It looks like your Arbcom case is picking up steam, so good luck with that. Sorry for the late response, busy weekend. Btw, I'm not an admin and cannot block you, I was merely pointing out the fact that making yourself a nuisance on ANI will lead to a block. Sædontalk20:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely ridiculous. I have been an editor in good standing since 2007 and have a completely clean block log with not a single warning in my history. For you to block for a one off comment on AN/I without simply discussing the problem with me first is ludicrous and outside normal WP practices. I should not be publicly embarrassed like this even if I did cross the line, as being a regular editor should afford me a bit of respect - as it usually does for most regulars. Beyond that, being that I was not engaged in further commenting your block does not prevent damage to the encyclopedia and by the language you used at AE it is clearly a punitive block. If this block is not lifted consider me gone from the project. As an aside, I have never as far as I know edited any pages related to scientology and this is the only time I've ever commented on it. Sædontalk20:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would chip in here and say that, actually, I agree with Saedon. His comment certainly crossed the line, but the crucial phrase in discretionary sanctions is "repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere". I can't see any evidence this is more than a one-off, and I wouldn't consider Saedon's comment (in isolation) problematic enough to justify a block without any prior warning or discussion. Ironholds (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your understanding Ironholds, I wouldn't mind at all if you'd exercise the bit and unblock me as you are within your rights to do since Sandstein blocked under normal administrative action and not as an arbitration enforcement. Otherwise I'd like to take this to AN/I for review by the community and will of course abide by what ever consensus develops there. Sædontalk20:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to offer Sandstein an opportunity to discuss the issue; if he doesn't take it up, or if he does but I don't find his explanation satisfactory, I'll either (a) fling it at AN/I or (b) unblock you and fling myself at the mercy of AN/I hahaha. AN/I. Mercy. Ironholds (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I am duty-bound to scold you for the regular editor comment, however; Sandstein's actions were (on their face) unconscionable regardless of the frequency or length of your editing tenure. We're all held to the same standards, newbie, regular and admin alike (or should be, at any rate). Let's see what he says. Ironholds (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the block is a bit worrisome on a couple of levels. The comment was blunt, but I'm curious as to the part that caused the block. It was a one off comment. Was it the "silly" part? The "cult" part? More than a few people have used Scientology and cult in the same sentence, although the context was admitted rude here. Regardless, I would support an unblock. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER20:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments as well, Dennis. I agree it was blunt and rude; I was having a bad night and this is very far out of my regular character. With that said, the idea that scientology is a cult, as you point out, is not new and has been published in multiple reliable sources, though I'm not sure if that's the part that was problematic. @Ironholds: I understand this point entirely in theory, but in practice it's generally a much different story. Nonetheless, scolding accepted. Now if we could just do something about the block... :) Sædontalk21:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since Sandstein doesn't seem to be editing at the moment would someone please be so kind as to file a block review at either AN or AN\I? I'd rather not ask either Dennis or Ironholds to step on Sandstein's toes so I'd like the community to review it. Thanks. Sædontalk21:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, if the community reviews it and comes to the same conclusion that I have - that it's an inappropriate block - I think it will lessen the "taint" factor on my account history. As you can imagine, having never been blocked before and then suddenly having that on your record is not a great feeling. Sædontalk21:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am responding here to the queries on my talk page and to the unblock request. The thinking behind the block was that personal attacks are forbidden by policy, and I consider personal attacks based on another person's religious (or similar) beliefs, or on other personal characteristics such as race or nationality, especially reprehensible. That the particular system of belief at issue here is Scientology, which does in my view have many questionable aspects (as do other religions or philosophies), is not important: In an international collaborative project, all must treat each other with respect no matter what one's opinions about the other's faith are, or whether it is a minority or mainstream faith. Certainly it is not forbidden to express negative views about Scientology or other faiths (although doing so is a bit beside the point of Wikipedia generally, which is a project for whose purpose our own opinions are irrelevant, and certainly beside the point of ANI or AE). But it is beyond the pale to phrase one's disapproval of a faith as disapproval of a fellow editor who adheres to that faith. If you have difficulty understanding why that is so, it may help to rephrase Saedon's statement by substituting a more mainstream faith for Scientology, in which case the comment would read: "But let's be direct here: Islam is a ridiculous cult and we do not need members of said cult to build our articles on the subject."
That Saedon (with whom I was not previously acquainted) is a veteran user is a point in their disfavor, because I would have expected them to know better. In particular, I would not have expected an experienced user to behave similarly in a thread that is especially about the case in which the Arbitration Committee imposed discretionary sanctions in response to frequent misconduct in the Scientology topic area. I would have only warned a newbie, but I am not normally warning editors who can be expected to be familiar with our conduct policies. No editor should expect to be only warned for serious misconduct: the blocking policy provides that "warnings are not a prerequisite for blocking".
The policy further provides that blocks should be preventative in that they "deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior; and encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms" (WP:BLOCK#DETERRENT). Because the above comments (and especially the unblock request that begins with the words "Absolutely ridiculous") do not indicate, to me, a real understanding on Saedon's part of how disruptive their comments were, I am of the view that the block continues to be necessary for these preventative purposes, and decline to lift it at this time. Sandstein 21:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I don't find this convincing. You are arguing that the block was justified on a preventative basis based on comments that Saedon had made after the block was made. Can you please point to evidence that he would continue to be disruptive that pre-dates your blocking action? Ironholds (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is necessary to look for such evidence, as the unblock request above indicates that Saedon believes that their status as an experienced editor should afford them a significant degree of protection against sanctions for disruptive conduct. This mistaken assumption (if anything, the opposite holds true) makes future misconduct more likely, especially if it is proven true by way of an unblock. Sandstein 22:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that my status as a regular editor in good standing affords me the right to a discussion and/or a warning, not that I can act with impunity. If you had simply dropped by my talk page and said "hey, you were over the line, please remove your comment" then I would have done so. Sædontalk22:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I disagree. I believe that regular editors should expect fewer warnings, not more, as they ought not to need warnings. But I recognize that this view may not be in the majority, so on that basis community review may be helpful. Sandstein 22:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the further explanation. Obviously you and I are at an impasse then and I ask that you (or someone else) ask for community input at AN or /I. I think you are misusing the spirit of "preventative, not punitive," as when you consider the totality of my history you can inductively infer that the majority of my time in the future will not be spent making similar comments. Sædontalk22:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I infer nothing of the sort. I simply conclude that in view of your statements, the block will reduce the likelihood of similar misconduct by you and possibly others in the future, whereas an unblock would not. I see no grounds on which I should ask for community comments. I recommend that you read WP:GAB and reconsider your approach to this discussion. Sandstein 22:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. As I mentioned before, if the community thinks my actions are deserving of a block (and not an unblock) then I'll take my licks, but I have faith the community will see this block in the same light as myself, you, and Dennis. Sædontalk22:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, please link to this discussion, as I need to leave now and I don't think I have much else to say about this matter. Sandstein 22:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To me, an editor with a long history but no problems deserves a warning first. Had he not disengaged, that would be fine, but blocking for a singular lapse of judgement when opining on on a philosophy still seems harsh to be used as the sanction of first resort. Using a block as a deterrent is generally not an accepted way to deal with one off issues that could be handled (or attempted to handle) with discussion first. There is no pattern to deter. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER22:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Deterrence does not necessarily require a pattern of conduct; this incident is serious enough that it merits a block on its own. The approach you describe is certainly a valid one, but I am of the view that a warning would not have had the required preventative effect. Sandstein 22:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But deterrence automatically implies that there is a likelihood that the behavior will continue or repeat, and with a user with zero history of behavioral problems, and the problem is a singular statement, that is too much assumption. His reaction to a warning might have provided enough information to determine if deterrence was really needed. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER23:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a question primarily for User:Sandstein but it belongs with the above discussion. When POV-pushers advance, say, a pro-homeopathy agenda, there is a risk that other editors will describe those theories in derogatory terms on Talk pages, or on noticeboards to explain to other editors what is happening. As Wikipedia gets more academics contributing, this may well get more of an issue, since there is no shortage of credentialled medical experts who are used to denouncing homeopathy or similar theories as not just wrong but absurd or dangerous. While you and I don't approve of venting or ranting on Talk or project pages for any purpose, we have to accept this is going to happen in some proportion of cases. Is the appropriate response to classify these remarks along with personal attacks on a user's "personal characteristics such as race or nationality"? If you think that this is a poor analogy for Scientology, bear in mind that Scientology believers regard the tenets as borne out by scientific research. This isn't a Socratic or sarcastic question: there's a meaty issue here on which rational people can differ, but I'm interested in how you think we should make the call. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would someone please note in the AN/I that I understand that my status as a regular does not allow to act with impunity, only that it should afford me a discussion? I did not word that well in my unblock request and do not want people to think that I think I am "above the law," or so to speak. Sædontalk22:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for handling this entire sequence of events in good spirit, in good faith and with a positive attitude. Anyone can be reasonable when things are going their way, but it is during times of adversity that we find out what kind of character we have, and the way you handled yourself at ANI after the block was lifted demonstrates you are a person of good character. We all make mistakes, it is part of the human condition, and I'm glad to see you wanting to move on in a positive way. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER23:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That means a lot coming from you as for as long as I've seen your name around here it's always been next to a thoughtful comment. Thanks again. NoformationTalk23:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Civility Barnstar
I've been following the DRG55 situation for months and I'm sorry to see that you got caught up in the maelstrom. Your response to an unfair block exemplifies civility. Andrew32713:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Andrew. Though the irony of receiving a civility barnstar due to my conduct post block when I was blocked for a civility violation is certainly not lost on me :) NoformationTalk23:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, fair enough, but civility isn't sainthood. It just means that you handled the resulting situation extremely well. Andrew32706:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FYI
Hi. You don't know me, but I mentioned your block here. Just saying, because I thought you might not get the usual Echo notification, with having changed your account name so recently. Best wishes, happy editing. Bishonen | talk23:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
