Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bbb23 (talk | contribs) at 01:13, 13 July 2013 (→Request for Article Page Ban for Binksternet for Consistent Inappropriate Edits on the Mitsuo Fuchida Page: blocked). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Topic ban appeal

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose per lack of any particularly convincing reason to do so. I see no evidence that undoing the topic ban would benefit the encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support The reasons given for the ban are a previous EW block, a comment confessing his own biases, and a bad faith assumption (by the ban imposing admin) that an RFC is "abusive". None of these things justify a topic ban, and the bad faith assumption by itself would make me question it's legitimacy. Arkon (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: The topic ban was necessary to put a stop to long-term disruptive and tendentious editing on that article by an editor who disregarded policy and consensus that certainly would have continued had the topic ban not been imposed. I see no credible reason to lift it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. If a topic ban is so grossly out of line as to justify an appeal 48 hours later, I'll undo it myself. That's not the case here, though. The best and simplest way to get out of a topic ban is through compliance with it for a time. Stay away from the topic for a few weeks (at least!) before appealing. Piling up a series of good and reasonable edits in other areas would tell me that you're willing to work within policy, and makes the decision to lift the topic ban that much simpler. Plus, honestly, some time away from the article might be beneficial, long term. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 14:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I consider compliance with the topic ban, for its full term, to be a prerequisite for any sort of continued Misplaced Pages contributions by William Jockusch. If this disruptive editor cannot cool his heels for three months before resuming his work on the topic, then an indefinite block or a full community ban is the next step. Binksternet (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• OP comment Do any of the Oppose commenters want to defend the assertion that my RfC was against a consensus? As I understand it, the basis for the topic ban was, to quote the denial of my appeal on my topic page, "there's no reason to go to any further dispute resolution if a consensus has been reached". So, was there, or was there not, a consensus in favor of the material?William Jockusch (talk) 04:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Long term incivility from User:BrandonTR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's try this again

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

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

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

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

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

A casual reading of these threads will reveal that critics of the Warren Commission like myself are often denigrated as being on a par with those who believe in alien abduction, lizard people, or something else way out there. That response is precisely what Gamaliel is talking about. While Brandon says that Gamaliel needs to get a thicker skin like me, that's not really the point. The point is that every time someone takes issue with an edit of his, Brandon, that is, he shoots back with some paranoid line like that. And, despite his characterization that me and others are "censoring" Warren Commission critics, the usual truth is that Brandon either has posted material which doesn't apply, is factually wrong, goes against the consensus without any attempt to engage editors beforehand, or is simply irrelevant. I could cite many examples, but this is Gamaliel's complaint, not mine and I want to avoid the bogged-down back-and-forth as per the above. Canada Jack (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sandstein (talk · contribs) is currently abusing his admin powers against users who have been querying his actions. Both User:The Devil's Advocate and I have made polite queries about one of his actions. . His response to questioning his decision-making has been to immediately issue WP:AE warnings. 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 Misplaced Pages by abusing his powers.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What it says at the top of this thread is this: Sandstein (talk · contribs) is currently abusing his admin powers against users who have been querying his actions. Both User:The Devil's Advocate and I have made polite queries about one of his actions. . His response to questioning his decision-making has been to immediately issue AE warnings. 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 Misplaced Pages by abusing his powers.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC) For the avoidance of doubt, AE warning = ARBSCI warning. Andreas JN466 00:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

• My understanding is that Sandstein is sanctioning people for linking to an existing prior AN/I thread, and publicly viewable arbitration case pages. I am sorry, do we have no-go areas on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. Andreas JN466 23:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Sandstein's actions here have been seriously inappropriate, but clearly do not warrant blocking. For an admin to impose sanctions in response to what appears to be good faith, reasonably based criticism of their actions certainly seems contrary to the policy concerns underlying WP:INVOLVED. To insist on a rigid and unyielding application of WP:OUTING, in circumstances where the goals of the policy cannot be well-served by doing so, is unwise, disruptive, and ultimately destructive to the fabric of this community. It is clear that the community has rejected the notion that only voluntary, on-Misplaced Pages, never-removed self-identification can justify conduct that would otherwise be WP:OUTING. Qworty never self-identified on Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages purposes. Sandstein should undo their recent round of sanctions and recuse from this general dispute, construed with some breadth. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  AE is not a creature of WP:ARBCOM, it's a self-selecting WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of editors, most of whom happen to have the admin bit, who want to run WP:ANI with fewer checks and balances, specifically focused on the outcome of WP:RFARB cases (except where they inevitably scope-creep it to include more and more authority), and pretend that it's somehow magically immune to any form of community watchdogging or dispute resolution. It's Misplaced Pages'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⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 09:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Oppose. You don't block an admin just because some or all of the community disagrees with the admin's interpretation and exercise of policy (especially when it hasn't even been determined that there is a community consensus yet one way or the other). This is especially true when the said admin has not demonstrated any unwillingness to follow the community consensus. In fact, Sandstein has shown good faith by trying to explain in detail his understanding of the policy, and has gone farther by requesting clarification in a neutral manner from the ArbCom about how they interpret their discretionary sanctions to be applied - which shows that Sandstein is aware that some members of the community disaree with his interpretation and that a clarification is needed before further decisions are made. This is all what we expect an admin to do in a situation like this. Blocking Sandstein in these circumstances is a patently ridiculous suggestion. Singularity42 (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: Blocking would be too drastic. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support. If only Sandstein were just employing a "gun-toting sheriff" model, as someone called it. It's a Judge Dredd "I am the law!", judge-jury-and-executioner model, as my fate at his hands amply demonstrates (I cover this in more detail in a subsection later). This new case is just part of a long-standing, to-hell-with-the-consequences attitude of superiority and trigger-happy abuse of adminship on Sandstein's part. Overturning the sanctions? Definitely. Blocking? Given the damage Sandstein's been doing, it's about time, but I doubt ANI would ever go that far (when's the last time ANI ever took any non-wrist-slap action against any admin at all?). RFC/U? Pointless and toothless. RFARB? By all means, but who has time for that legalistic morass that almost always sides with admins and against non-admins anyway? Short of desysoping, some kind of defanging is seriously in order, like a topic-ban from banning, blocking, warning or otherwise sanctioning any other editors for any reason for a year, perhaps, including administrative participation in AE and AN/ANI where he does the most harm; there are lots of far less destructive and antagonistic things someone can do with administrator privileges, that are better suited to restraining Sandstein's aggressive, repressive behavior pattern. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 09:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

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

  So is trying to hide behind bogus privacy issues that don't really exist in this case. It's like corporate trade secret, or an elected official's sexual affair – when the secret is out, it's just not a secret any more; the information genie does not go back in the bottle, sorry. Don't treat Misplaced Pages'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⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 09:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

• Oppose I've disagreed with Sandstein on occasions before. But disagreement is not a reason to take action against, certainly not at this level. I see nothing here to warrant such actions.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages today.  Sandstein  06:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The very fact that you can not define the method for overturning the appeal by fellow admin reinforces the reasons why this is an exceptional tool, and not an ordinary one. I would also remind you that "Best practice includes seeking additional input prior to applying a novel sanction or when a reasonable, uninvolved editor may question whether the sanction is within the scope of the relevant case;" 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 Misplaced Pages policy. Compare it to "exigent circumstances", which doesn't void the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, it only provides an exception where there is a clear and obvious need to bypass the checks and balances built into the system. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clarification request

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

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

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

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

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

Support

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

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

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

    My topic ban was made by Sandstein wildly un-recusing himself (has anyone else ever done that?!?), after recusing himself because too many others kept clearly said he was too personally involved; he just couldn't resist sticking it to me himself, after harassing me for two months. There wasn't even anything like a consensus for such an action against me; one of the few who suggested something along these lines said I had gone "too far" in successfully reporting a repeat topic-ban violation by someone else, at AE (i.e., other admins agreed with me that the user in question was being disruptive in direct violation of a topic ban after innumerable warnings and second, third, etc., chances, and the user was - get this - violating his topic ban specifically to disrupt AE of all places with personal attacks in a case that didn't involve him, just to personally pick a bone with me; I guess he found a friend in Sandstein). So, just to shut me up and make an illegitimate might-makes-right WP:POINT, I was punished, personally, vindictively, seemingly obsessively, by Sandstein for properly using Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 09:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

16. Support I probably would also support the other matters listed by SMcCandish as he has a track record of harsh and idiosyncratic use of his powers and of not being receptive to questioning of his judgment.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
17. Support - The user self-identified and self-linked accounts on wiki. Bells can not be unrung, nor virginity restored. No actual outing = No warnings. Carrite (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
18. Support - I regret this because I have seen a lot of sensible and well-communicated activity from Sandstein in the past (and with some legal background understand some of the perspectives adopted by Sandstein), but began to question Sandstein's judgment on the hit a gnat with an anvil approach adopted to SMcCandlish for no discernable (or certainly no convincing) reason. I am not familiar with action to Noetica, Neotarf and OhConfucius - but am surprised with those editors that action of any kind be deemed necessary, raising another question mark. Even if Sandstein's interpretations of his remit are 100% correct there is also an onus to be able and willing to clearly explain rather than simply edict. Without these cases doubt I would comment on this new case - the warning to relation to User:Peter cohen's question in particular looks at best "idiosyncratic" and at worst capricious. The sanction on Devil's Advocate likewise. These should be revoked on the merits of the case. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
19. support re-outing is perhaps the most asinine rule in WP, one must use the mythical unsend key. anyone who has ever been out-ed has but one choice, make a new account. closing the gate after all the horses are out then expecting to ride into anonymousville at first light is naive. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11. This is clearly a case where an attempt to shut down drama mongering has backfired. This happens. The intent of the warnings and block are sound. The outcome is unfortunate, but it's not clear what the best route is from here. I don't see overturning anything as doing anything more than enabling the drama mongers. aprock (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
12. The warnings are justified, and that one of the supports for vacation includes the line "My topic ban from Sandstein should also be vacated" shows what a laughable farce this is. Please grind your axes elsewhere, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
13. I tend to agree with Wolfie, seems like a lot of grudges on display here. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
14. Per my comments above and with the caveat on the ban below in the comments section. --regentspark (comment) 19:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee’s discretionary sanctions system.

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

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

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

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

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

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

First discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• User:FergusM1970
• User:Usmanwardag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Second discussion

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

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

User:RKC Vakwai logo uploads

In reviewing potential images for Commons I've noted a number of images by this uploader which are claimed as own work, but which are clearly logos of another entity. I have been tagging these as "no evidence of permission', The uploader hasn't responded, despite the warnings and at least 2 requests for further information on their talk page by others.

I am therefore asking for a second opinion from the admins. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

(clerical note) Uploader informed of this disscusion Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Pretty obvious the images are not free and the editor doesn't have an understanding of our copyright policy. But I don't think the editor is deliberately being disruptive, just has an unclear understanding of copyright. Should probably tag the useful logos (the ones used in the articles for the football clubs) with {{Non-free use rationale logo}}. I'll pop a note on the editor's talk page about this. —Dark 12:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Edits to Politicians page Steve_Kent_(politician) from opposition supporters and might have violated revert rule

Firstly I apologise if I have violated any rules, it was unintentional, especially the revert rule, but this is my first time seeing this issue. The issues related to flurry if edits to Steve_Kent_(politician) which began last Friday when the local media whipped the public into a frenzy about a Leadership Race with an opposing political party. Various IP (68.171.231.82, 99.241.108.174) have been making Politically motivated anonymous changes to the page.

I am looking for assistance to stop these edit wars and allow the page to remain an unbiased as possible which it was before 5th July.

Hopefully a temporary measure will allow others to become distracted by other things, so that they will move on.

Thanks for your review. Canbrit01 (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Kevin Dewayne Hughes

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

I'm about to logoff; but spotted Kevin Dewayne Hughes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which to me has some questionable content. The primary ref used is something called "Bugeisha Shimbun" which I can't locate any mention of anywhere as existing; and the first couple external links are Facebook pages. On the other hand, the patent mention and some other technical write-ups appear to be potentially good source docs. At the very least, the article needs considerable cleanup - although after purging the questionable content, I'm not sure enough would remain to still meet WP:BIO. It also appears that several of the editors are only involved in that one article - so there's a chance the article is the result of some sort of class project.

I may be back online this evening - although it's more likely I won't be able to get back until after the weekend. So, I wanted to mention it here so that someone with more time might be able to review the article a bit more fully to verify/clean-up the content, or if needed, to prod it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Could it be "財界芸者新聞" or just "芸者新聞"? But I don't know because there are a few ways to render "Bugeisha" one... I also see mentions for a small martial arts magazine which is the most likely candidate here. Given the scope I am very certain that this is the link, but have no way to verify it. I think the "Shimbun" / Newspaper is actually incorrect referencing here. I don't think it is malicious or a hoax, but quite a few papers (newspapers being key) are "Shimbun" which literally means "newspaper" and contains the characters "新聞". The lack of those characters means an error on the editor. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the magazine ended in 1998. So its not this one. Ask the editor maybe? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you guys really discussing just an articles content (not even seems to be a dispute yet) in ANI?  A m i t  ❤  04:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Offsite outing

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

I have become aware of an apparent off-site outing incident and am going to report this here as neutrally as possible and then step back; I have had a mild real world connection with parties involved and hereby declare a conflict of interest in any administrative action.

here (offsite link) the Editor in Chief of a widely read automobile news website The Truth About Cars posts describing a series of IP edits to the wikipedia article on the website by IP editor 76.20.240.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who he alleges is a former writer for that website who resigned in the recent past. The IP geolocates to the general area of the United States of the former website writer, but I have no other specific information as to whether they are or are not the IP editor.

The Editor in Chief is a long-term pseudonymous editor in good standing on Misplaced Pages, who has described his account and edits on the website, but has not disclosed his account name. I am going to decline to name (out) the Editor in Chief's account, though others can probably figure it out from his own description. Please don't post it here, as doing so would itself constitute outing. As far as I can tell he has not outed anyone on-wiki. If required I will name the account in email, to uninvolved admins investigating, if they contact me in private.

It appears that the article identification constitutes outing the alleged real world identity of the IP editor. This appears to violate WP:OUTING , part of the official WP Harassment policy.

I leave this to other uninvolved admins to review, determine if actionable violations of policy happened, and follow up with any responses. I have notified the Editor in Chief in email (I hope; the other email I sent directly bounced but hopefully the Misplaced Pages account email went through) and am not going to tag his account with the ANI notice to preserve his identity for the time being.

I apologize for the weird constraints; I don't know how else to do this given the outing policy and specifics. It does not seem to rise to the level of something to pass to Arbcom directly, though if consensus here is to do so I will happily email specifics over there.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yo dawg, I heard you like outing Misplaced Pages editors so we outed a Misplaced Pages editor who was outing a Misplaced Pages editor so you can out Misplaced Pages editors while they out Misplaced Pages editors dawg.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a typical off-wiki attack with a slight complication - how does an admin take action without outing the editor in question? and there wont be any one to prevent the IP editor from writing a similar article in a blog or something off-wiki once an action is taken  A m i t  ❤  04:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• The IP's insertion of the information into the TTAC article has been removed, as it is not reliably sourced and quite honestly, does not belong in the article. Since when does the resignation of a single employee (which has 0 coverage outside of a blog post) belong in the company's article? Nothing really should be done about the "outings", however unprofessional the parties have decided to act, it really has nothing to do with us. The editor-in-chief alleges that an IP with like 3 edits is a former employee of the business, without much proof and not even on-wiki. Can't really do much about that. Regardless, if the IP continues to add unreliably sourced and irrelevant information, he will be warned appropriately and blocked if he continues to persist. The editor in chief seems reasonably informed about COI, so I don't anticipate any problems with him either. Open and shut case, really. —Dark 07:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I have to agree; while not in the best of faith, there's really nothing that can, or should, be done here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Requesting topic ban for User:BobFilner from the article Bob Filner

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

A newly registered editor, User:BobFilner (who is obviously not the real Bob Filner) has repeatedly added negative unsourced material to the article about San Diego mayor Bob Filner. They started small but then began adding huge sections of text obviously copied from somewhere else and re-adding the sections when reverted . I can't keep up with them. Please deal with this BLP vandal promptly. Thank you. --MelanieN (talk) 06:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Indef blocked. User had stopped editing, but as MelanieN wrote, obvious WP:IMPERSONATE username violation. Please do correct this if I have made an error. Peter in Australia aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Post-close comment: I'm 99.94% sure I'm not the only person who saw this and immediately thought, "MelanieN, you're an admin, why don't you fix this yourself?", and then a split second later thought "MelanieN's not an admin? What the..?" --Shirt58 (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Malicious merge proposal by a sockpuppet

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

I request that this merger proposal be speedily closed with the decision "Rejected". I believe that this is a malicious proposal by a banned editor. The rational is as follows:

Martinvl (talk) 06:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Moved to Request for closure noticeboard. Martinvl (talk) 07:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Vandal Block please

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

Can someone block it please? Thanks, ★★RetroLord★★ 16:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Thanks, ★★RetroLord★★ 16:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

User Tmcfootball96

User:Tmcfootball96 appears to have a history of unproductive edits and vandalism per User talk:Tmcfootball96 talk page. Most recently, this edit at Geno DeMarco. I'm an admin, but I've also edited this article some. Please consider me neutral on the matter and that this is merely a notice to other admins that may take any action as they see necessary.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism by numerous IP and IPv6 addresses

The IP addresses 70.215.11.16 and 70.215.2.220, as well as numerous IPv6 addresses, all within 2600:1000:b100::/42, have been mass-blanking pages. Some of them have already been blocked, but I think a rangeblock is in order. --71.199.125.210 (talk) 19:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It is. Elockid is on it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this has been happening for a couple of days. Will keep an eye out. Elockid 19:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Copy-pastes from innovations.ahrq.gov

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

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

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

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

User:JacksfilmsisWhore2

Could an admin remove this user's talk page access? This user has been posting attack comments on there, such as this, and abusing it in general since being blocked. Thanks. Lugia2453 (talk) 22:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Just did. —C.Fred (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Restoring a missing user preference (VisualEditor)

According to bugzilla:

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

1. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2013/07/05/nl-paul-antle-liberal-leadership-705.html
2. http://www.thetelegram.com/News/Local/2013-07-06/article-3303663/Antle-to-outline-his-platform-next-week---Fifth-and-last-candidate-to-sign-up/1

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards