Wikipedia talk:Wikiblower protection

Vote on policy

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

Placement

I see that Radiant! has blanked this page and moved the contents to Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia, 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)

• I strongly agree with this view as i said in one of the "silliness" sections above. DES ^(talk) 22:42, 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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

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^Talk 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 ^Burn! 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 Wikipedia 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 (talk• contribs) 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 ^(talk) 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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". Wikipedia 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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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)

I tried to summarize the "reasons" you say were expressed, and basically I couldn't. The only non-referential (me-too) argument seemed to be that "No-one should violate procedure." But then of course the vote violates procedure, so the arguments against are irrational and oxymoronic. Benjamin Gatti

Tu quoque. The arguments are still valid. This policy is resoundingly rejected. Give it up. ~~ N (t/c) 18:41, 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 Wikipedia 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

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-propose 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

If there were a need for a counter-proposal, somebody would have provided one. I don't see this policy as being at all useful or rational. You sound like you're saying this policy is good no matter what anyone says, and people are stupid for voting it down instead of improving it. Refer to the all the other arguments on this talk page for why people think it's a bad policy. To be honest, I don't see the problem you're talking about with "popular opinions being promoted". Are you saying you're right and the consensus is wrong, and therefore your policy should be adopted? ~~ N (t/c) 18:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that the policy proposal was Censored out of process by two methods a. VfD which I think you agree was inappropriate, and b. premature Vote for consensus. I'm not saying the policy is any good. Personally as an egalitarian with a meritocratic leanings, i'm fine with any reasonable policy which is based on the facts without respect for the popularity of the persons involved - why - because popularity-based systems quickly lead to shutting out unpopular points of view. As I see it, we have a case in which a very popular editor has used popularity to justify a breaching experiment. Fine - but the questin is will the reponse be to set a precendent in which SOME PEOPLE can do that and get away with it - or as an alternative that SOME FACTS will justify bending the rules - or a third option - blind and swift justice without regard to either the facts or the persons. Most are arguing as I see it for blind justice. "No one should take unilateral action - not never". That's silly, because obviously Jimbo Wales certainly can, and by delegation, so can anyone he chooses. The question really is, do we as "the ruled" wish to suggest a policy which grants rather sweeping power to people based on their popularity - or as i propose - on the merits of the case at hand?

What I'm saying is that the essential argument isn't addressed - instead peripheral arguments and out of process has been used to distract from the actual question - which I oppose and condemn as censorship by VfD. Benjamin Gatti

Censorship

This proposal was in no way censored. The proponet (and anyone else who cared to) was free to expound his arguments fully and in whatever maner he chose. Most people did not express a neagative opnion until at least the core of the proponents ideas had been fully expressed. There was a move to deelte this page via the VfD process, but a) that process allowed further discussion of the merits of the proposal, and b) it was defeated.

Almost no one mindlessly voted on this issue -- it is true that the discussion was in significant part in the form of the vote, but most votes were in the form of opnions giving reasons for opposing the proposal, in many cases quite extensive reasons. Those reasons may not commend themselves to teh proponent of thsi proposal, he may think them illogical or contradictory or ill-advised or all three. But there is no rule that consensus must be logical, merely that it should be followed.

The proponent has quite simply failed to persuade any signifiicant number of people that this proposal has any merit. If anyone had felt that it would be useful in an altered form, revisions could have been suggested. No one did.

As to "censorship" in the events that lead up to this proposal, let us consider. The deletion of VfD was reverted propmptly. But there was much discussion of this afterwards, on a number of pages, and those who favoted this act, or more generally felt that VfD was in a poor situation, they freeely expounded their views at considerable length, and may yet forge a consensus on a policy change. None of this discussion was censored in any menaingful way, and noen of the key pages involved was deleted or hidden in any way.DES ^(talk) 19:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you're suggesting that the policy - established and agreed to by consensus - which I quoted above is itself superfluous and misguided, and that such policies (themselves the "product" of consensus) should not be binding on the majority viewholders? Do you hold that no policy established by the majority (read consensus) is binding - except when it applies to a minority viewholder? Because that is the upshot of you're argument here. I point to established policy - you say - so what - the consensus chooses to ignore policy - who can argue? So the consensus is represented to have the right to violate itself at every turn by individuals holding themselve out as representing the consensus. I suggest there is no consensus here. That consensus cannot exist in open violation of consensus. That is that if a process established by consensus is violated as a means to demonstrate consensus on a minor subtopic, that "consensus" violates the larger consensus of established policy - which states that voting is not the first means to establish a "consensus" on wikipedia. Therefore - arguing that it has done - violates consensus. (anarchy is easier on the mind than any alternative - the elegance of force is the brevity of discussion) Benjamin Gatti

You might argue that the proceduee was improper in that a vote shouldn't have been held before more discussion and attempt to form a consensus in thwt way. But that wouldn't be censosrship even if it is a policy violation. Given that this "vote" consisted of significant discussion with indications of support or opposition attached, I don't think it violated the above policy, but that could be argued. But not all violations of procedureal policy constitute censorship. If there was a full and fair chance to expound your viuews (and I think there was), and to try to persuade people to adopt them, you weren't censored. and that is all I have to say about that. DES ^(talk) 20:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

First - there was not a full and fair opportunity to allow consensus to form as the term is meant and established prior to this affair. Instead, the process was clearly poisened out of process by VfD and by a premature vote. Moreover, my attempt to delete the VfD via a VfD was in fact Censored in the plain meaning of the word. It was killed out of process. I maintain that a VfD which is INTENDED to eliminate counter proposals is an attempt at Censorship - and at very least - poisens the process with much the same effect. It labels a nascent idea with a very negative brush - and brings with it the weight of a manufactored consensus. I couldn't care less about this particular proposal, but I find the "Lord of the Flies" effect curious. Benjamin Gatti

You can't pretend that this policy would somehow be accepted if it had been evaluated some other way. ~~ N (t/c) 02:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Sure I can (not that it matters). WK:IAR was accepted. Anyone who could possibly accept IAR, would accept a far more measured version. The point is: process affects the outcome. Perhaps this is nothing more than an experiment in how. Those who claim consensus on the basis of a process REJECTED by consensus are merely talking in circles, and promoting chaos over rationale. Benjamin Gatti

It's WP:IAR, gaahh!!! 07:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Cabal

I strongly agree that there should not be one rule for members of the "cabal" there is no cabal^TM and another for the rest of us. But is there? The deletion of VfD prought about a RfC and an ArbCom case, yet to issue a decision. The majority of those who commented opposed or condemend the act (as I did) although they were not nearly so unified in suggesting sanctions. it doesn't sound to me as if "cabal" members (or admins or "oldtimers") are being allowed huge leeway to break the rules when the hoi polloi are not -- and even if it did the answeer is not to let everyone break rules, but to insist that no one do so without consequence. That is why I opposed and still oppose this proposal or any similer one i can think of. DES ^(talk) 19:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure Jimbo Wales will see the wisdom of your argument and abdicate the throne. Until then however, the best we can do is propose policies which promote policies which support the notion of equality. Voting down such policies out of process - only underscores the continued need for a rational king. Benjamin Gatti

Jimbo Wales didn't do anything that violates policy or consensus. When he does, it will be time to discuss if he gets to rule by decree. If you want to argue for a policy that everyone ought to be treated equally strictly for policy violations, I will quite possibly support you. I am not in favor of a policy that says that anyone may break policy just because they feel tehy are drawing attention to a problem. DES ^(talk) 20:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Well said, DES. Nandesuka 20:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

If one reads, I am not in fact arguing that anyone should break rules whenever they want - that seems to be the office of WK:IAR. I am arguing that the present situation ought to be resolved in a manner with upholds equality for all. I think i was right when i projected that Ed would not be sanctioned. The only real question is "why not" - if we allow the self-evident answer to stand (Because he is protected by popularity) then we established a different set of rules for popular opinions and their viewholders - which i would argue is the road to censorship of ideas. If we allow the other obvious answer (Because he is the Cabal), then we promote elitism, which will have the effect of turning off people who see the project as an inclusive community work. The third option, which only reeks somewhat less than the first two, is to argue a very ancient notion of "common defense" that in fact what he did - he did to provide for the common defense. This is the only argument which will allow sanctions to be dropped - without setting a precedent of elitist or populist preference. - Honestly I'm not opposed to sanctions - if they are equal to what anyone else might get for the same thing - but even token sanctions for the purpose of pretending equality will be transparent, and certainly what is going on now - basically a reinvention of the process where "some" people are afforded a quiet alternative process undermines the perception of fairness. Why isn't the process as it stands good enough for those who designed it? Benjamin Gatti

• You misunderstand the nature of the Wiki. The intent of policies and arbitration is not to punish offending users. The intent is to prevent actions that are counterproductive to our main goal (i.e. writing an encyclopedia). It then logically follows that if a user has shown to make good contributions, any sanction must be tailored to ensure that said user can still make said contributions. Hence, if a new account shows up and blanks a page, it is permablocked for vandalism. If a long-standing editor deletes a page (and explains his reasoning, apologizes for the inconvenience, and is backed by at least some other editors) sanctions will be far more lenient. Radiant_>|< 12:54, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • What you have described is elitism. - Which to be clear - i have no problem with in the context of a web site. Let's just be honest and make such a decision with our eyes open. Favoring established entities different will invariably lead to applying a double standard to newer comers. You describe the extreme case, more likely the comparison would be to a newer contributer. Might - just for example, be from a muslim country and have a very different and unpopular point of view - might for example express that view by deleting a whole section meant to disrespect his point of view - after which you are proposing that we hold him to a different standard. I think elitism is a poor route because if its effect on the community - and in turn their effect on the content. A single standard for behaviour (based on fact and previously established policy) upheld equally will inspire people to trust the community with their effort. Benjamin Gatti
    • No, it isn't elitism. It's meritocracy. There is a difference. We do not punish people; if we see destructive action we wish to prevent repetition thereof. We have newer contributions with unpopular points of view - these aren't censored, they are argued against. They sometimes get short blocks if they e.g. break the 3RR, but as long as a significant fraction of their edits are useful contributions, they shall be welcome. That is one of the founding principles. Radiant_>|< 08:30, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
      • The distinction between "punishment" and "prevention" is appreciated - and as you say, does significantly change the game, however, I would suggest that the mental space in which the arbcom operates is in fact the same mental space in which punative judgements are made. Yes - they are symbolic penalties, but their purpose is to assign a punative value to certain behaviour, and the use of a sliding rule in that regard is a slippery slope. One which i believe tends towards favoring popular people and their popular content. You would have us define "destruction" differently based on who does what - that is elitism. You suggest the word meriticracy - but who decides what is "meritable" or not - thus that quickly becomes a popularity contest, and probably quite suceptible to majority takes all. If the goal here is to create a context in which "truth" is safe from "popular opinion" than some effort must be taken to avoid the default community model (dictatorial hierarchy). Take a worst case as a thought experiment. Say for example, that it is popular to blame the Jews for societies problems and that eliminating them from society amounts to a medical cure. The people who express those ideas would be "contributing" while those who argue against would be seen as unpopular. Reverting the nazi assertion would be tantamount to vandalism, while cleansing the unpopular view that the nazis are immoral would just be seen as good taste. So we discount this scenaria - by saying - that won't happen because we're not nazi's, but the simple truth is that people are relativists morally speaking - even the church has condoned human sacrifice in times past - and unless we elect to operate in a way which does not discriminate based on the popularity of an idea (or the percieved merit as you might put it), then we will ratchet our way down the slippery slope of incremental censorship. Benjamin Gatti
• Godwin's law. You have just lost the argument. Radiant_>|< 10:24, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • A thought experiment is not necessarily a comparison, as I am not arguing that certain actions are comparable to Hitlers, only that certain systems of thought are not suffecient to avoid going over the edge slowly (which i would suggest is what happened in Germany). Benjamin Gatti