User talk:Dronkle/Archives/2013/July

Arbitration enforcement warning: WP:ARBSCI

This is in reply to your message on my talk page. I repeat what I already told another user, as it applies to you likewise:

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

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

As you are aware, I indefinitely blocked a user who is topic-banned from Scientology for disruption. That user misused an appeal of their ban for repeatedly and unnecessarily posting claims about the real-life identity of another user who is apparently also heavily involved in editing Scientology-related topics. In response, I indefinitely blocked the appellant for WP:OUTING and requested that their edits at issue be oversighted, which they were.

It is evident from the circumstances that the user in question does not wish their identity to be made public (which is entirely understandable considering the topic area they edit in). Under these circumstances, continuing to post their alleged name on-wiki, especially for no useful purpose, constitutes severe harassment. As the closer of an archived noticeboard discussion you linked to noted: "Intentionally bringing up that old name doesn't benefit anyone or the encyclopedia, and so it should be avoided". Whether or not the username may be indirectly linkable to a real name by some complicated chain of logical connections between old Wikipedia pages is immaterial. Please review particularly the parts of the policy WP:OUTING that provide: "If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia" and "If the previously posted information has been removed by oversight, then repeating it on Wikipedia is considered outing."

It is also immaterial whether another user who published the name in 2012 was then found in the same community discussion to be engaged in outing or not: It is certainly harassment now to repeatedly and unnecessarily, in spite of administrator warnings, post the alleged identity of a user who wishes to remain anonymous. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and editors must treat each other with respect. Breaching another editor's privacy just to spite them, based on the argument that doing so is not outing because of convoluted technicalities, is disruptive harassment and must not be tolerated. Finally, the user who I blocked is aware of how to appeal the block, and your interference serves no useful purpose.

Your insistence on bringing this matter up potentially furthers the harassment I described above, or facilitates future similar harrassment by others by providing links to pages that may contain personally identifying material. It may also signal your intention to support or encourage such harassment of that editor or other editors involved in editing Scientology-related topics. For these reasons, I am warning you to desist from any further involvement in discussions related to the matter of the identity of the editor at issue here, or from any other misconduct related to Scientology. If you disregard this warning, you may be made subject to discretionary sanctions as indicated above.  Sandstein  18:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:ARCA#Clarification request: Scientology

Hello. I have initiated a request for clarification by the Arbitration Committee that may interest or involve you on the page linked to above.  Sandstein  22:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

You may want to change your comment as it suggests Prioryman operates multiple accounts. As far as I know, he only has the one he is using currently and the one he had previously.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Um, I think your comment still reads as if you are suggesting that he operates accounts other than his Prioryman account. What exactly are you trying to say there?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I thought that there were a couple of names after the reincarnation before settling on the current one? Wasn't there Returned User or something?

His first account might have been renamed briefly to "Vanished User" as he had supposedly invoked his "right to vanish" during the climate change case. I don't think there was any other account.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I think there might have been one other name too during the transition between the two major account names but I can't recall what it might have been. If anyone chooses to challenge my wording, I can explain but, as I haven't claimed socking and no one has challenged it on the page, then I think it's simplest to let things be. The issue at hand is Sandstein and his use of his tools, not Prioryman and I hope that people will avoid complicating things by mentioning his surname in the Arbcom discussion.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I looked a bit and see what you mean. Well, I am not too surprised.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Question

Hi peter, don't you think that this comment "I get the impression that that individual is here to fight a propaganda war rather than to build an encyclopedia." applies to your friend nableeze more than to any other user? I mean even now when there's revolution is taking place in his country of origin nableeze is busy smearing Israel, and did not even bother to respond a question about Egypt posted to his talk page. So is nableeze here to fight a propaganda war? 94.76.244.157 (talk) 01:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)