Misplaced Pages

talk:Wikiblower protection: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:19, 14 August 2005 editNickptar (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,040 edits The Policy Violation← Previous edit Revision as of 18:25, 14 August 2005 edit undoBenjamin Gatti (talk | contribs)2,835 edits The Policy ViolationNext edit →
Line 154: Line 154:


:Point taken. However, the vote, even if it carries no weight in and of itself, has demonstrated an overwhelming community consensus that '''this policy blows'''. If people thought it might work well with modifications, they would have proposed them; evidently nobody thinks this policy is worthwhile in any form. ~~ ''']''' (]/]) 18:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC) :Point taken. However, the vote, even if it carries no weight in and of itself, has demonstrated an overwhelming community consensus that '''this policy blows'''. If people thought it might work well with modifications, they would have proposed them; evidently nobody thinks this policy is worthwhile in any form. ~~ ''']''' (]/]) 18:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

::I believe the rational thing to do if one objects to a policy is to counter proposal and even more rational alternative. The only Counter-proposal thus far has been WK:IAR which is but a restatement of the definition of anarchy. In the absence of policy by consensus (which a VfD ensures - as does voting DOWN a rational proposal rather than improving it) one garentees arbitrary responses to the same behavior based on the popularity of the people involved. This will lead invariably to popular opinions and therefore the people who hold them being promoted at the expense of unpopular opinions and their proponents. That is a state inseperable from Book Burning. ]

Revision as of 18:25, 14 August 2005

Vote on policy

For the current policy voting see: Misplaced Pages talk:Wikiblower protection/Voting

Placement

I see that Radiant! has blanked this page and moved the contents to Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikiblower protection, for no intelligible reason since it was transcluded on VfD anyway. Anyway, I have restored it as a transclusion from VfD to here, which I can't imagine any objection to. A pity that we have to continue to involve the VfD process at all, however. Backwards compatibility, such a pain. -- Visviva 11:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry to hear that you cannot comprehend my reasons. However, it would help if this page had a reason to it other than being a personal attack to Ed Poor. Radiant_>|< 11:24, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • While some may use it to flog, it is intended to define a fair rule under which certain acts may be protected which applies equally to all people. The current case appears to be that of the hypocritical heirarchy - or "Do as I say and not as I do." What must be reconized, is that all rules ought to be broken when breaking those rules defends the project or in other ways does more good than harm - and the priveledge and protections ought to extend on the basis of the circumstance - to everyone equally - rather than merely having an unwritten rule in which some people (ie Uncle Ed) are granted license to ignore the rules, while others are regularly pummelled for the same thing on the basis of their personhood. This is an immoral double standard - and Wikiblower protection is an effort to recognize and allow for the need, while maintaining a set of universal standards of behavior. If the admins cannot create a set of rules that they can live by - why the bloody hell should anyone else? Benjamin Gatti
  • Please read WP:IAR and WP:POINT. People should always be prepared to stand by the consequences of their actions. The very idea of the Wiki is, and has always been, that you can do whatever you like as long as it's for the good of the encyclopedia. The tricky part is that anyone may be wrong in what they perceive to be good. If anyone's actions turn out to run counter to consensus, they will be halted. And possibly, censured, as has happened here. Anything else is just icing the cake, and there's no need (or even possibility, since it would be oxymoronic) to formalize it. Radiant_>|< 13:37, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Move?

I wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea to move this to Misplaced Pages:Wikiblower, and expand the definition and examples of the term, also explaining why it is likely to be contentious. -- Visviva 11:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I think you should merge this with WP:IAR. The principle is exactly the same, but the way you've written this it's open to abuse by newbies who think they can ignore rules to do whatever. Radiant_>|< 12:08, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • Nothing should be merged with Ignore all rules its not a policy, its merely a opiate for the masses. If you haven't got brains enought to deal with rules - relax - you're probably not a problem anyway? It has no point and no metric for being equally applied. The purpose of Wikiprotection is to have a rule which can be applied for one and all. Experienced wikipedians will have the benefit of sensing where the harm/benefit line is, and will probably have better outcomes than newbies, but the policy itself is not a reincarnation of the hypocritical hierarchy. Benjamin Gatti
      • You should read who supports WP:IAR. I believe you're either fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of the wiki, or you're making a WP:POINT. Radiant_>|< 08:34, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Text move

However, Wikiblower protection was not extended to him, and he was temporarily blocked for violating WP:POINT

Because this blocking was not done by process of consensus or process - it is not encyclopedic - if the arbcom rejects the argument - that would be different. Benjamin Gatti

  • What precisely is your point in writing this? That people should be able to get away with anything as long as it brings the community's attention to some perceived wrong? That is entirely wrong - there are plenty of ways to get attention. Radiant_>|< 13:33, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • The point is to present a ration defense for Ed Poor's recent actions (and similar cases) which are based on the preciple of a mono-standard that is a set of rulez in which every person's actions are held to a single standard. It is not to suggest that anything is incouraged. it is to present the age-old concept of porportionality - that is the benefit vs. the harm, and realize that extraordinary actions are often as necessary as they are verboten. We could for example make the Martyr argument, that Ed should die for his belief in order to protect the rule of law (Which requires that even rulemakes be held to the same standard) - or we recognize and codefy the circumstances (not the people) under which violations serve a higher purpose. The question as I see it - ought to be - Did the act have a benefit equal or higher than the harm caused? - and not "Who did this dastardly thing - oh - it was Ed - well, that changes everything." Benjamin Gatti
    • I'm pretty sure that Ed Poor, one of our longest-running users, doesn't need you to protect him. Radiant_>|< 08:36, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

LOL, a "one minute block" while I was away from my computer? Get real, Ben!

I understand "higher purpose" but your "whistleblower protection" just muddies the water. I'm going to ignore this proposal and hope it just goes away. Uncle Ed 11:24, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Text Move

Extending Wikiblower protection relies on assuming good faith that the conduct was intended to help resolve problems that the community was unable to address by normal means. Because editors may disagree with this assumption, calls for Wikiblower protection are likely to be contentious.

A very interesting opinion, but I think not the substance of Policy. Benjamin Gatti

This policy is badly named

"Wikiblowing" is nothing like whistleblowing. Whistleblowing is stating the truth about a conspiracy or the like, and deserves protection, but it's solely speech. What this policy describes is disruptive behavior that hurts Misplaced Pages and ultimately is nonproductive for any purpose other than inciting controversy. Even if there is sometimes an excuse for making a WP:POINT, I think those cases will be obvious, making this instruction creep. ~~ N (t/c) 01:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

... and rather silly, too

I just now came across this page, and it just makes me laugh. I don't know what Ben made it for, but it's not going to make me more partial to his POV on nuclear power plant indemnity legislation. I wish he would just blank the page, himself. (I'm tempted to "shoot on sight", but that would be taking the can of worms, turning it upside down, and shaking it vigorously so that every last one of the consarned, wriggly little varmints would spill out onto the floor. Yecch! ;-)

Ben, thanks - but no, thanks. Get my drift? Uncle Ed 02:44, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ed. Well I hope that it won't make you partial either way - that would be a poor mediator. I made it because I think there ought to be a fair rule rather than an elite rule in dealing with Breaching Experiments - which I'm rather inclined to endulge in myself from time to time. If you're going to rock the boat, i'll support rational rocking on the basis of a fair rule - but I won't support elitist rocking on the basis of priveledge. Proportionality is the measure of such things - or should be. Benjamin Gatti
My view is that neither the ordinary editor nor the "elite", "old-timer" admin should rock the boat with out-of-process deletions, and that anyone who does so should be appropriately sanctioned. That is a fair rule, i think. DES 21:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

More silliness

I don't know which is sillier - this page, or the VfD, or the VfD of the VfD. I nearly busted a gut laughing when I saw what was going on. On a more serious note, the VfD is completely off-base; something like this doesn't need to be deleted - it needs to be displayed, proudly paraded for the absolutely asinine proposal it is, then summarily voted down, taken out again and pantsed in front of the whole community. A complete waste of time. --khaosworks 02:58, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. This is why breaching experiments are probably a bad idea - they lead to complete insanity on all sides. Let's be civilized, please, and not ignore all rules. ~~ N (t/c) 03:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • We could WP:BJAODN the entire proposal and all related pages :) Radiant_>|< 08:36, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good. NEVER AGAIN. ~~ N (t/c) 22:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

excessive tranclusion

Sections seem to be being transcluded all over the place, for no obvious reason, leading to what seems to be three different voting sections that are forks of a single section, but soem of which do not inlcude all the votes cast. Re merge this to a simpler page design with far less transclusion, please. DES 21:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Serious problem in Arguments section

"Generally, those opposed to fair rules like Wikiblower protection"... POV, anybody? First off, I think I speak for a great number of the people opposed to this proposal when I say that we do not consider it fair at all. Furthermore, to label us as "openly or tacitly" supporting an "unfair alternative which imposes major sanctions for minor Wikipedians and minor sanctions for major wikipedians for similar violations of Misplaced Pages:Policy" is misleading. At least in my case, I oppose this policy but support a fair alternative that's not mentioned: major sanctions for everyone. I, and I believe at least some others agree with me, oppose "wikiblower protection" not because I believe some people deserve to get off lightly, but because I believe that there is no such thing as an "act of constructive boldness in violation of policy;" that "the suspension of the normal rules of Misplaced Pages, such as WP:POINT" is never justified, beneficial, or even a good idea; and that "sanctioning a contributor for aggressive editing when such edits were made for the purpose of drawing attention to a greater problem," especially when such aggressive editing is unilateral, is appropriate, desirable, and indeed the duty of all administrators, bureacrats, members of the Arbitration Committee, Jimbo, and every lowly member, such as myself, of the general editing populace. In light of that, to say that anyone opposed to "wikiblower protection" supports an unfair hierarchy of protection for some and throwing-to-the-wolves for others is a falsehood, and the need to resort to such demagogy in order to support this proposal could serve as further evidence of its lack of merit. The Literate Engineer 16:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


Wow - somebody read the thing before voting it down (count=1) Yeah its a bit tilted. but here's a though experiment.

  1. Take five Names: Jimmbo Wales, Larry Sanger, Uncle, Joe user, and Bob editer.
  1. Now substitute those five names in this scenario:
  • (InsertName) Deletes the entire history of the ArbComm indicating that it "is moldy and smell like cheese."
  • As a result X happens.

Te question is this, does X change when you rotate through the names? Should it change? and why? If you think it should never change - great, you have principle, and if you think it should change because "some people are more important than others" that's great - you're an authoritarian. But if you think finally - that it depends on the circumstances - and should not depend on the people - then you should consider a written policy which represents that view. This is a such a policy. Benjamin Gatti

It shouldn't depend on the name. It should depend on the reason given, and the dregee to which those reasons are supported byu the facts. If the whole fo the reasons are "It is moldy" etc then the person who does this should at elast be warned, and probably sanctoned. Ifthe reason is "to call attention to serious probelm X" then the personm should surely be sanctioned. If the reaosn ahs soem forece behind it, than it may gian additonla force from the reputation of the person involved, butthe best rep here, even the position of Jimbo Wales, should not make such an act ok with no valid reason, or only the reason "To call attention to a broken system". That is my view. DES 22:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, it does depend on the name, Jimbo Wales maintains complete executive control of the project - just like the quenn of England (his words) so whether you like it or not - "some people" have the right to suspend/ignore the rules while others do not. Personally, i have no issues with that - I have a website - I have control. What I do have a problem with is misrepresent'in. If this is a rule-based site and advertises itself thus - then it ought to apply the rules rather universally. I would suggest for example - that WK:IAR presumably applies only to select individuals, and exists as a codification of elitism. Therefore it deserves to be condemned. Wiki-Protection however follows the historical logic of justifyable "violence" for the purpose of protection (whether common defense or self-defense) - and deals directly with elitism by insisting on facts-based outcomes. Benjamin Gatti


Those who argue in favor of vague laws prefer authoritarianism (they "trust" authority).

Note that I am on record as opposing WP:IAR and I do not coinsider that it justifies out-of-process page deletion. Insofar as this is Jimbo's site, yes he is a special case, but no one else, no matter hwo "elite" or 'old-time" should get a pass on following policy, IMO. DES 17:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Some policy against censorship is needed

I think there should be some sort of policy that addresses the possibility of wikipedia policies being used for censorship. I voted for WP:POINT but I also see it used inappropriately to try to mischaracterize or outright censor valid criticisms. Is there a corollary to WP:POINT that means something to the effect of "Don't just cite wikipedia policies to illustrate a point or push your POV"? zen master T 18:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't using a policy like WP:POINT to silence others be gaming the system, and therefore a violation of WP:POINT itself? -- Essjay · Talk 19:21, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, as in: When someone proposes a theory, philosophy or POV different from your own.
Do argue the merits or your theory, philosophy or POV on talk pages.
Don't just cite WP:POINT.
zen master T 21:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Making a criticism or arguing a philosphy can't reasoanble be called "disrupting Wikipeda" so WP:POINT doesn't apply. Unless you try to make or support your criticisim by out-of-process deletions, or other disruptive actions, in which case it does, and this is not "censoring opnions" but "reacting to disruptive conduct". DES 21:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

My point is some editors errantly cite WP:POINT (or other policies such as WP:NOR or "no personal attacks") to squash constructive criticism all the time. zen master T 22:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Result of the VfD

Votes for deletion
This policy proposal was nominated for deletion on 4 August, 2005. The result was to keep, but this is not an endorsement of the proposal as policy. An archived record of this vote can be found here.

For those interested, I counted 22 valid delete votes and 12 valid keep votes. I disregarded votes from WizUp (talk · contribs) for being far too new (second edit), and hipocrite (talk · contribs) for being a reactivated account with only two dozen edits prior to 18 July. --Tony Sidaway 01:21, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Result of the Vote

As the vote has ended with 1 support and 20 opposes, I am placing the {{rejected}} on the article page. Ëvilphoenix 03:22, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

As the Vote was conducted prior to the formation of the article and itself quite out of process, I am removing the {{rejected}} tag. Benjamin Gatti

It is quite clear to me that this lacks even a modicum of community support. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
How do you assert this conclusion given that the VfD and the Vote were both initiated before the content had begun to form. Votes on policy - especially before it has formed are out of process. So really its a question of pulling Rank. How about coming up with a template that says "The Hell with the rules, a few people with more authority than the rules has decided to suspend process and prematurely kill the idea before it has an opportunity to be considered." Benjamin Gatti
Look, I will try to use small words so that you understand: every single living human being in the entire world who has ever been born thinks that this proposal was a bad idea, except you. The only way this proposal could have been any more clearly rejected by an overwhelming consensus of the community would be if, through an amazing coincidence, the characters in it gained sentience and rewrote themselves, spelling out the words "Please, I beg of you, kill me."' "The process was followed, and it was determined that this proposal sucks" doesn't get turned into "there was an egregious violation of process!" just because you don't like the result. Now try and spend your time on helping us build an encyclopedia, instead of trying to gum up the works. Nandesuka 20:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps we could just erect a stone over the pile of remains and write "Another Victim of the VfD Book Burners." Benjamin Gatti
Benjamin, the following users have left comments on this talk page that express disagreement with this proposal: User:Radiant!, User:Ed Poor, User:Nickptar, User:DESiegel, User:Nandesuka, and User:The Literate Engineer. I count that as 6. The following users have left comments on this talk page that express agreement with this proposal: User:Benjamin Gatti. I count that as 1. Now, whether the initial vote was in process or not, again, you were the only person who supported the proposal, whereas 20 people felt the need to voice their opposition - and one person said that while they like the idea, they didn't understand why it should become policy (user:Visviva. I suggest that rather than continue to insist you're being persecuted, you take into account the fact that you've only managed to convince one person, Visviva, that you've got a good idea here, and note that even with 2 supporters, the same number of people have referred to the idea as "asinine" on this talk page, and admit that this does not have consensus as policy and will never gain that consensus - and in fact the only person actively speaking in favor of this policy is yourself. You had what you thought was a good idea, but very few people agree. Anyway you try to look for consensus, it's been demonstrated that there is no consensus to make this idea policy. The Literate Engineer 20:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
I insist the process was poisened by censorship tactics, which violate policies intended to curb censorship. Putting up a VfD in bad faith in order to substitute the weight of a good argument with the weight of public opinion, is to substitute logic with mob mentality. Have your mob victory - just have it properly labelled and condemned. Nascent ideas should be protected from censorship. The irony is that the people who vote against a reasonable policy which balances benefit to harm, nonetheless blindly support WK:IAR which is a recipe for sublime anarchy (or elitism as its provisions only apply to "some who are more equal"). What I see here is the animal farm at work. See what you like. Benjamin Gatti
What censorship are you talking about? What "book burners"? It passed the VfD! You're really sounding like a sore loser here. The vote may have started before the policy was fully written, but all of the votes that I saw were after the policy was near-completely written. You can criticize the community's decision, but this vote was fully in accordance with Misplaced Pages policies. If you don't like that, try to change those policies, or leave. ~~ N (t/c) 00:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Changing the policies wouldn't help much when policies are ignored. Consensus can be manufactored. The vote was premature in that other alternatives to create consensus (other than an up or down vote) where not attempted first. That is bad faith and out of process. Have your mob victory. Just be willing to have truth in labelling. "This policy was voted down out of process by anarchists when their VfD Censorship attempt failed." Objecting to rule violations does not a sore loser make. Benjamin Gatti
I call BS on this one, since it's not true at all. I voted to keep the proposal on VfD and then voted the policy down, so it can hardly be said that I voted it down because the VfD failed. Give it up. This was a bad idea from the get-go - ultimately, an invitation to disruption - and most everyone agreed that it was a bad idea. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 16:55, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
I alos voted on VfD to keep this page, and at more or less the same time expressed my opposition to the policy per se. So I think did several others. I expressed this opposition only after the policy had been pretty much fully expounded. You can always try to repropsoes this or something like it, maybe it will eventually gain consensus. Personally i doubt it. No one censored this, no one prevented you for making arguments for it. There was no policy violation here (although i think the BfD was a bad idea and I would change VfD policy to avoid such VfDs in future.) This idea simply doe not command any significant support at this time. DES 15:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
It is a far more measured policy that WK:IAR and far less an invitation to interuption, but i rather guess that consensus was formed in the mob mentality of a rush to censor rather than the considered process required by WK:Sufferage - but then it appears you wouldn't know - wouldn't care - didn't read and don't intend to read WK policies. (perhaps some prefer to wrap themselves in the consensus flag and ignore the written policies) Benjamin Gatti
Yeah, it's outrageous how people ignore Misplaced Pages policies, and guidelines such as WP:FAITH. The nerve of some people. Nandesuka 02:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Benjamin, your paranoia (and lack of WP:FAITH) does not overly concern me, fortunately, nor does your misunderstanding - which is shared by many - of what WK:IAR (which is all of, what, two paragraphs long?) is intended to do. It is not an open invitation to moon everybody, but that people should use a modicum of common sense when implementing guidelines and policies; that they are not writ in stone, nor have force of law. The fact that people abuse WK:IAR as a mantra does not mean they should be protected for doing moronic things that ultimately disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point. You think a particular system is flawed, you draw attention to it, you advocate, you convince people - that's how civilised discourse is supposed to work, you don't carpet bomb, protest that you shouldn't be whacked about the head and demand you be given protection because of it.
To provide what you propose is in invitation for more disruption like the one that triggered off this policy proposal in the first place and that was (by a majority at least) condemned by the community. It's stupid. It's dangerous. Its detrimental effects will outweigh its hypothetical benefits. If people feel that a particular action, though disruptive, is not deserving of punishment, then that's what consensus will decide - it doesn't need to have force of "policy". Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, nor a court of law; it's a community, and we should do things in an informal manner. That's all WP:IAR means. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 02:06, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
The proposal was censored (definition - argued against by force of elimination rather than superior argument) and subjected to a vote out of process, before the "community" as you describe it had a chance to whittle out an reasonable candidate. The logical inconsistency of summarizing a (Vote) for deletion and a premature (Vote) for rejection as "Not a Democracy" is quaint. I guess it is whatever the overlords say it is. Benjamin Gatti
Of course, this ignores the fact that I have advanced an argument above, and that others have advanced similar arguments, which you have not substantively addressed but simply yelled "censorship" just because the result of the argument went against you. What next: "come and see the violence inherent in the system?" This is a fight you have lost. Learn from it, and find another one. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 13:26, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Since most people who voted on this proposal explained their reasoning, it is clear that the other side had an argument. Whether or not it was a "superior" argument is, of course, a matter of opinion, but never-the-less it was an argument that convinced 20 out of 21 people. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 14:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Re: The proposal was censored.....
I don't think that word means what you think it means. But, best of luck in your future endeavors anyway. (also, as your run of the mill non-admin Misplaced Pages users, am I one of the "overlords"? What privileges do I get? Do I get a discount at movie theaters or something? Because that would be sweet!) Nandesuka 14:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

The Policy Violation

Not that it matters, but because I have asserted a policy violation - it is only fair to list it. Benjamin Gatti

"Votes should only very rarely be used to form policy; other means of seeking consensus should be exhausted first. Even policies designed to address disruptive problems on Misplaced Pages, such as the Three Revert Rule should come to vote only after the terms, condition, start time, and duration of the voting period have been decided by consensus." From WK:Sufferage

Point taken. However, the vote, even if it carries no weight in and of itself, has demonstrated an overwhelming community consensus that this policy blows. If people thought it might work well with modifications, they would have proposed them; evidently nobody thinks this policy is worthwhile in any form. ~~ N (t/c) 18:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I believe the rational thing to do if one objects to a policy is to counter proposal and even more rational alternative. The only Counter-proposal thus far has been WK:IAR which is but a restatement of the definition of anarchy. In the absence of policy by consensus (which a VfD ensures - as does voting DOWN a rational proposal rather than improving it) one garentees arbitrary responses to the same behavior based on the popularity of the people involved. This will lead invariably to popular opinions and therefore the people who hold them being promoted at the expense of unpopular opinions and their proponents. That is a state inseperable from Book Burning. Benjamin Gatti