Sandstein (talk · contribs) is currently abusing his admin powers against users who have been querying his actions. Both User:The Devil's Advocate and I have made polite queries about one of his actions. [1] [2]. His response to questioning his decision-making has been to immediately issue WP:AE warnings.[3] [4] This is clearly inappropriate in response to polite queries and a clear violation of WP:INVOLVED. I request a block of Sandstein as he clearly will continue to WP:DISRUPT Wikipedia by abusing his powers.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[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[5]. I'm not saying any of this is warranted, but I am saying the community appears to be empowered to take any action short of desysopping in regards to admin. So this is the right forum for a discussion. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[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). [6] The drama being created here is not very different from incidents concerning the account Russavia a few months ago. Since the oversight team has been involved, arbcom is already aware of some of these incidents. Any appeals or complaints should presumably be made privately to them and are not suitable for discussion here, as others have said. Mathsci (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[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.→StaniStani  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. Resolute 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. [7] AE is a creature of ArbCom, but can you find anything that says what is in its remit? Or what is considered to be due process? Maybe I don't understand this--I am a relatively new user--but as far as I can tell, the AE admin is set up to be an independent Super Arb, with no checks and balances, no oversight. Neotarf (talk) 10:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[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: [8]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]
• Oppose. I wasn't around when the Scientology Arbcom case was being debated (apparently it is a hot potato still), but I haven't been able to find any indication that Prioryman has posted his own name anywhere on-Wiki, nor having consented to others using his full name. To keep discussions and article-writing constructive and avoid any conflicts, administrators may and should issue DS/AE warnings. This was correctly done by Sandstein in this case. LiquidWater 10:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Per above. Also, I seriously wonder when I can stop hearing about him making controversial/wrong actions and abusing his powers. It's been months already. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 10:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sandstein is the one admin who actually has a thick enough skin to consistently use AE like it is intended to be used. If ArbCom wants him to do things differently, they are capable of refining the AE rules. Jclemens (talk) 05:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[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]

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

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

You refused to read the links editors dropped on your page, and instead took admin action against them. That is the definition of "Shoot first, ask questions later." Please have the good grace to undo your warning and sanction of TDA and Peter cohen. In addition, while I would endorse your topic ban of Drg55 per my comment at AE, his indefinite block has no basis in WP:OUTING policy, which requires that any prior self-disclosure on wiki should have been redacted or oversighted. That requirement simply isn't fulfilled here, making WP:OUTING moot. In addition, there was an arguable conflict of interest, due to the editor's off-wiki involvement with the article subject, making it at least arguable that raising his identity was justified. COIs like that are routinely discussed in Wikipedia if there has been prior on-wiki disclosure, and I have never seen anybody banned for it. Please undo his indefinite block accordingly, so that justice is done. Andreas JN466 11:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[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 [9], which demonstrably contained several obvious untruths (as you should remember, since you were there). All the situation of "self-admitted" identity was caused by the debate that became necessary because of that slipshod attack piece by Davies. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[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;" [10] applies. The problem is that discretionary sanctions are easy to abuse, to allow an admin to maliciously place his own judgement above those of the admin corps as a whole by locking them out, which would be a textbook example of admin abuse as only admin can issue these warnings. This is why they have to be used as exceptions and with clear reasoning provided, as a safety measure. They are Arb rulings and procedures designed to be exceptions to community policy, thus used only when there is a clear and obvious reason to bypass the stated polices. There is no possible way for it to be more obvious they are exceptions to standard Wikipedia policy. Compare it to "exigent circumstances", which doesn't void the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, it only provides an exception where there is a clear and obvious need to bypass the checks and balances built into the system. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[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

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

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

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

Support

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oppose

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Editor Trends Study ended in 2010. I believe that the figures have changed (hopefully positively) since then. LiquidWater 14:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[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". [12] —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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

arbitrary section break

• I suppose it's not unreasonable to do a tit-for-tat request for a block of an admin who just applied an indefinite block on another user. Yet, after reading several of these linked discussions and explanations, I fail to see how this proposal could possibly be productive. Sandstein is clearly uninvolved; perhaps he wields the axe in a bit of an overly enthusiastic way, but he does not pick the direction he wields it in. That's the core idea of the WP:INVOLVED policy and it has not been violated. Indeed, it's ironic to see this request so soon after the Saedon block discussion. In both cases, I'd say the solution is to get Sandstein to raise his bar on block lengths, in order to avoid the appearance of being draconian, to better attune his criteria with the community consensus on the matter. Blocking him is hardly a solution to anything. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Asking him to ease up a bit maybe even take a break is likely the only thing that will happen here. I'd be personally satisfied to see him ease up a bit, maybe take a break from AE for a while. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of this is pointless. Nothing will ever get done to an abusive administrator. They can call someone a 'narcissistic piece of shit[15]', clearly violate[16] WP:Involved, and commit a horrendous block[17] for just three examples and face no sanction....William 13:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Welcome to Wikipedia SomeGuy1122 (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Nothing to add on the merits, but I have to toss in my own random numbers. Is anyone else sick to death of these threads every goddamned day? What is it about this website that gathers such overwhelming drama? Editors aren't leaving because finding sources is hard, or because the admins are drunk with power, or because the arbcom is heavy handed / worthless / devious / deviant / etc (depending on the day). They're leaving because they seem to be surrounded by children. There's 6,836,032 articles and counting on this site, surely there is something else we can be working on? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I suspect that User:Consiliul is the indefinitely blocked User:Mateescu. At Commons both accounts have done nothing but upload copyright-infringing photos of Romanian celebrities, here both accounts often use strings of nonsense characters in the edit summaries, and Consiliul has repeatedly identified himself as "Mateescu" (e.g., [18] [19]). The block log gives no indication of the reason for the block other than that it was a checkuser block, and I can't find any SPI reports or other pages referencing the Mateescu account. I have asked the blocking administrator, Timotheus Canens, to comment here. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I made an edit on Urmia after Dark Falls had warned in an edit summary about edit warring and was susquentially blocked for this one edit. The edit was reverted by another editor. Now my questions are,

• Is it appropriate to use edit summaries as warnings? I didnt read the history so I didnt see them.
• Is it appropriate that the admin still accuses me after my explaination?

There is another tech question that I cant answer, the edit I was making was solely to the infobox, yet my edit undone several edits, as can be seen, I dont know how this happened, after my messed-up edit was reverted, I done the correct edit I had intended WP:MOSFLAG on the infobox. All this happened and was visible before my block, but the blocking admin didnt ask me for an explaination, and has today still accused me of edit-warring, Do I simply just give a new warning every time another editor comes in with the intention of edit warring? No, of course not, as people will just abuse it. Apperantly AGF isnt valid if you have given warnings in places they cant be seen. As for the blocking guidelines "based upon reviewable evidence and reasonable judgment" wasnt used seeimg my second edit with the same edit summary as my messed-up one and "administrators should ensure that users who are acting in good faith are aware of policies and are given reasonable opportunity to adjust their behavior before blocking" no contact or effort towards myself was made, but a personal comment was made in the block notice, Since you felt it was appropriate to continue the edit warring on Urmia, I felt nothing of the thing nor should I have been accused of. Murry1975 (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the history of the article, you repeated your edit (started edit-warring) on a fairly controversial article. If your edit is reverted take it to the talk page before re-preforming your edit. I endorse the block given the heated nature of the issues involved. Werieth (talk) 14:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

• From 10th July an IP, 86.74.140.6, User:Arachkheradmand and User:Samak had been edit-warring over the demographics at Urmia, a north-west Iranian city, and starting 09:34, 13 July 2013 the war became quite frenetic, mainly involving the latter two.
• At 12:11 that day, User:DarkFalls (Dark) performed a null edit, leaving this edit summary: "Enough of this. Stop edit warring and discuss this on the article talk page or you will be blocked. Please use dispute resolution if you are unable to come to an agreement."[20]
• At 18:07 User:Murry1975, a very productive, no-drama content contributor with a clean block log made an edit reverting the last demographics edit and an MOS correction to the infobox, with the edit summary, "As per WP:MOSFLAG [21]. He had never before edited the article.[22]
• At 19:24 Sicaspi undid Murry1975's edit.[23]
• At 20:14 Murry1975 restored the MOS correction but not the demographics content[24]
• 05:00 the next day, 14 July 2013, Dark blocked Murry1975 for 24 hours [25]
• 05:10 Dark left a message on Murry1975's talk page, but didn't explain how to appeal the block
• 14:23 Murry1975 explained on his talk page that it was a mistake, that he was just trying to make the MOS correction and can't explain how the demographics got changed in his first edit, and that he hadn't seen the edit-summary warning.
• Dark made 8 edits in the hour and a half after Murry1975 posted his explanation and request for unblock
• 09:28 the next day, 15 July 2013, Dark explained on Murry1875's talk page that he doesn't believe Murry1975

Dark needs attention. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Bad block - Before jumping on the user, AGF is needed to be assumed. Secondly, Murry did not edit war and was not warned. The actual issue is a fairly simple one to be exact; Murry already had the page open during the time span revisions were made. This is what Murry saw as differences; highlighted by the edit summary. [26] Secondly, this same edit was repeated here.[27] The confusion of the user for the block and the lack of warning is demonstrable and the talk page confusion points to it. Murry should not have been blocked because Murry was active during the time and did in fact return and make the edit, only to have it undone, be unsure of how the other edits got reinstated and simply redo the MOSFLAG edit. It was editor error, but it was not malicious and in all fairness, probably did not ever see the edit history comment as a result. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • With Anthonyhcole's detailing of the incident and my detail covering how the error happened, I think this matter shows that this block was not only bad, but shows that Dark did not perform correctly or properly given the circumstances. This never should have happened. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Terrible block and I have warned DarkFalls that another inappropriate use of the tools will result in a block for him. Everybody can make a mistake but this is one that must not be repeated. If this is a pattern (I haven't looked) we need to consider a desysop. --John (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Horrid block - Murry should never have gotten hit by the block hammer. Chris and Anthony have already explained why. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This should be erased from Murry1975's block log. Who does that? Oversight? If Dark asks an oversighter to erase the entry, would they be allowed to? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It cannot be undone; I was blocked in error before, it remains on my record, but I was informed that it cannot be removed, consensus about the blocks invalidity is about the best that can be done if Murry goes to RFA or anything. I know it is not much help, but it is unfortunate. I'm not an admin (never put in for it), but I think non-admin users can help prove that the block was bad. I'd actually like some more input on this because "an admin's word" is stronger then mine - in hindsight sadly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it can be oversighted in about ten seconds by an oversighter. If we don't erase that block log it's not because we can't, it's because we choose not to. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It can be removed in the sense that we can hide the action, the account that performed it and its edit summary (or any combination thereof); however, it cannot be removed in the sense that, even if we were to do it, Murry's block log would still contain one entry (although one which, in part, would read "log redacted" – see the latest log entry here), which would, probably, look even worse. I think there should be a way to expunge clearly bad blocks, but, unfortunately, for the moment, none is available. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They all look like typical block log entries to me. How many entries should I be seeing? I can see five, ending with "12:57, 2 April 2011 Salvio giuliano (talk | contribs) unblocked ThisIsaTest (talk | contribs) (test finished)" I was working off my very tenuous grasp of this discussion. But really I keep mixing up oversight and revdel and forgetting who does what. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's somewhat interesting, I did not know non-admins couldn't see the entry at all. When I put my special admin x-ray glasses on, it says "20:20, 15 July 2013 (Username or IP removed) (log action removed) (edit summary removed)". When I take them off, there is no entry at all for 15 July. Salvio, that was revdel'd, right? Not oversighted? I thought non-admins could see that there was a revdel'd action, just couldn't see what the action was? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was revdeleted; if you want to see the original log entry, click here. And wow! I didn't image that when an admin revdeletes a log entry non-admins can no longer even see that something was deleted. I'm surprised! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. OK. So, who can see what when a block log entry is oversighted? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Also, Floq, can you tell me if you see anything clicking here? It's a log entry I just suppressed (and will unsuppress as soon as this test is over). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see anything at all, even with my admin x-ray glasses on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you see anything with your super Oversighter glasses on, Salvio? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To Floq: Thanks. To Anthony: yes. It was a block I had imposed on an alternate account of mine that I subsequently suppressed (and unsuppressed), nothing fancy. However, I now know that when an admin revdeletes a log entry, only admins and oversighters can see, from the affected log, that something has been deleted; and, when an oversighter suppresses a log entry, only oversighters can see that something was hidden. I never knew that, so I retract my previous comment. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Would you be so kind as to oversight that entry in Murry1975's block log (linking to this thread)? :) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly honest, I'd like to, but I'm not permitted to, because the oversight policy is quite stringent as to what can be suppressed. If I did, the AUSC would have a field day... The only way to proceed now is a RfC on the OS policy. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was teasing. I knew it wouldn't be that simple. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And apparently I am sleep deprived. D'oh... Time to hit the sack... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Bad block, but not much we can do about it but apologize ...although let's not get out the pitchforks yet. Have similar bad blocks been handed out before? Is there a history of using their tools inappropriately? On top of that, while blocked, did the OP make a WP:GAB-based unblock request so that it could be reviewed by passing admins? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• A significant extra point after additional review: User:DarkFalls may not use edit-summaries to make formal warnings; period. There's no admin around here who believes they can rely on such. I would like Dark to acknowledge that using that method for warnings is neither appropriate, nor does it meet their requirements for admin accountability for the block. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• May or may not be relevant, but the situation at the article was was raised on AN where DarkFalls warned there about blocking. I did not see any post by Murry1975 there and they probably were not aware of the section. Ravensfire (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  As can be seen in Murry1975s talk page, the warning that Dark shows for blocking is the edit summary and nothing else. This is not a proper notification/warning and surely doesn't assume good faith. A very bad block indeed. But I can suggest a better use for edit summaries - i.e. any one watching the block log of Murry975 can atleast read the comment in there and that the unblock comment should include an apology. at least to correct any wrong on the editor.  A m i t  ❤  19:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So there are a couple of issues here, some of them easily solved:

• General warnings to multiple people in edit summaries: I plead guilty to doing this myself occasionally, usually when there are two groups of tag teams and I don't feel obligated to issue 4-5 individual warnings. I'm not sure it's evidence of horrible adminning, just of an attempt to avoid page protection that, in retrospect, doesn't always work the way Dark Falls or I would want it to. I know I'll grudgingly stop doing it myself, after seeing this happen to Murray. But I would claim it isn't evil or stupid.
• Blocking Murray1975 with no individual warning: if you assume that DF didn't think it possible to revert without seeing that edit summary, then the block without an additional warning makes a certain amount of sense. However, I (and everyone else in this thread) can easily imagine a case where it happened just the way Murray describes. When you look up "buggy" in the dictionary, there's an image of the Mediawiki logo next to the word.
• Blocking after Murray only changed the template the second time: That was a mistake on DF's part. You need to look into things a little more before you block.
• So, in retrospect, not DF's finest hour, but (IMHO) an understandable mistake. The thing that does bug me, more than the mistaken block, is that DF doesn't recognize it as such now, after a chance to read Murray's comments on his talk page. But unless this is part of some pattern that I'm not aware of, it's probably best to move on, secure in the knowledge that DF's karma will remain slightly damaged until he realizes his mistake and apologizes, rather than force him into a corner. But it's not my block log that got sullied, so that's just a suggestion.
• I wish it was relatively easy to remove a bad block from someone's block log, but since that is almost never done, it is actually relatively easy to make a note in a block log that a previous block was incorrect; you just block for one minute, explaining it isn't a new block but an annotation to the block log. If Murray wants that, I'll be happy to do it. The only drawback is that a casual idiot (there are one or two on this site) will look at the block log for 0.3 seconds and start referring to his "multiple blocks". So I won't do it unless Murray asks me to.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Oh, fiddle faddle Floquenbeam. I like the lilt of that. I've put a note in the block log referring to consensus here that the block was erroneous.[28] I hope the mention of "a clean block log" will deter the casual idiots, though I've admittedly been naive before. Bishonen | talk 00:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
    • It appears that this issue has blown up after I went to bed - and the established consensus is that the block is bad, so I will duly apologise to Murry after this post is done. But I would note my assessment of the situation and why I felt it was necessary to perform the block. Samak and Arachkheradmand started edit warring on Urmia and, having gained notice of this issue on WP:AN, I decided to intervene, issuing both editors a warning [29][30]. As an additional precaution, I used edit summaries in the article history in order to deter people from edit warring [31]. Short of full protection of the page (which in hindsight is probably a more sensible option), that's the only way I have to make sure people sit down and discuss the changes. Murry made an edit on the article 6 hours after this, which reverted Samak's revision of the page. At that point, I made a few quick assumptions. I assumed Murry was trying to hide his reversion under a misleading edit summary. As such, I assumed that, since he restored a previous version of the article, he was aware of the edit warring on that page and in turn, saw my warnings for all parties to stop and discuss. At the time of the block, I did not believe the edit were in fact, accidental or a mediawiki bug. —Dark 01:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dark, you may have thought you had a good reason for putting a warning in the edit summary, but did you ever think that nobody will look at the page history before editing (unless someone picks up your warning in their watchlist)? As for assume... I'm assuming (ironically) about how that word can be split up into three to teach a lesson, right? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • As far as I know, there is no way of reverting to a previous revision of the page without first going to the page history, unless he sifted through Samak's contributions in order to revert, which is inconsistent with his statement. Regardless, consensus seems to be that the revert was as a result of a rare technical bug in the software and was therefore accidental - although at the time of the block, I did not believe that was likely. Obviously in hindsight, if I knew that such a bug existed, I would not have blocked. —Dark 07:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Edit conflicts aren't quite rare... especially at this board. Good explanation for the note in the history, although it would not necessarily have been very prominent and would not have stopped anyone editing outside of simple reverting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Considering that 6 hours had passed since the last edit and Murry's, and considering the nature of his edit (aside from the revert, it was a simple MOS edit), I excluded the possibility of an edit conflict. The aim of the edit summary was to ensure that people stopped doing "simple reverting" - I didn't think it was likely for anyone to restore the edits without being aware of the edit war. if I did, I would have full protected the page. Hypothetically speaking, let's say that Murry intentionally reverted. How likely was it that he did not see my warning in the page history and was not aware of the ongoing edit warring? As he was not reverting vandalism and it was not a rollback, he would have to manually revert, either by sifting through the user's contributions or by looking at the page history. If he was in fact sifting through the user contributions of Samak, it would have been grossly negligent for him not to have also looked at the page history. Undoubtedly, given the fact that the edit was due to a mediawiki bug, the block was wrongly placed. But I do find it deeply frustrating that people do not seem to understand my reasoning for my actions. —Dark 08:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • • I'm trying, which is why I'm asking. If it matters, I am not calling for any punishment of you as an administrator, just suggesting that this block could have been better dealt with. (You did not warn him on his talk page, for instance). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first comment on here since raising the issue even though I have been reading the comments while editing. Firstly I would like to thank the admins and community on here for their understanding and I appreciate the effort that has been made to highlight the err on my block log, so sincerely thanks folks. I have recieved an apology from Dark on my talkpage and I will accept it. Yes I still feel somewhat irked by the situation but hopefully we have, and I do include myself there, learned a few things from this and can move on and improve ourselves and the wiki community. Again folks thanks for your help and your time. Lets put this to bed and get back to what we are meant to be doing. Thanks. Murry1975 (talk) 16:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep a record of this discussion and the discussion on my talkpage in an archive on my talkpage for further references just in case. Again thanks. Murry1975 (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I misread the title of this thread. I thought it was "'My Block' by Dark Falls", as in a school essay: "'My Vacation" by Melissa Wainwright". Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Khalidmahmood390 was warned in May 2103 not to vandalize articles (see his talk page [32]). He has resumed the vandalism on two pages: the Khalid Mahmood page [33] and the Bollywood page [34]. Sorry if I'm adding the links incorrectly. I'm a sporadic editor and the new visual editor is confusing.

Here are the diffs for the pages:

• [35]
• [36]

He has the same name as a Pakistani politician and is inserting his own picture in the article. In the Bollywood article, he inserted his name throughout the article, and inserted his picture with a caption stating that he is an influential Bollywood actor.

Looking at his editing history, it seems that he has done nothing BUT vandalize articles. I trust that appropriate action will be taken. I will try to figure out how to post a notice of my complaint on his talk page :) Zora (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zora, this shouldn't be posted here, it should go directly to WP:AIV as it is just vandalism. Prabash.Akmeemana 00:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and indeff'd the user, as clearly his only purpose here was self-promotion, which led him to vandalism when he started replacing valid content on a subject with the same name as himself with info/picture about him. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I posted in the wrong place ... WP can be hard to navigate. What does indeff'd mean? Zora (talk) 02:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It means that Khalidmahmood390 has been indefinitely blocked from editing. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Zora, if Khalidmahmood was warned in May 2103, that means they haven't been warned yet... :P but for future reference, to elaborate on Gogo's point, see WP:INDEF. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was not online and missed this party. FWIW, I have no issue with the unblock, I approve the new template and will try to remember it exists and use it in the future. Changing another editors post is serious; I have no regrets about my original block as I read the situation. I also see how Pudeo could have done so accidentally - which still leaves his strident ABF of Cailil hanging in the air, but eh. KillerChihuahua 13:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody is making a concerted effort to remove Korean-language names from the lead sentence of articles about Korean people. I have seen opinions expressed that non-English names should only appear in an infobox or footnote, but the current guideline about the first sentence does seem quite clear: "Relevant foreign-language names, such as in an article on a person who does not themselves write their name in English, are encouraged." I reverted numerous edits yesterday and engaged an IP on its talk page. Today I saw a lot of similar edits, and from multiple IPs (see list above – this may not be complete – typically the edit is -23 bytes, but it may be combined with other changes). Am I right? Am I wrong? I'd appreciate another set of eyes looking at this. Thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 02:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're in the right. From the looks of it, there are three IP ranges here that need blocking, as this is also clear sockpuppetry. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And because I have extra time on my hands, here are the ranges: 103.14.60.0/24, 125.212.121.0/24, and 203.215.116.0/23. I'm going to go ahead now and revert them as they are unexplained and disruptive. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It might be problematic to block these because they're in the Philippines and the ISPs there (the whole region really) always have dynamic assignment. It might be prudent to ask a checkuser if the range is suitable for blocking because many people might be affected by this.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I calculated the ranges, each range block would affect 256, 256, and 512 addresses, respectively. I have reverted the unexplained removal of the names, as well as Ryulong, so everything should be fixed by now. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Caught another one napping here: 203.215.117.134 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 11:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've given all three ranges 24 hour anon-only blocks. Hopefully that gives him a clue. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

103.14.60.132 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is making the same problematic edits. Looks like the ranges need blocking, again.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for the sock puppet accusations, yes I live in Canada. Feel free to open up an SPI with that as your evidence. I have done nothing wrong here. This IP is an SPA that has done nothing but disrupt this project for years now. Last I looked, two people who live in a country of 35 million people is not very strong evidence, but by all means open an SPI. (Oh and I live roughly right in the middle, east to west anyway, of Canada, not in a far flung corner....) Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll come back with the old ANI thread as soon as I find it, where the consensus was to revert this IP on sight, since s/he posts from multiple IPs, DOESN'THEARTHAT, hasn't heard that for years, and the next step is semi-protecting article talk pages, which would not be optimal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Handy shortcut to previous discussion WP:ANI AUTISM IP. --McSly (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• ANI isn't really a place for content disputes or evaluation of sources. However, as a broad overview it looks like Zad68 has acted correctly. Primary sources really shouldn't be used for material that is contentious or likely to be contentious. This is especially true about medical topics since the chance of harm to real persons is high if we include such information. I know this isn't what you wanted to hear, but Wikipedia takes sourcing much more seriously than it once did and, simply put, that isn't going to change. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, but this is not a content dispute-- it is a long-standing behavioral dispute. Wikipedia:ANI AUTISM_IP#Persistent dynamic IP at Talk:Autism, but there are more (for complete context): if I can find them, I'll post them. If others here think it appropriate, this IP should probably also be DENY'd here-- it is persistent and long-standing, and previous consensus has been that the only way to deal with IP is to revert on site. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, I see, looks like I AGF'ed a bit too much on this one. It looks like the IP has heard the facts and if they choose to ignore them then it can hardly be considered our fault. I have no objection to DENY being applied here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the background on this, please see this ANI discussion started three months ago by the same autism-focused editor using dynamic IPs from the San Francisco area, and also this ANI discussion from seven months ago regarding the same editor. The consensus from both of those discussions was that this IP editor has a long history - years - of disruptive involvement at autism-related articles pushing the "maternal antibody" theory of autism, and also pushing mention of a commercial test for the antibodies, see for example [42] [43] [44] for the three most recent ones, all improperly sourced. Mention of this theory had been added here. The idea of semi-protecting the article Talk pages had been raised but instead it was decided to try to limit the disruption by simply reverting the IP's disruptive edits, which is what we had been doing. If anybody has any ideas about how to limit this WP:SPA dynamic IP's disruption, we'd love to hear it. Zad68 18:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) More history here. If this continues, the old idea of semi-protecting the talk pages might be necessary. ANd just dealing with edit conflicts because IP has refused to sign his/her talk posts for years is irritation enough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect proposal

Considering the years-long history, and the dynamic range of the IP, enough is enough. I propose to finally and unfortunately semi-protect the talk pages at Talk:Autism and Talk:Causes of autism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ad-hoc semi's for periods of time, maybe a few weeks at a time, as needed. When the problem occurs, we can file a request at WP:RFPP pointing to this ANI discussion. This would be in addition to the existing strategy of reverting the IP's disruptive edits on sight as needed. Unfortunately dynamic IP SPAs do exploit a weakness in Wikipedia's open editing model. Zad68 18:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The above-referenced pages have been semi-protected. I've never really looked at these talk pages, but on seeing the long history of disruption I agree this is warranted. --Laser brain (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Zad and Sandy, and thank you Laser-brain. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Laser ... IP's next move is typically to editor talk pages, so watch, revert, deny ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Semi sounds reasonable. -DJSasso (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Yes what else can one do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Are we talking indefinite semi-protection of the talk page? If so then it's probably worth creating a subpage for IP users. No comment on the merits of the proposal. N^oformation ^Talk 07:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed post where IP continued more of same, [45] DENY. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, unfortunately looks like this is necessary. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User Obitauri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back undoing ([46]), ([47]), ([48]) proper redirects of article Matsoni containing unsourced material of their preference, after this was extensively discussed on various talk pages and after they were warned about unsourced content and edit warring. See also user talk page and archived case Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive216#User:Obitauri reported by User:DVdm (Result: Protected). After a final warning on their talk page and their three most recent reverts, also followed by this warning on my talk page, they yet again continued with this. Can this user be somehow stopped? - DVdm (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see anything disruptive here, it is just a content dispute. Obitauri days ago even started a section in talk page, Matsoni_and_Matzoon_is_not_same, let's discuss there. However your title is misleading, Matsoni is definitely NOT an unsourced article. Cavarrone 19:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since, as far as I can see, the sources do not back the content, I'd call it an unsourced article. But that would need a review of Obitauri's entire yoghurt history, and I don't have the time for that, nor am I even remotely interested in the subject, or in this user's apparent agenda to somehow make Wikipedia declare that this kind of youghurt is of Georgian origin, which sources in one of the related articles say it is not.

So I will leave it at this, and in a few days I'll remove these yoghurt articles from my watchlist. If no admin thinks that this needs intervention, then my please accept my apologies for having wasted electrons on, this — nothing could be less important after all, and good grief, how TF did I ever get involved in this non-subject? Sorry. - DVdm (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh… I feel your pain. I notice that by (repeatedly) creating a separate article for Matsoni, Obitauri left Talk:Matzoon (yogurt) as the talkpage for both Matsoni and Matzoon (yogurt). Great situation. I've reverted and blocked the user for 31 hours for edit warring. After noting their intransigence (perhaps made worse by language problems rather than ill will) on that joint talkpage, I considered protecting the redirect, but that would be a bit ridiculous. You might drop me a line on my page if the problem recurs when the user returns from the block. Bishonen | talk 23:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Pain is hardly what I feel, but a sigh is what I produced too. Ok, will do. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 07:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since 124.30.185.146 was last blocked two years ago[49] he has engaged in slow motion vandalism (counting a burst of editing as one edit, I get 17 edits in 2 years[50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66]). The nature of the vandalism leads me to believe that we have a combination of limited English skills and no comprehension of what Wikipedia is and why he should not vandalize it. Given his editing pattern (several quick vandalism edits and then nothing for a month or two) it is unlikely that a short-term block will be effective, which is why I am reporting this here instead of at WP:AIV. The good news is that he appears to have been on the same IP since 2009. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is one person, I think it's a shared IP - looking back through the contributions, there's little pattern to them other than being mostly unconstructive. There's a few incompetent-style accidental deletions, a few "X was here" kind of childish vandalism, a few apparently constructive edits, a few bits of misguided rewording. The vandalism is so spread-out, and interspersed with good-faith edits - only an extremely long block would have any appreciable effect, and I just don't think the vandalism is frequent or bad enough to warrant it. ~ mazca ^talk 22:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a school IP to me; it is most likely the SIES Graduate School of Technology in Mumbai. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC) ‎[reply]

Asking for protection on Men's 400 metres world record progression‎. Multiple users IPs and single purpose new registrants (most likely the same person) keep trying to insert the same name Milkha Singh into the article (Singh's article is also under protection). I have discussed the matter on talk, with no response. Just repeated insertions requiring reverts. Trackinfo (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Semi-protected for a week. Per the points on the talk-page it seems like Milkha Singh has some loose claim to inclusion but it's really very dubious, and hopefully this will inspire this user (I agree that the various SPAs and IPs are probably the same guy) to join the discussion on the talk-page. ~ mazca ^talk 22:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a note for the future, but WP:RFPP is probably a more appropriate noticeboard. —Dark 12:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simpsons 2010 has been reverted twice on the article Figure It Out -- both by me and someone else -- for addition of unsourced speculation. Looking at their talk page, they've bad problems with adding both unsourced and copyright content previously. - Amaury (talk) 00:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An IP with a history of vandalizing Balkans articles updated Nataša Kandić's page to add a death date of 2013. [68] Kandic has been in the news today because she's been publicly threatened with lynching for her work; this edit appears to be an attempt to pursue those threats in another venue.[69][70] I have company in town, so I apologize that I can't stick around and sort this out myself more properly, but it seems like some action should be taken beyond the standard vandalism warning. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should be adequate that a few admins keep the article watchlisted for a while to see if anything more develops. I wouldn't make it into something bigger than what it is.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite honestly, not much that we can do besides reverting or protecting as required - if the IP persists, feel free to post at WP:AIV or WP:RFPP. —Dark 12:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth the controversial edit traces back to Serbian IP. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I didn't expect a police inquiry or anything; I just thought announcing someone will die on a day they're getting other death threats was worth flagging here. I'm fine with a warning instead of a block if the consensus is that that's all that's called for. Thanks to all who took a look. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mindhax (talk · contribs · count) threw a strop after I reverted his/her edit and is now acting uncivil. Please take further action. Thanks. Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs) 16:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You finally dropped a Welcome template on their page 4 minutes before posting here? If you're going to tell them they're breaking the rules, the least you could do is point them out (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to explain to the editor why his edits were unconstructive, but he/she then just threw personal attacks. Attempts to calm him down didn't work. Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs) 16:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a warning for being uncivil and am trying to talk to him in a polite way, also Insulam Simia and me both posted a welcomes, so he got welcomed 2 times. He is just removing every warning, comment and welcome. and as said above i tried to calm him down Redalert2fan (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just done the same, largely - explaining the why of what happened might help. The best bet, at this point, would be for both Mindhax and Insulam Simia to back away from each other and go do something else. The article can sit for a while. Maybe when things have calmed down, a meaningful discussion can be had - or, possibly, Mindhax may find another article that draws his/her interest. But the current exchanges serve no one. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to agree to that. Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs) 16:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ill agree with that to, although you should take a look at the last post on his talk page, he didn't quite understand it I think, he appears to still be a bit mad/irritated (which is understandably as stated by UltraExactZZ on his talk page). Redalert2fan (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After being warned to stop creating hoaxes and other factual errors (see previous ANI), User:Peruvian1004 added Álvaro Negredo to Manchester City F.C., diff but that player is not listed at http://www.mcfc.co.uk/Players. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The best I could find are that there are talks [76] going on. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

User Capt S D Wong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), admits here that he is either related to (though I think it is sarcasm) or is Sum ding wong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Sum ding wong was blocked for abusing multiple accounts in 2009. Aside for this, his comments at the first diff are awfully negative toward User:Baseball Bugs, and he may have a axe to grind given that he brought up a four-year-old post to AIV. His username(s) is a pun on "Some thing wrong", and in light of Asiana Airlines Flight 214, could be very insensitive. Contrary to his talk page, I don't think he is "here to improve the encyclopedia". Apologies if anything is out of order, this is my first post to AN/I to report someone. Chris857 (talk) 00:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for trolling. Tiptoety ^talk 01:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't normally interfere in others affairs, but I have to report User:Jphillips23 for consistently edit warring to the point of vandalism on the Big Five (banks) page. This user is using bullying tactics, making up false tales of consensus, and providing false references. 24.114.78.29 (talk) 02:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lgcsmasamiya has reviewed quite a few pages but seems to have problems with the basics of page curation. Their talk page content going back to December 2012 consists largely of messages that one or another page that they reviewed has been unreviewed. I discovered this after looking at the Page curation log and seeing several pages reviewed by this user with no tags added, checked them. I wound up adding linkrot tags to four, Taiwanese Presbyterian Church in Asuncion, 2013 New Mexico Lobos football team, I'm on Fire (mixtape), and Evangelical Methodist Church in Bolivia, (and more needed them) before going to put a friendly note on the user's talk page and seeing all the previous messages. Seems to be an issue of CIR, and the user hasn't improved over the last six months despite many messages. A block seems draconian, but I'm not sure how else to get their attention and limit the need for do-overs on the articles they've touched. JanetteDoe (talk) 04:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User notified. JanetteDoe (talk) 04:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is about user:Darkness Shines (DS):

(1) DS has accused me of hounding,[77]] he has called me disruptive[78], he is indulging in repeated base remarks: "I have already added a little about how the Hindu right wing extremists are afraid of babies, It seems the facists are unable to get it up enough to pop out as many kids as their Muslim counterparts, that has also been cited as a reason for the mass rapes during these incidents, they are actually afraid that Muslims are more virile, and the rapes are done to prove they are not, prety sick heh."[79] (2) When discussion was sought on DS's talk page regarding his remarks, he drove me away with the comments "I have >< that much interest in your opinions."[80] He disparaged me and my edit at DYK discussion as "waffle".[81] (2.a) I sought user:RegentsPark's (RP) third party mediation, there DS retorted: "YK I will say what I want, when I want, and were I want, and quite simply there is sweet fuck all you can do about"[82] (2.b) "Are you fucking shitting me?"[83] (3) DS says that certain pictures upset him, and that he has the right to use Wikipedia to express his disgust.[84] (4) He claims that his behaviour is appropriate and that Wikipedia is "NOTFUCKINGCENSORED". (uppercase in original) [85] (5) RP advised that I bring the matter here,[86] he censured DS for calling me disruptive,[87] however he said that he couldn't "block" DS in the matter as he was not allowed to do so by community consensus,[88] (6) Since the edits have occurred in ArbCom sanction areas and as DS is on the warning list, having put himself on it,[89] and considering that the sanction area requires higher standards of editing behaviour than other areas I request him to change his editing behaviour to comply to the standards as expressed in 8.1.1 and 8.1.3 to 8.1.5 of the decision. (7) I seek appropriate coercive measures to ensure the same. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

I forgot, the reason I said he was being disruptive was for these reasons, removing the views of one of the most prominent human rights activists working to get justice for the victims for the 02 Gujarat pogrom. [90] YK thinks she is only "incidental" source misrepresentation removes academically sourced content, YK seems to think it is "undue speculation " Suggesting that an article with 79 sources, be turned into a list And he is still at it BTW YK sseems to think that adding balancing content for NPOV is excessive detail, personally I find this disruptive. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]