - just involve WP:AT or MOS in some way, and you're immune from criticism as "personalizing style disputes"!)
Hopefully it's clear how pointless and harmful this stubborn, prideful Sandstein reign of rage has become. His simple refusal to say "oh, yeah, I didn't see that you'd already documented all this at ANI, my bad" and revoking his accusations/warnings has already cost Wikipedia untold amounts of irreplaceable productive editing by multiple long-term, highly active editors, and further eroded many Wikipedian's faith in adminship generally, all to defend Sandstein's personal sense of infallibility and to perversely protect two inveterate, incessant disrupters. Now he's doing it again to people who dare to treat Scientology like the dangerous, fraudulent, criminal organization it is proven to be. It has to stop. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 09:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I probably would also support the other matters listed by SMcCandish as he has a track record of harsh and idiosyncratic use of his powers and of not being receptive to questioning of his judgment.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The user self-identified and self-linked accounts on wiki. Bells can not be unrung, nor virginity restored. No actual outing = No warnings. Carrite (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I regret this because I have seen a lot of sensible and well-communicated activity from Sandstein in the past (and with some legal background understand some of the perspectives adopted by Sandstein), but began to question Sandstein's judgment on the hit a gnat with an anvil approach adopted to SMcCandlish for no discernable (or certainly no convincing) reason. I am not familiar with action to Noetica, Neotarf and OhConfucius - but am surprised with those editors that action of any kind be deemed necessary, raising another question mark. Even if Sandstein's interpretations of his remit are 100% correct there is also an onus to be able and willing to clearly explain rather than simply edict. Without these cases doubt I would comment on this new case - the warning to relation to User:Peter cohen's question in particular looks at best "idiosyncratic" and at worst capricious. The sanction on Devil's Advocate likewise. These should be [temporarily?] revoked on the merits of the case. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
support re-outing is perhaps the most asinine rule in WP, one must use the mythical unsend key. anyone who has ever been out-ed has but one choice, make a new account. closing the gate after all the horses are out then expecting to ride into anonymousville at first light is naive. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support to right a wrong and send a salutary message. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Oppose

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)[reply]
The blatant use of the Support section above to go after someone for all their perceived past sins is nothing but POINTY corruption of process. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comments given in earlier section. Tarc (talk) 23:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just because an identity is public knowledge doesn't mean you get to name drop it on every unrelated page. We should not discourage admins from zealously enforcing WP:OUTING and ArbCom decisions. Even if you disagree, the response seems out of proportion to the alleged offense. All this drama over some warnings? Gamaliel (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gamaliel's argument is one I share. I'd support vacating this specific AE warning for a community warning (or topic bans) compelling editors to step away from their habit of name dropping. Reso lute 01:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you are accusing Peter cohen and TDA of name dropping, please assure me and others that you could find a diff for that if called upon (for Peter cohen at least, as none of his edits have been oversighted). Failing that, please strike. Andreas JN466 02:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If an editor doesn't want to be identified then you don't do it...regardless of past issues. Outing issues need to be enforced strictly.--MONGO 03:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Scientology is a hot-button topic, and it seems pretty obvious that mixed up all in there is a certain pointedness and battleground-mentality going on, if not outright gaming the system. Just because Prioryman's previous 'outings' weren't technically oversighted to comply with WP:OUTING, doesn't mean the deliberate referring to an editor by anything other than their username is warranted or appropriate. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 05:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The warnings were sound. The whole fuss TDA and PC chose to make over the sanctions against Drg55 (and subsequently the fuss Jayen466 chose to make over theirs) was motivated by nothing but long-term agendas of hounding Prioryman. As for the legitimacy of applying the outing policy here, the current Arb request for clarification is giving some hints in the right direction. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do not just blithely accuse me of having a "long-term agenda of hounding Prioryman", please, as that is a very serious claim to make.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed a serious one, and seeing you participating in that wikipediocracy thread, it is also a very well-founded one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't well-founded. You have no standing to accuse me of having malicious motivations. You don't know my mind. You don't know my heart. Please refrain from further such attacks on my character.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Malicious motivations" is a strong allegation, there has to be serious evidence in the form on objective diffs, Future Perfect ought to come up with it or withdraw it. As an admin since he has powers of "live and death", he ought to refrain from making such allegations. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Arbcom makes the decisions here. Privacy policy is not decided case by case. I agree with Ohconfucious' analysis of what is going on. I don't see how the warnings can be withdrawn. The topic ban could be appealed to the arbitration committee or possibly directly at AE. This is not the place in these particular circumstances. Mathsci (talk) 06:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The warnings are clearly justified and this looks like an attempt to intimidate an admin who has the guts to do a lot of the hard work that keeps wikipedia going. ----Snowded ^TALK 09:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Should the sanctions/warnings be overturned? Most probably. Should that be decided here? No, I think ARBCOM need to step in ASAP. Giant Snowman 09:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first two arbitrators who have replied there, Newyorkbrad and Risker, unfortunately failed to address the main issue at hand here, namely whether these sanctions should be overturned. But arbitrator Salvio Giuliano, who has just commented, said the actual sanction (but not the warnings) should be overturned. 10:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
This is clearly a case where an attempt to shut down drama mongering has backfired. This happens. The intent of the warnings and block are sound. The outcome is unfortunate, but it's not clear what the best route is from here. I don't see overturning anything as doing anything more than enabling the drama mongers. aprock (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The warnings are justified, and that one of the supports for vacation includes the line "My topic ban from Sandstein should also be vacated" shows what a laughable farce this is. Please grind your axes elsewhere, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with Wolfie, seems like a lot of grudges on display here. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comments above and with the caveat on the ban below in the comments section. --regentspark (comment) 19:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think Dennis raises some very relevant issues and I do think we should be careful with AE blocks and warnings. I've not looked closely (only the discussion here) but my initial reaction is that this is a case of hounding that was nipped in the bud. I think it could have been nipped better, but at the end of the day it was hounding and needed to be shut down. Hobit (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, outside ANI's remit. Sandstein's interpretation is quite strict, but per Gamaliel it is by no means clear that he was wrong. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Scientology. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee’s full decision can be read at the “Final decision” section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee’s discretionary sanctions system.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aside

You know...this about the 9,896th (conservative estimate) thread I've seen about how abusive, rogue admins are running editors away and destroying the project, and how if something isn't done about it immediately then Wikipedia is extra doomed. I've been seeing this said ever since I joined the project way back in 2005. The sky hasn't fallen yet. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah? Here's another aside: I've seen Sandstein's knee-jerk, almost random punishments result in the departure of three long-standing, hard-working, talent, trustworthy editors (and yes, these "warnings" are punishments). And the whole WMF movement is in the midst of an editor-retention crisis. Get it? Tony (talk) 11:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chose not to appeal it? No, the extraordinarily worded terms of the sanctions prohibit, among other things, "engaging in disputes with other editors". [44] —Neotarf (talk) 06:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am linking to this [45]. Admins like him have for too long asked editors to excuse adminship bad faith under WP:AFG because Admins can 'make errors of judgement' but users cannot. I am not sure why these Admins persist in behaving the way they do. Badanagram (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

First discussion

NAC: No admin action is apparently needed. Discussion about the quality of the article should take place on the AfD page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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. Giant Snowman 22:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

—————→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)[reply]

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? Giant Snowman 23:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

Note. Here is a link to the article's first AfD [46]. The lack of reliable sources was evident then, and there is no indication that this has changed. Taroaldo ✉ 23:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is off topic since I don't get what any of it has to do with ANI, but most of your claims like Google searches, pictured with famous people, mention in official blogs etc do not go towards establishing notability. And mentioning that sort of OT here and irrelevant generally stuff doesn't exactly give confidence that you've been wronged. Nil Einne (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment above Nil Einne. You're coming in at the end of a 3 day discussion. The "Google searches, pictured with famous people, mention in official blogs" are only circumstantial SUPPORTING references mentioned in the deletion discussion. Please don't put words in my mouth, so to say. They were not in anyway included in the article. But at this time I have to wonder why I non notable person's article is getting this attention. I love conspiracy theories and this is shaping up nicley. This establishes his notability http://uslpro.uslsoccer.com/stats/23496.html The scores of other newspaper articles just hammer the proof home. I'm not the other one who agrees to keep the article. There are perhaps 6 people who have voted to keep it so far. Thanks again for your interest in my articleFussballspieler11 (talk) 23:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No they were not just " only circumstantial SUPPORTING references " , you mentioned them right here which as I said is unnecessary and doesn't help your case. I hadn't even checked out the AFD at the time of that comment. Nil Einne (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

—————→User:buffbills7701 Approved the article originally and these two editors have made comments about some strange sense of agenda and vendetta by the wan to be "deleters" of my article:

I am just a fan of soccer and a very knowledgeable one. And I am not the only one to notice the attitude. Even C.Fred striked out the language of some of the people on my article. So you know I am not the only one smelling something fishy here. And I have evidence in the form of news reports and press releases that there may be (not making an accusation or definately saying there is) an organized smear campaign against my subject. Evidenced/referenced here by the business conflict reported regarding his Ventura Film Festival. I have no proof but, my subjects page was only deleted near the time that this business conflict took place and 6 years later its still got more attention than a fly on honey (but at the same time not called notable.) This is enough to warrant the page to be protected and not deleted. Again I am not saying there is a smear campagin PLEASE DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH. I am saying that the 6 year deletion campaign by a certain editor is suspicious. Coupled with the links below it makes sense. And I'm not saying that all Italians are in the mafia either. Do not make me seem like that bad guy here please. The bad guys have spent way too much time on a non notable person (according to them) to make it normal. I know how anonymous web sites like this work. Anyone can get a proxy and fake a username so your over the top energy and the other detractors (6 year to delete a famous soccer player and Ventura Film Festival director's Wikipedia account) leads me to read between the lines. I hope you can too. You see C.fred is being very impartial. He didn't delete anything I wrote. He offered me help since this is my first article. He was nice. You just came in and deleted two, not just one of my important comments and then misrepresented their contents saying they were copyrights. I don't think Google search results are copyrighted? I've already linked to some of the links in my article's defense. You also deleted where I found a game roster that could have been a typo. I saw another typo of his name on another roster too. Jordan Older is not a common name. The other "deleters" have constantly been using worlds like "a few" minutes to misrepresent my subject's playing career and they have the effect of minimizing his reputation. I paste a link to a pro site (also used by scores of other wikipedia authors) and the "deleters" call it an amateur league when it clearly says pro. They are just trying to minimize his reputation, in my opinion and C.fred even had to strike out their comments due to this. It's just obvious to me what's going on here. There is no reason to be discussing the deletion of this article whatsoever. End of story (in mine anothers opinion.) I respect your right to disagree and thank you for your time and apologize if I was taken as rude. I am an award winning author who takes his work seriously.

http://www.vcreporter.com/cms/story/detail/will_the_real_ventura_film_festival_please_stand_up/7035/ http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/02/27/idUS120964+27-Feb-2009+PRN20090227 Fussballspieler11 (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

———————→User:Taroaldo It looks to me like you are mistaken. There are 10 new references. Some weren't even in existence at the time the original article was written.Fussballspieler11 (talk) 23:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest you stop doing stuff like calling anyone 'bad guys'. Nil Einne (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apolgies Taroaldo. I have striken the comment. Thanks for commenting on my discussion.Fussballspieler11 (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Taroaldo comments above about not having any change baffles my mind. I just can't understand how he/she can not see the totally new article and 10 new references? Can anyone clear this up like C.fred who is being impartial?Fussballspieler11 (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do any of us know what was in the original article? Far as I can tell, it was never undeleted. Sources which didn't exist in 2007 must be new, but otherwise we can just go by what was said in the AFD unless we're admins. In any case, it's largely a moot point if the sources were in the original article, if they're still not sufficient to establish notability. BTW, having looked at the second AFD, I agree you've made it into a real mess. Nil Einne (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the same sources were in the prior version of the article, we wouldn't be having this discussion: the article would already be deleted under CSD G4. I take Taroaldo's comment to mean that the ten new references fail, in his perception, to meet the criteria of reliable sources (or to provide significant enough coverage to meet GNG). And that's why we're having the AfD discussion: to discuss and reach community consensus on whether the sources are sufficient (and the article should be kept) or are not (and the article should be deleted). —C.Fred (talk) 23:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point Nil Einne... but yet there are many of the "deleters" who have said there are no new references. All of the references are new because I read the original article. You can even see it copy pasted on the message boards, but my comment about that was deleted by GiantSnowman so you are going to have to remain uninformed because of that. Some of the teams the player played for simply are so old there are no references for them online. Try finding a roster for the San Fernando Valley Golden eagles from 1995. It just doesnt exist because the USL site was nonexistant or a simple html page. But this one does from a newer date that is all I should need for notability. http://uslpro.uslsoccer.com/stats/23496.html. Here it is. There are also 2 other news articles by newspapers that were just written this year by journalists. Here http://www.futebolinterior.com.br/news/259995+Ex-jogador_vira_empresario_e_comeca_a_ganhar_espaco_no_futebol http://www.pvnews.com/sports/article_ed96e25e-76da-11e2-a086-001a4bcf887a.html . Then there is a blog from a pro team in Sweden that may not be a primary reference but it does at least back up the others http://www.lsk.se/default.asp?do=game_details&gameID=1111 . It was not used in the original article because no claims were made regarding sweden or at which level the subject played. The blog stats that he "played in the top league" in Brazil. All the data, perhaps over 20 sources, some more reliable than others says the same thing. Keep in mind my article was deleted as a hoax within less than hour or so after I wrote it. This was denied by C.fred. Was someone just waiting around to call it a hoax so quickly even though it had 10 new references? Sounds strange to me but ALL the sources prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that my subject did what I said he did and that he is beyond notable. I am not saying he is the best soccer player in the world, far from. But I am a fan and there are pictures, newspapers, videos even, hundreds of decade old forum posts, fan sites, press releases, rosters, etc. I'm done defending this article because what I type is quickly deleted by admins and I feel bullied at this point. It's all there and I thank you all (all 20 or so people who care so much about my subject) to have examined his career with a fine toothed comb. I think its time for me to log off but I know that if I log back in after a few days more suspicious "deleters" will have commented on this 6 year old debate about a nothing soccer player who only played amateur soccer and who prevented a hostile take over of his film festival.Fussballspieler11 (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'll put it a different way since I think you're still not getting it. There's no point trying to prove whether or not the article should be deleted here. That's the purpose of the AFD. All you should be doing here is explaining what administrative intervention is needed and why. If the editors have really done anything majorly wrong that required administrative intervention, you should show that. Minor things like a comment you disagree with but may have misunderstood anyway don't help. Asking for deletion of a recreated article that was correctly deleted in the past is no evidence of a vendetta either.. In addition, while I often make long posts, you've made so many of them, and in such quick succession that I'm not sure how many people have even read half of what you've said. And trying to prove notability or other off topic commentary here is counterproductive since it makes people think there's nothing worth looking in to here. As I've hinted above, the length, number and formatting of your posts are also a problem in the AFD. Anyone checking it out quickly is likely to think you're making more problems than anyone else. Nil Einne (talk) 00:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Second discussion

I'm re-opening this becaue it's not done, nowhere near, unfortunately. Can an uninvolved admin review the mess that is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Older (2nd nomination), as well as the contributions of Fussballspieler11 (talk · contribs) - basically a SPA showing terrible OWNership issues, has a clear COI/agenda here as he has described the subject of the article as "my customer" (given his behaviour/previous comments I cannot AGF and believe it was a simple typo). A quick review of the AFD will show Fussballspieler11 accusing other editors of lying, of "foul play", of this and of that; any editor that has !voted 'delete' is "suspicious" while any editor that has !voted 'keep' is "honest"; he believes there is a conspiracy trying to get the article deleted etc. etc. He has been registered for only 3 days and yet talks to very experienced editors and admins as if they are naughty children. It is worse than talking to a brick wall and I have already had to warn him not to post on my talk page because I am so very, very close to losing my rag big-time with him and none of us wants that. Posting this, notifying, then going to bed before I have a stroke or something. Giant Snowman 22:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for the remainder of the AFD. What a disgraceful sequence of events by this editor; wholly disgraceful behaviour (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What started this ANI discussion is this edit. AfD's are considered to be talk pages, so WP:TPO applies here. The removal of this text should have provided a comment to that effect at the point where the text was removed, so that other editors would know to look at the edit history if they so desired. Unscintillating (talk) 00:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- While that may be true, Fussballspieler11 had been acting uncivily in the AfD discussion (and on user Talk pages like mine) long before that, and I'm surprised by the amount of patience that has been shown by the involved admins. Jogurney (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - And his explosion of personal attacks, bad faith, and WP:IDHT on his talk page has resulted in talk page access being revoked. Note that I'm having internet issues at the moment and will be intermittently online; if another admin thinks this is being heavy-handed you can feel free to undo the TPA revocation, I won't consider it wheel-warring.- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - That AfD is ... impressive. Good block. Bobby Tables (talk) 02:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Unscintillating:, you're right, I should have placed a diff on the AFD showing my removal of the text. However, I did explain why to the editor in question, and to be fair the text that was posted was so 'TLDR' it was disruptive, and was simply the editor re-hashing the same argument he had made many, many times before. Giant Snowman 09:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since my last comment at the AfD, I have been away doing real life stuff. Lucky for me I missed a lot of the nonsense, although I think I severely strained my scrolling finger as I tried to find the current bottom of the AfD comments. (Much of it falls under TLDR and the "familiar" formatting told me much of it was repetitive anyway.) This has approached a level of disruption I've rarely seen, and I certainly think a proposal for a topic ban on football (soccer) related topics would be a good idea. This level of nonsense should not be tolerated. Taroaldo ✉ 00:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal Block please

IP blocked Blackmane (talk) 12:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAndyTheGrump&diff=563981892&oldid=563973581

Can someone block it please? Thanks, ★★Retro Lord ★★ 16:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as open proxy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, ★★Retro Lord ★★ 16:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copy-pastes from innovations.ahrq.gov

Requesting a block of FieldsTom (talk · contribs) for violations of policies of COI, Neutrality, using Wikipedia for advertising, etc. Tom Fields is content manager of innovations.ahrq.gov. All User:FieldsTom edits consist of copy-pastes of press release/marketing/advertising/promotion blurbs from his web site. This text is possibly public domain, if written by US Government employees. Though some of the text can be traced back to other documents copied from the hospitals described. In any case the edits are pure peacock language and promotional material. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am somewhat new to Wikipedia and was just trying to provide links to public domain healthcare information on relevant pages. None of the information comes from press releases/marketing/advertising material. I do not own the innovations.ahrq.gov website. It is a government site. The main purpose of this AHRQ-funded site is to disseminate innovative health care practices that have been successfully introduced in one setting in order to inform other organizations considering the same type of problems. I will take any recommendations regarding this content seriously and can paraphrase more if necessary. Is the AHRQ material http://www.innovations.ahrq.gov/innovations_qualitytools.aspx not public domain? User:FieldsTom 16:22, 12 July 2013

Since FieldsTom is prepared to talk and is trying to do the right thing, I think a block should not be done. We should help him understand how to contribute to Wikipedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap. Less than 20 minutes after templating him with a "copyvio" warning, you come to ANI rather than actually explain the issue to them? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's Public domain, and there 's no question of copyvio. However, our rules on plagiarism require exact attribution even for PD sources, and directly quoted material needs quotation marks. Moreover, the problem here is that these statements are basically written by the people engaged in the program--they are apparently reviewed in some manner --though from the description of the project only general oversight of content is exercised, but including them as key content in general articles can be seen as undue emphasis on particular examples. That their PR is being published by the government does not make it any the less PR. "Learning objectives are interwoven in the context of service to the community. Experiences in promotion of population health help prepare students for careers in service." is PR-talk no matter who wrote it or who edited it, and does not belong in an encyclopedia. In addition, WP:MEDRS, our guideline on medical articles, has some rules about what we consider reliable sources in this field, and the sort of individual case studies being added may not meet them. DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I used the wrong template; I'm not sure which one is best for copy-pastes of PR material by COI editors. It appeared to me that after my warning, the copy-pastes continued at a robot-like pace, so further intervention was needed. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anonymous209.6 edit on the background section of Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012

User:Anonymous209.6 made a recent edit on the article Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012. The edit was discussed here, but there was no consensus reached. Plus the background section was discussed in detail here. I requested that User:Anonymous209.6 self revert, here. That request was 10 days ago and has yet to receive a reply. As such, I request an administrator provide assistance and revert the background section. Also, I request that an administrator ask User:Anonymous209.6 to return to the talk page. Thank you for your time.Casprings (talk) 00:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I am actually expected to respond to this, or how. What is the "incident", except Casprings again filing frivolous motions INSTEAD of making arguments on Talk. Edits could not have been better explained or justified. Please look at Casprings history of filing. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying not to WP:EW. I will not revert this edit. However, I would ask that an administrator please look at this. User:Anonymous209.6 is claiming WP:OR. This is an issue that was discussed on WP:ORN, here. That is a thread that I took part in. I also took part in an RFC on the talk page and that had a closure by an administrator, here. The current discussion is mentioned in the OP, which is another thread I have taken part in. I also have asked User:Anonymous209.6 to self revert 10 days ago. I understand that I have also been an edit warrior on this article. However, I tried to hit the reset button, here. I do not want to edit war. However, I also don't want to have a page that is edited away from WP:consensus . I would ask that an administrator please take a look at this, despite my pervious actions on this page.Casprings (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring a missing user preference (VisualEditor)

According to bugzilla:

“

> Can you explain what the code in this area looks like? There _was_ a user > preference previously, it's just gone missing. Is this simply a matter of > setting a configuration variable? Yes, it's just a matter of removing "$wgHiddenPrefs[] = 'visualeditor-enable';" in CommonSettings.php.

”

Can't we do that? We were literally promised this setting would remain in place before launch, and, at the moment, the only instructions to find the well-hidden hack in the gadgets are at WP:VisualEditor, which I really doubt anyone who missed the banner is going to see. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are also instructions at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/FAQ.--Rockfang (talk) 04:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, that's a hack, and most users won't know to got to a FAQ page of something that most editors won't even know the name of to look up. It's not like the tab says "Edit with VisualEditor" (although it arguably should) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed that name two or three times... and was met with a wall of silence. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A lengthy screed that nobody here is likely to care for

NAC: No admin action is needed. --Rockfang (talk) 04:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Long, silly polemic that would be amusing if it didn't vaguely call out certain specific named editors. At least the section title is pretty accurate.

Before I start, I'd like to ask that nobody blithely dismisses the following statement, by asking me to take it to requests for comment, the village pump, or the on-hiatus Jimbotalk. This message is being posted here, on the dramaboard, for a very specific reason—to strike in the heart of the idiocy that Teh Communitah™ has displayed in a variety of times, places, and manners, this board included.

On the outside of the walled city of Wikipedia, where our readers exist, most people are under the impression that Wikipedia is a halcyon land of community participation, collaboration, and consensus to create the world's largest encyclopedia. While the latter fact is true, the sheer quantity, and more importantly quality, of our encyclopedia's finest works is only possible through the work of thousands of diligent, hardworking, and selfless content creators, who have donated their time to a cause far greater than themselves. These contributors, however—including Malleus Fatuorum, SMcCandlish, and others—are being forced out and replaced by a new breed of Wikipedian, the squabbling power-players who care little for the health of the encyclopedia in terms of content, but rather actively seek out and force away anyone who is actually on the encyclopedia to produce content.

Where we stand today

Even as they loudly trumpet that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, the power players, who are naturally at home on this board, form miniature cabals, gangs, and lynch mobs for the sole purpose of accruing political capital and credibility with other members of Teh Communitah™. Co-opted by corrupt, abusive, and in many cases incompetent admins, these users harass, block, sanction, and outright ban anyone in the way of their political ascendancies. If they do happen to break some of the policies, such as no personal attacks, civility, and in particular the three-revert rule,^{[exhibit 1]}they so vigorously expect compliance of from lesser beings like content contributors, friends will inevitably rally to their defense with the typical "ignore all rules" card or a heavily lawyered interpretation of policy.^{[exhibit 2]} Subsequently, these friends, if they include Wikipedia functionaries, will cover up any damning information about a person, clearing the path for their acceptance as Wikipedia functionaries.

The exceedingly weak institutional framework that exists on Wikipedia is deliberately designed to be ill-suited to such cabals, the better for them to accrue further power. Administrators are, in many cases, exceedingly incompetent in content matters, with only a small portion of their edits to Wikipedia devoted to content.^{[exhibit 3]}^{[exhibit 4]}^{[exhibit 5]}^{[exhibit 6]} Article creation records for Wikipedia functionaries are also poor and consist largely of redirects and stubs rather than real content pages, leaving one perplexed as to why people who contribute such little to content should be considered qualified to police it.^{[exhibit 7]}^{[exhibit 8]}^{[exhibit 9]} Worse, the few article-space contributions that many such editors have are, in large part, semi-automated vandalism reversions, a far cry from the actual content production that is the reason why readers come to Wikipedia.^{[exhibit 10]}^{[exhibit 11]} The problem even extends to Arbitrators, who are supposed to be the ultimate guardians of the encyclopedia. Although, of course, not everyone has every problem, it is important to recognize that the problem of lack of article to contribution is rampant among functionaries.

How to fix Wikipedia

How do we fix the problem? For one, create an administrative control board, elected by the community in order to control the admin corps and investigate the conduct of miscreant administrators. Below that, create a magistrates' court system in order to replace this noticeboard, with a new usergroup jurists reviewing diffs from aggrieved parties in order to arrive at a decision and whose decisions regarding admin conduct are appealable to the aforementioned admin control board. In non-admin-conduct matters, magistrates' court decisions should be appealable to ArbCom directly; those decisions appealed to the admin control board may in turn be appealed to ArbCom. For its part, the Arbitration Committee will have greater powers to hear broad-reaching cases with implications, as opposed to those that are mere conduct cases between several parties, but will also be bound by precedent, and will have to provide a compelling reason to break such precedent.

On the content side, new editorial boards should be created, five people each for social sciences, natural sciences, formal sciences, philosophy, arts and literature, history, popular culture and current events, politics and law, and miscellaneous. These new editorial boards will be headed by Subject Editors, who will in turn answer to a Wikipedia Content Review Board consisting of five Subject Editors chosen on a rotating basis bimonthly. Subject editorial boards and the Wikipedia Content Review Board will be allowed to accord GA or FA status, based on the reviews of ordinary editors and content reviewers alike, as has always been standard practice; in addition, these editorial boards will review any contentious articles brought to them for consideration where a community-consensus solution to problems cannot be found, and will be able to modify articles and set the appropriate protection/pending-changes level to ensure neutrality, verifiability, reliability, and notability. Subject editorial boards will be elected based on a multiple-votes-per-person system, in which each individual can vote for five people to be a part of an editorial board, membership of which is subsequently decided by an editor-elect's preferences and competencies. As a final control, an elected Wikipedia Assembly of fifteen members will coordinate the whole project at a broad level, and will be the legislative counterpart to ArbCom.

Obviously, many members of Teh Communitah™ will object to what they percieve to be excessive "bureaucracy". However, only about sixty-five new "bureaucrats" will be added, and the new structures that have been put into place will probably eliminate many more admins who have deserted their duties alone. The new proposals will also effectively stop a large percentage of Wikipedia's drama, eliminating character assassinations and lynch mobs and replacing them with case requests and rapid adjudication. Through the elimination of drama opportunities, the cabals and private bureaucracies that run the encyclopedia, with untold hundreds of members and the major cause of Wikipedia's inefficiencies, will dissipate—some members will be forced to write content, and others will leave in a fit of rage. None will be able to harm Wikipedia with the old, highly-effective methods they once used.

In conclusion

Wikipedia once existed for a small clique of content-contributors, the selfless writers who started the encyclopedia and allowed it to survive its tumultuous early years. In time, decadence and rot began to manifest, giving Wikipedia to self-interested power players and cabals, who while themselves being meddlesome private bureaucracies hypocritically decried bureaucracy and waste, the main cause of their success and political capital. The time has now come for the contributors of content to rise up and take the encyclopedia, not for themselves, but for the hundreds of millions outside our walled city who read the encyclopedia, every day.

—Wer900 • talk 01:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ See the numerous cases brought by Gobbleygook against content writers like Viriditas.
^ A textbook example of these lynch mobs is the above Sandstein block discussion.
^ Soxred93. "Beeblebrox". X!'s Edit Counter. Soxred93. Retrieved 13 July 2013.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
^ Soxred93. "Writ Keeper". X!'s Edit Counter. Soxred93. Retrieved 13 July 2013.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
^ Soxred93. "Risker". X!'s Edit Counter. Soxred93. Retrieved 13 July 2013.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
^ Soxred93. "Newyorkbrad". X!'s Edit Counter. Soxred93. Retrieved 13 July 2013.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
^ Soxred93. "Pages created by Risker". List of created pages. Soxred93. Retrieved 13 July 2013.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
^ Soxred93. "Pages created by Writ Keeper". List of created pages. Soxred93. Retrieved 13 July 2013.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
^ Soxred93. "Pages created by Newyorkbrad". List of created pages. Soxred93. Retrieved 13 July 2013.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
^ Soxred93. "Beeblebrox". Automated edit counter. Soxred93. Retrieved 13 July 2013.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
^ Soxred93. "Writ Keeper". Automated edit counter. Soxred93. Retrieved 13 July 2013.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

No. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. --Jayron32 01:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Thirded". Taroaldo ✉ 01:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fourthed. I did read the entire thing, but with respect, the level of hyperbole you resort to to describe both your clique and those you dislike makes it impossible to take this seriously. Reso lute 02:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As is the level of idiocy on the drama board overall. However, it is hard to ignore the fact that many Wikipedia functionaries do little, if any, substantive content work. I created concrete proposals to address drama, and few people even look at them. Besides, content contributors are hardly a "clique"; sure, there are bad apples that sometimes collude, but nothing compared to the organized schools of sharks that do battle here. Wer900 • talk 02:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rule #1 of the drama board: if something causes heartburn, hat it, remove it, or in more severe cases oversight it. Try to cause everybody to forget about anything particularly damning. If Wikipedians cannot, in large part, read the proposal, look at the references, and acknowledge that their leaders (or at least their power players) are primarily involved in Wikipedia for the purpose of drama and argument, it is truly sad indeed. Wer900 • talk 02:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually want to change something rather than just cause pointless drama, post it elsewhere, start an RfC, whatever... Everyone knows that this, posted here, will achieve little. Yes there is some truth to what your saying, you dont have to hang around ANI all that long to think "well that outcome was a little strange". But posting this here, and naming specific editors, is just likely to cause more harm and drama, which is a bit ironic, given the nature of the monologue. -- Nbound (talk) 02:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Rule #1 of the drama boards is "ignore it and it will go away", but I digress.

Please - briefly - articulate the problem statement for which you propose editorial boards related to content as the solution.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are several problems. First, and most obvious to many AN/I participants, are the POV wars. If a POV issue cannot resolve itself in time, and a grievance is brought to a subject editorial board, a solution will be found by the editors that best meets the policies, with penalties for defiance defined by the editors and enforceable in the aforementioned magistrates' courts (thereby also eliminating discretionary sanctions). Second is the slowness of the GA and FA processes, and their (very rare) but regrettable errors; our existing "editors", the FA delegates, simply don't have the time or manpower to review each article in any depth. A third problem that would be resolved would be plugging the gap created by the fact that ArbCom cannot make content decisions, but instead can only make decisions that give a temporary band-aid without addressing the underlying content issues. Wer900 • talk 03:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wer900, I accept the sincerity of your critique, but I will point out just two of its flaws. The first, less significant, is that some of your "exhibits," and hence your conclusions drawn from them, are misleading. For example, while it's no secret I spend a fair amount of my wikitime administrating and arbitrating, I also have created more than 100 substantive articles (excluding redirects), including about a dozen this year. The meme that I, and some of my arbitrator colleagues, couldn't find the mainspace without a roadmap, though oft repeated, is exaggerated. The second is that you suggest that we need new community-elected leadership to take on some of the role of the ArbCom, which you are dissatisfied with—but you suggest no reason to think that the types of people who would be interested in serving on, or would be elected to, the new positions would be much different from the types of people who volunteer and are elected to be arbitrators, who are already selected through community-wide elections.

However, if this proposal ever is implemented, please sign me up for the Editorial Board for Miscellaneous, which sounds like the most interesting and well-rounded job of the lot. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad, you may be right about yourself, although there are some functionaries, even Arbitrators, who made a few articles, started getting involved in social networking, and never looked back. The reason that people do not run for ArbCom elections is simple, and known perhaps best of all to you—its powers extend only so far as the conduct of a few users without the ability to address underlying problems, with said issues decided by the very cliques and cabals who took their case to ArbCom. Besides, the sorts of people who would be running and voting for editor positions would likely reflect the current composition of the FA and GA forums—that is to say, regular content creators.

The miscellaneous board is meant to be for things like vexillology, numismatics, heraldry, and all the stuff that just doesn't fit. Wer900 • talk 03:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing here for ANI (i.e. a board for admin intervention) to actually do, so why is this one of the less important of the Wikipediocracy crowd being given a soapbox from which to continue haranguing everyone? Tarc (talk) 04:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc, please. This is deliberate political defiance of the idiotic, bureaucratic morass by which good ideas are destined to die on Wikipedia. It's better to strike straight into the beating heart of Wikipedia's mob rule. Wer900 • talk 04:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Malicious merge proposal by a sockpuppet - Take 2

I believe that this merge request of Imperial and US customary measurement systems into Comparison of the imperial and US customary measurement systems is a malicious proposal by a banned editor. The rationale is as follows:

The merge proposal was made at about 22:00 on 11 July 2013 by an unregistered user
The IP addressed used by that was 212.183.140.15, a dynamic address owned by Vodafone.
Earlier that day User:Cobulator was banned as a sock-puppet of User:DeFacto
User:DeFacto has used IP addresses from Vodafone in the past – here and here
User:Pother, a ~~Sockpuppets~~ sockpuppet of User:DeFacto proposed a similar merge of the article Metrication of British Transport back into Metrication in the United Kingdom shortly after the new article was created – see here.

The case for writing the article in the first place is Talk:Imperial and US customary measurement systems#here.

This request was referred to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure who rejected it on grounds that this is a request for Admin intervention ~~in a case of~~ following ban evasion ~~and not~~ rather than a genuine merge request and therefore not within their remit.

Martinvl (talk) 04:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request clarified by adding names of articles concerned and tweaking grammar. Martinvl (talk) 06:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like DeFacto's remit, the Vodafone IP fits. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threats from COI IP

Nothing actionable here. No legal threat involved. IP was making a distinction between company names and cautioning about the use of said company names. Blackmane (talk) 12:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relevant diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABidgee&diff=564030165&oldid=563978888

This guy is making legal threats to Wikipedia on User:Bidgee's talkpage.

Relevant phrases/words

" "JetGo" style infringes the trademark of JetGo International."

"but I do have an obligation to advise that the style JetGo is trademarked by JetGo International (http://www.jetgointernational.com/) which is owned by Aero Specialties, which in turn is owned by the L3 Corporation"

" well I can tell you that I am the Managing Director Airlines at JETGO Australia" COI

" it infringes some else's IP."

Perhaps not 100% clear cut legal threats, but it certainly is on the border of it. I don't think our editors need to be subjected to "You are infringing my trademarks" style harrasment, so it would be appreciated if an admin here could warn/talk to this "Managing Director" and ask him to stop. Thanks, ★★Retro Lord ★★ 06:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to report possible problems such as the above, but stuff that happens on that user's pages should not be reported by you in view of things like this ANI discussion of just three days ago. On the substance of the report, there is no legal threat—the IP is claiming something about trademarks, and there is no evidence in that diff to say they are thinking of taking legal action. Someone should explain WP:TRADEMARK to the IP, or see whether they have a point and some article should be changed. However, I don't see a WP:NLT problem in that discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 07:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm.. I'm not seeing any threats. Pretty sure he's just trying to be helpful, quite honestly. —Dark 09:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Having the "managing director" of some company come and start jumping up and down screaming about how their copyright infringes may not be a clear cut legal threat, but I still think a bit of education regarding WP policies would be beneficial for the wiki as a whole. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 10:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you read what he wrote carefully, you'll find that's not what he said at all. He states that the proper name for the article should be JETGO, rather than JetGo - and that the latter is a completely different company. He expresses concern that by stylising the article as JetGo, there may be issues with intellectual property/trademarks (which is wrong, but that is irrelevant). Nowhere is he saying that he is taking any legal action, nor is he "jumping up and down screaming". He is not making any threats, veiled or otherwise. This issue can be easily settled by asking him to provide reliable sources stating that JETGO is the proper name for the company or asking him to email info-en@wikimedia.org with confirmation from his company email address. —Dark 10:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

unremoved 7-year-old death-threat and more

Threats such as these should be deleted, especially in the case of IP user pages, it would be wholly inappropriate for an editor arriving at Wikipedia armed with a newly issued IP address from their service provider to find an undated death threat. I'd also consider such threats left on random user pages to be problematic, not nice for anybody to stumble across threats such as these and they could, I suppose, result in unnecessary law enforcement action by the overly enthusiastic members of our community. Nick (talk) 10:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I wonder why this death-threat "DOn't vandalize the sandbox or I will kill you" by an IP on User talk:IiIIies, the talkpage of a user blocked in year 2006, has never been oversighted or at least deleted. Would delete it by myself, but are not well-versed with :en-policies. By the way, there are more of that kind: User talk:Jake07265, User talk:91.121.102.62, User talk:Fancy ozuna, User talk:Weridfairy, User talk:71.223.158.129. Doesn't give the best impression to external parties. --Túrelio (talk) 08:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Combing the vast archives for half-baked threats like that seems like a task that would be both pointless and unproductive. Doc talk 09:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just erase it when you see it, then warn and report appropriately. Oversight can only be used when there is sensitive personal information involved. You'll be surprised at what people say when they can hide under a veil of anonymity. —Dark 09:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

IP block-exempt request

Thanks. I've contacted the checkuser mailing list. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 20:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

William915 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have just granted IP-block-exempt status to the above user, per a request on my talk page. My rationale: the user has 4000+ edits on zh.wikipedia, and has the status there, and has never been blocked. However, as I am not familiar with the process of such requests, I am posting here for review. I would appreciate if someone who knows about such things could endorse or express objections. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 14:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The request looks plausible but you might want to contact a CheckUser about this in case there's more than meets the eye. I don't know what range the editor was editing from and so I don't know who blocked the proxy he wants to edit from and thus don't know which CU performed the block causing the problem. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing by Darkness Shines

See my comment at the end of the section

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

The biographical article on Narendra Modi was fully protected from editing by administrator User:Nick on 23 May 2013 until 11 July 2013. This was due to highly disruptive editing and addition of contentious material without appropriate discussion on the talk page of the article by some users. Administrator Nick (another user) agreed to remove the protection on the condition that there be no further disruptive editing and edit-warring by users participating on this page. Maunus recently added contentious material regarding the subject of the biography which was removed by me inviting discussion on the talk page of the article. Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · count), a highly disruptive and uncivil editor, has gone ahead and reverted (see edit summary) the change on this BLP. I request that an administrator intervene and restrict this user from editing this page. It appears that they are entirely incapable of editing this page in a manner that is not disruptive. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 15:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You come to the conclusion that my first edit to that article which was not reverting either blanking or BLP vios, means I am "entirely incapable of editing this page in a manner that is not disruptive" Interesting, why do people insist on dragging me here every time they have a content dispute? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Darkness Shines edited own comment at 15:23 UTC. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 15:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not your first edit on the article. You have also been editing articles that are closely related to the biographical subject such as 2002 Gujarat violence. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 15:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was my first edit did I? Did you not notice that I clarified my statement above? I have reverted blanking and some BLP violations, that is it. So tell everyone Nick, how is my one revert of you mean I am "entirely incapable of editing this page in a manner that is not disruptive"? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The biography article page is currently under restrictions, which was the precondition for unprotection by Administrator Nick. This information is available on the talk page. Despite the warning, you decided to engage in revert-warring on a biography of a living person. The added information is contentious. It may be well-sourced, however being well-sourced is only the minimal condition qualifying it for addition, not a reason why it should definitely be added. Your block log sufficiently demonstrates that the style of your editing will continue to remain combative. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 15:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My block log has no bearing on this, and you are obviously mentioning it to muddy the waters. One revert is not "edit warring" And given I went straight to the talk page and asked you why you had removed it, a question still unanswered I may add, where is this "entirely incapable of editing this page in a manner that is not disruptive"? coming from?. Like I said, another content dispute dragged to ANI, quite sad really. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are very well aware that articles related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan have been placed under standard discretionary sanctions by the Arbitration Committee. In fact, you added yourself recently to the list of users placed on notice. It was well within Administrator Nick's discretion to place restrictions on the article page given the history of contentious editing in the past, so please do not plead ignorance, as it is inappropriate. Your block log is highly pertinent for this discussion, and so is the warning which I gave you yesterday against combative behaviour. You have also demonstrated with your recent commentary on this very page that you do not think combative editing and commentary is gravely inappropriate on this project. – [47], [48]. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 16:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NHN, you say that the protection ... was due to highly disruptive editing and addition of contentious material without appropriate discussion on the talk page of the article by some users. Talk about a non-neutral explanation! Anyone who looks at the history can equally posit that "some users" have been attempting to censor the thing by removing content etc. - Sitush (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush, your less than exemplary behaviour and personal attacks are all well documented on the project – [49], [50]. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 16:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) This is a useless drama-mongering thread over a simple content dispute. You should both head to DRN and work it out there. And NHN, you would be wise to lay off with the accusations, especially when they seem to have more to do with grinding an axe than with the article in question. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 16:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is in reply to a message on my talk page. NHN, it seemed to me the personal attack accusation appeared randomly in the middle of a content dispute. I read it as either axe-grinding or lawyering, neither of which are conducive to a full discussion. It felt as if it was downplaying others who might have been in disagreement. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 16:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've contacted administrator Nick for his decision on whether he thought this would include "disruptive editing", "reverts without discussion" by Darkness Shines. Respectfully, but bluntly, it is my opinion that Darkness Shines has long and frequently utilized the step-as-close-to-the-line-as-I-can-get method of dispute handling, and the "I'll let you get away with it this once but not next time" remedy is not appropriate, as it has been used many times before to no avail. Either this is inappropriate edit warring, or it is not. As for NHN: if he has handled this dispute incorrectly, then a block, protection, or warning is appropriate. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Magog, long time to hassle from you. And did you mention to Nick that I had used the talk page straight after my revert? Course not, or that I am still waiting on NHN to respond to my question there? Course not, just you going after me on spurious grounds as usual. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, the red herring. Nice try. In fact, I said nothing whatsoever about your behavior in this instance; I only asked Nick to take a look. And he will take a look, red herrings aside. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 20:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This [51] isn't a particularly brilliant edit. The use of the word terrorism is always a cause for pause and thought, to see if it's possible to use a less dramatic, less polarising word or description. I don't see anything immediately wrong with this [52] although describing the subject as "Rambo" isn't the best of ideas. I'm not sure how the issue of the flooding/rescue could be considered highly contentious straight off the bat, the article was fully protected in June and there was no discussion on the article's talk page about including it. There's certainly an element of automatically expecting each side to know what's going to be considered contentious and what's going to be OK, but if you don't actually talk and discuss changes, nobody knows for certain and you get this silly edit warring behaviour, which is going to result in people getting blocked for edit warring, civility violations and disruption sooner rather than later, I expect. It would have been sensible to discuss such a large text addition beforehand but deciding it's contentious when you've just seen it for the first time is equally unhelpful. In short, people are spending their time clogging up ANI instead of thrashing out compromises on the article's talk page and improving the article. Nick (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify I used the word "rambo" because it was used by the Indian Minister in his critique of Modi's action and was subsequently repeated in multiple sources and became something of a "meme" within India, both in the print press and in the blogosphere.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, that was Maunus's edit which Darkness Shines reinserted with his edit summary. The material is contentious and I have explained why in detail on the talk page of the article. Maunus has not only added contentious and biased material (leaving out non-critical commentary) but he has also grossly misrepresented sources (please review this) that he has cited on the page itself. Both of them have enough experience on this project to know that such edits will be considered contentious by other users and so it is best to discuss them on the talk page rather than going about adding them on the article further aggravating the dispute. I have extended this courtesy to both of them by discussing changes on the talk page of 2002 Gujarat violence and I expect they would do the same, but I suppose that is too much to hope for. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 21:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I have addressed Nicholas' rather unimpressive objections with corrective edits to the article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conduct aside, and just for the record, I've briefly reviewed the actual content and found it to be notable and well sourced, but ferociously one-sided and suffering from too much focus. However, I'll point out I know next to nothing about Indian politics and my quick reading could be well off base. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 21:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Darkness Shines uses 'facist' for hindus[53], 'bunch of pussies'[54] in this discussion. When User:Yogesh Khandke asked help on RegentsPark's talkpage here, DS says,YK, I will say what I want, when I want and where I want and quite simply there is sweet fuck you can do about it. He has got blessings of Admin RegentsPark to talk and do anything on wikipedia and get away with it. neo (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Do you have to misrepresent everything? I said the Hindu right wing extremists are fascists, which is what RS call them. I said child rapists and murders are pussies, am I wrong? Obviously not, but as I was asked to refrain from saying such I have. Funny how you miss so much out. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the issue is being properly resolved on the discussion page. For future reference, parties are advised to:

discuss any changes which might be controversial before making them. That especially goes for restoring content that was removed under BLP grounds. Darkness Shines, I know you think I have a vendetta against you, but this should go without saying (I'm sure basically everyone would agree in principle), especially if the article is under some sort of sanction.
discuss content issues on the talk page before coming to noticeboards in the future unless there is a BLP emergency. This doesn't mean problems cannot be brought here, but the discussion should occur first. If Nick is experiencing WP:MASTADON problems, he is advised to go scream into a pillow for as long as necessary.

Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unresponsive IP

For the past week or so, 108.54.106.70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been editing various articles in common with me. Multiple times, I have seen that his edits remove every single extra carriage return between article sections and these comprise the only edit he has made to the page. Examples: [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62]. I have requested multiple times on his talk page to cease this edits visible here but he has not responded. Something needs to be done to get his attention or tell him that this editing practice is not welcome.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like they blanked their page in response to your comments. I have applied a block of 24 hours. Hopefully, that will catch their attention. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 17:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GANG on 2002 Gujarat violence

As already noted in the discussion, this appears to be a content dispute and thus not appropriate for ANI, some options are WP:RSN, WP:DRN or perhaps WP:STICK, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is my proposed edit to 2002 Gujarat violence and I think this section reflect discussion regarding my proposed contents, except last 4-5 edits. I am citing these sources: Human Rights Watch [63] [64], United States Department of State [65], European Parliament [66], Amnesty International [67], Social Science Research Council [68], United Nations Human Rights Council [69], TIME magazine [70], Wall Street Journal [71]. And let me make it clear, I can bring many sources. But User:Darkness Shines, User:Qwyrxian, User:Maunus and possibly User:The Rahul Jain are determined not to allow me to add anything. They are not even telling me which of my sources are primary and unusable. I think this summarise their behaviour. When I pointed out that I am using same source DS has used in the article and when I pointed out that HRW has given conclusion in summary that it was attack by 'muslim mob', Maunus quotes controversial Banerjee report and says that conclusion of HRW regarding train fire is not central point and I should not use it. But he will use same report to support his text. What to do when they, as a WP:GANG, have made up their mind not to allow me to add the content? neo (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have given you copious amounts of explanation for why your proposed text is unusable. It is because it misrepresents the sources. The sources are fine, but not the way you use them.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

huh? Now you talked that 'sources are fine'. It took so long. And I am directly attributing sources in my proposed edit. Where is misrepresentation? Behaviour of you and DS is extremely frustrating and as you both edit as a GANG, almost impossible for single user to contribute to articles. neo (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would make it easier to discuss if you were to actually read my responses I have been telling you about twenty times that the sources are fine but that they can't be used to support the claim you try to make them support. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Openly lying on ANI that you 'twenty' time said sources are fine? Post those twenty diffs or even single diff. Sources talk about direct or alleged involvement of muslim mob in train fire, but as they also talk about attacks by hindus and Gujarat govt involvement in attacks on muslims, you want me to concentrate on 'attacks on muslims' part and forget attack on train part. You can use that source to support your text, but I can't use same source to support my text. Isn't this weirdest argument? How to contribute to wikipedia when users like you make a gang to shoo away users and openly lie even on ANI? neo (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've said a million times that hyperbole isn't lying. And anyway, Maunus said "about twenty". Paul B (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be completely fair it was probably only around five times then. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

neo, you asked what to do. Read WP:DR, which explains all the options available for resolving content disputes. This noticeboard is not one of them. TFD (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A question has already been asked at RSN and we could help out further there if users would like to present sources one by one. We can advise on when a source should be regarded as primary. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul, This is not joke. Don't take blatant lie of Maunus lightly.

@TFD, Please read article talkpage. They are determined not to allow me to add any content related to muslim mob involvement, no matter what sources are there. Is this content dispute? @itsmejudith Maunus just said sources are fine. Ask him what he mean by 'fine'. But even if they are secondary, that GANG will keep saying that they can use those sources but I can't. There is no logic or policy in their behaviour. It is just 3RR vs 12RR as a GANG. neo (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content dispute. What do you expect to be done at ANI? Taroaldo ✉ 22:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's neo ... he tends to take things to the extreme. Calling Maunus a liar is leading him towards a block this time, however. All we're learning on ANI is that neo is becoming a timesink in front of the entire community (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, Neo, Maunus is not the final arbiter of whether or not those sources okay (other editors can also weigh in); plus, as I and others have explained to you, there are other problems with your proposed edit. Is there a "gang" on the article talk page? Sure, in the same sense that the police is a gang--there's a group of people with an extreme, aggressive drive to make sure the article falls all of our policies, which, as has been explained, your suggested edits do not. Now, we could be wrong; if so, take us to a content noticeboard; probably WP:NPOVN or WP:DRN. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cleanup on aisle 3

One venue per problem, please. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Could someone please block Napoleon of France (talk · contribs), Polllilur's latest sock? An SPI has been filed. Thanks. - Mr X 21:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Grinding a personal ax at OTOY

OTOY (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Realityengine (talk · contribs)

Persistent restoration of inadequately sourced content re: a non-notable lawsuit involving an employee of the company. 76.248.144.216 (talk) 00:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably better handled at WP:ANEW than here. —C.Fred (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but this is so evidently an attempt on behalf of a former employee of the company to get their personal laundry into a Wikipedia article that it constitutes something other than mere edit warring. The content doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. 76.248.144.216 (talk) 00:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MarkMonitor is exploiting the Wikipedia editing system for the sake of their clients public image. This is not personal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realityengine (talk • contribs) 00:42, 14 July 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Certainly looks like some personal use shenanigans. In any case, it's a non-notable event being sourced by a non-RS. I removed it. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, and to Barek as well for the page protection. Probably a good idea to watchlist the article. Thanks, 76.248.144.216 (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actions of User:Tumandokkangcabatuan on Iloilo International Airport

User:Tumandokkangcabatuan has been insisting on adding Passi City as a city-served by Iloilo International Airport on the airport page. After reminding him numerous times that Passi City is not considered a city-served as per WP:AIRPORT guidelines on the Template:Infobox airport, my requests for proper discourse, as seen on User talk:Tumandokkangcabatuan, to reach a consensus on this issue with other editors on the article's talk page or on WT:AIRPORT have remained unanswered and insists that his edit is correct. Furthermore, it may be possible that there is COI between the user and the article as he claims to be from the region. I will leave the article as is, with his edits, because reverting it will just end up with him reverting it again. Admin intervention would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! pikdig (talk) 03:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being from the region does not give one COI (but might give one WP:OR). Is there edit-warring, or is this just a slow content dispute? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's edit warring. A quick glance at the page history shows that User:Tumandokkangcabatuan seems to be well over the three revert limit. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 13:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, edit-warring ... hence my link to the correct noticeboard for edit-warring (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When admin attention is needed for rev-del...

I've just had an interesting experience. Yesterday, I came across an unsupported claim of illegal activity on a BLP talk page. I sent a message to oversight and was told by an oversighter and former arbitrator that I should "please visit the appropriate noticeboard" if I "think this matter needs attention from administrators" such as rev-del. A post to NYB's talk page saw a rev-del from Risker (thanks). Today I found a post claiming to out an editor, and I posted here - rev-del and a block resulted in minutes. I have now been advised by IRWolfie- and asked by ‎Rschen7754 not to post here but to use WP:RFO, the exact process that did nothing to rev-del and sent me here. I think that keeping a low profile is a sensible approach but I just demonstrated that a higher profile gets results much faster, and with an oversighter telling me to come to a noticeboard, I think we need a more consistent procedure. EdChem (talk) 09:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's a difference between libel and outing. If it's outing, then we don't want to draw more attention to the info that needs to be oversighted by posting it on one of the most highly watched pages on this site, as that is a person's real-life identity and violates their privacy. The directions at the top of this page explain this as well. --Rs chen 7754 4:33 pm, Today (UTC+7)

Welcome to Wikipedia, where the privacy of pseudonymous editors is more important than preventing the spread of libellous allegations of bestiality. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the outing was less serious too, but that's just my opinion. EdChem (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I hadn't read the diff and was not aware of its contents. That sort of libel should not have been sent here either, per the comments below. --Rs chen 7754 17:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Perhaps an email to an admin you trust, after removing the BLP-violating material? I understand why Rschen and Wolfie said not to post here: Streisand effect. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with posting requests for suppression and revdeletion on these noticeboards is that, doing so, you end up drawing even more attention to what should, instead, be hidden. In this case, the reply you got, the one directing you to the appropriate noticeboard, is a boilerplate decline, which should probably be clarified (there may be cases where the correct course of action is to post to BLPN, for instance, and others where attention should not be drawn to the edit in question). As a general rule, I believe that when a OS thinks that an edit should not be suppressed but only revdeleted, he should do the needful, but that's only my opinion. For the future, if you need an edit revdeleted, pick one of these sysops and send them an e-mail or post a message on their talk page. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand the virtue of handling suppressions quietly, though in this case I considered swiftly to be desirable as I expected the IP would continue to post unless blocked. My broader point, however, was that oversighters directing people to noticeboards in revdev-but-not-supress cases is sub-optimal, as is the ANI edit info which encourages sending revdel cases to oversight. I suggest (1) redraft the boilerplate or produce a new one for "should be revdelled but I am not going to do it now" responses which encourages a non-noticeboard next step; (2) redraft the ANI edit info to encourage seeking a sysop rather than emailing oversight if revdel but not oversight is warranted - after all, if you get it wrong, the sysop can revdel and send it on to oversight himself or herself; and (3) consider more carefully the case where immediate removal and revdel is needed and removal is likely to lead to more inflammatory / libelous / outing posts from (say) an IP. I know I drew attention to the posts by posting at ANI but the material was gone and the IP blocked in minutes - I don't know that my going looking for a sysop would have led to speedier action. Anyway, just some thoughts. EdChem (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible to ask for revdel on irc://irc.freenode.org/#wikipedia-en-revdel _→AzaToth 14:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We need a better on-wiki system. Radical suggestion: User, User:EdChem, please open an Arbcom case, as this squarely falls with Arbcoms privacy jurisdiction and they should be able to work to construct a better system, post haste. {I am thinking some kind of private comment boxes for various reports. That is properly staffed, responds with action, or a note of no action to the reporter, and does not require reporters to reveal e-mail addresses or repeat anything publically). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom's privacy jurisdiction has always been about discrete events, not about constructing an onwiki system. Frankly, I wouldn't even know how to begin going about creating a private comment system that is staffed, reports back, and provides absolute privacy. I think the easiest solution might just be to create a new info-en OTRS subqueue and leave it at that. NW (Talk) 16:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to waste time with an arbcom case open it yourself. Telling an editor to go to Arbcom because of some confusion with process is a terrible idea, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oversighters routinely delete material when a request for suppression is made if it is appropriate. A suggestion to discuss a matter with other administrators if deletion is declined is made because opinions regarding interpretation of policy may differ, as they seem to in this case. Obviously a response declining a particular request should not be generalized to be general procedure which applies to all cases where suppression or deletion may be appropriate. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gadgets and plug-ins

I'm probably posting in the wrong place but something seems to be wrong with the system. Twinkle, and probably all other plug-ins too, stop working every now and then, and the Gadgets menu has disappeared from Preferences. Is something wrong or do I just need more coffee? Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 12:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's some discussion at WP:VP/T. Something is buggy today. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's a discussion at the Villiage Technical, User Okeyes has confirmed it is being looked into--5 albert square (talk) 12:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep; TL;DR it looks like Parsoid is accidentally conducting a denial-of-service against the API cluster, taking out gadgets. If it makes you feel better, the polish wikipedia is currently displaying the mobile view for everyone - we got off lightly :P. It's being looked into and will hopefully be resolved soon. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing me thataway. But I think I'll have some coffee anyway. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 12:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's not a Parsoid problem, actually - some [expletive deleted] decided to DoS the API cluster externally. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1600 pointless edits

Editor Mohamed-Ahmed-FG (talk · contribs) has made about 1600 edits over the last 2 months adding arabic interlinks, despite this being unnecessary and deprecated since wikidata took the role. Four people have tried to notify the editor of the pointlessness of their edits , yet the editor has persisted, and never responded to anyone to provide any sort of justification. Since the editor won't engage, can someone block this account until the editor justifies what they are doing? This will prevent the waste of further editor time, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are the edits irrelevant(as in not needing an Arabic interlink still user is persistently adding them)? Are they vandal in nature (disrupting the article)? A m i t ❤ 17:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are irrelevant since we have wikidata which handles the interlinks on the side, (i.e irrelevant good faith edits that are wasting the time of other editors). It's incompetence, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(non-admin comment) It seems he knows something about wikidata. Not sure whether he understand english language and talkpage messeges. I think 1-2 days of block is OK and advice should be given on talkpage to compel him to talk. If he understand english, he may respond. If he don't know english, well, I don't know. neo (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:74.218.250.83

This North Carolina IP was blocked, along with several others, for persistently re-inserting false information into various Ohio State articles concerning one "Giovanni Strassini", claiming that Strassini (an actual individual who resides in NC) was an All-American Tight End and baseball player in the 1970s, and had scored a touchdown in a Rose Bowl. This was all a hoax - see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football#.22Giovanni_Strassini.22 for more. The IP was later blocked again for disruptive editing on its own Talk page. Things quieted down for a while after that but recently the IP has begun to edit again at WikiProject College football, claiming to be "FBI Agent John Dunn", investigating wrongdoing by Wikipedia editors in connection with this episode, diffs here and here. Giving even the most generous benefit of the doubt - namely that the FBI would begin to post from the same IP that the hoaxer had previously posted from - it would seem that the legal threats alone are sufficient to warrant a block. Thanks for the attention. JohnInDC (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[viriditas-1] See the numerous cases brought by Gobbleygook against content writers like Viriditas.

[sandstein-2] A textbook example of these lynch mobs is the above Sandstein block discussion.

[beeblebrox-3] Soxred93. "Beeblebrox". X!'s Edit Counter. Soxred93. Retrieved 13 July 2013.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[writkeeper-4] Soxred93. "Writ Keeper". X!'s Edit Counter. Soxred93. Retrieved 13 July 2013.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[risker-5] Soxred93. "Risker". X!'s Edit Counter. Soxred93. Retrieved 13 July 2013.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[nyb-6] Soxred93. "Newyorkbrad". X!'s Edit Counter. Soxred93. Retrieved 13 July 2013.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[risker-pagescreated-7] Soxred93. "Pages created by Risker". List of created pages. Soxred93. Retrieved 13 July 2013.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[writkeeper-pagescreated-8] Soxred93. "Pages created by Writ Keeper". List of created pages. Soxred93. Retrieved 13 July 2013.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[nyb-pagescreated-9] Soxred93. "Pages created by Newyorkbrad". List of created pages. Soxred93. Retrieved 13 July 2013.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[beeblebrox-semiauto-10] Soxred93. "Beeblebrox". Automated edit counter. Soxred93. Retrieved 13 July 2013.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[writkeeper-semiauto-11] Soxred93. "Writ Keeper". Automated edit counter. Soxred93. Retrieved 13 July 2013.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[exhibit 1]

[exhibit 2]

[exhibit 3]

[exhibit 4]

[exhibit 5]

[exhibit 6]

[exhibit 7]

[exhibit 8]

[exhibit 9]

[exhibit 10]

[exhibit 11]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

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

Topic ban appeal

Meta

Long term incivility from User:BrandonTR

Let's try this again

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

Response by Sandstein

Clarification request

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

Support

Oppose

Comments

Aside

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

First discussion

Second discussion

Vandal Block please

Copy-pastes from innovations.ahrq.gov

User:Anonymous209.6 edit on the background section of Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012

Restoring a missing user preference (VisualEditor)

A lengthy screed that nobody here is likely to care for

Where we stand today

How to fix Wikipedia

In conclusion

References

Malicious merge proposal by a sockpuppet - Take 2

Legal threats from COI IP

unremoved 7-year-old death-threat and more

IP block-exempt request

Disruptive editing by Darkness Shines

Unresponsive IP

GANG on 2002 Gujarat violence

Cleanup on aisle 3

Grinding a personal ax at OTOY

Actions of User:Tumandokkangcabatuan on Iloilo International Airport

When admin attention is needed for rev-del...

Gadgets and plug-ins

1600 pointless edits

User:74.218.250.83