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

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)[reply]

• 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)

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)[reply]

• 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)

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)

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

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

• I strongly agree with this view as i said in one of the "silliness" sections above. DES ^(talk) 22:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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^Talk 01:21, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Perhaps we could just erect a stone over the pile of remains and write "Another Victim of the VfD Book Burners." Benjamin Gatti