Misplaced Pages

Disturbing Behaviors.

I'm here to ask for a little clarification on your stance of Administrative powers. Is there any policy that explicitly allows a single admin to decide at whim to Topic Ban someone? I've brought this up to administrators and they have told me it is implicitly allowed. I find this to be in contravention of the purpose of wikipedia. We are here for collaborative environment and I hardly see how it can be collaborative when a single person can say you can't edit within one particular articlespace. While not commenting on the rightness of arbcom (whom I personally see striking resemblances to other "ruling or political groups" found time after time throughout history. Take your pick there are so many....)Can you define your position on this issue? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not think it is appropriate for a single admin to topic ban someone in the usual cases. However, I should add, there are many special circumstances. Perhaps you can point me to a particular discussion where an admin is claiming the right to topic ban someone?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response. One example is ] and also here ]. The full discussion where this started is found here ], this was my first knowledge of David Tombes and I didn't see anyone trying to mediate with him discuss anything. I point this out there too...Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

In short, Jehochman's admin decisions regarding David Tombe and Ottava Rima; both of which have been upheld by Arbcom. Over to you Jimmy. ;-)

John Vandenberg 06:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Those are the examples, yes. I am not pointing them out alone though. These topic bans were issued by one admin and then the course of IMHO it became a game on how to catch them. Just because Arbcom later ratified the decision doesn't make the procedure proper. how much aggravation was brought on the committee itself by improper procedure before they reviewed it? Kinda taints the water when someone comes in and says I topic banned them and they aren't listening, let's sanction them further. Assuming Arbcom is fair how can a well built second floor stand up if it's built on a rotted floor? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's talk about the principles that would make for a solid floor? One principle is that admins can unilaterally (subject to later review by other admins and - if necessary - the ArbCom) block users for misbehavior. I think it a fairly clear and reasonable principle that "If an admin could issue a block for a period of time for a behavior, the admin can equally well let the user know that in lieu of blocking (which prevents editing anywhere), there will be an editing restriction for that period of time on certain topics." The difficulty of definition only arises in the event that an admin issues a topic ban in circumstances that wouldn't warrant a block. If the offense is not a blockable offense, then is it a topic-bannable offense? My initial inclination - as always - would be to say "mostly no, but individual circumstances have to be considered."--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Oy Jimbo! Even for those of us you are neutrally indifferent towards you, this statement is a masterpiece of mealy-mouthed doublespeak - "Well, I don't support it except when I do.". Ayn Rand must be spinning in her grave! Crafty (talk) 15:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's just a very rude comment that fails to take into account the specifics of what I wrote. I did not say "I don't support it except when I do" and I advance the state of the discussion by clearly delineating a case where I do support it (when the offense is a blockable offense) and I invite further discussion - from those who think that attacking me personally is less important than working together to achieve deeper understanding and better decisionmaking. If you just want to insult me, please take it elsewhere, thanks.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

A solid floor is consensus. My own opinion is that Admin do have the authority to block if the offenses are egregious enough, But a topic ban should always be left to consensus. The problem with this particular incident is that I've witnessed no attempts to garner support, just a unilateral action. I brought these up to the administrator in question and my block log was thrown in my face and it was claimed that I only wanted to cause drama.

This is a serious problem here, you have administators that are encouraging, indeed campaigning on every possible technicalities to get rid of editors with differing viewpoints. Currently David Toomb can't even appeal to Arbcom because it's a violation of his sanctions. My main understanding of their speed of light arguement was that they held with the Orwellian Speed of Light and the others Einsteins. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be NPOV if all the info can be sourced. A very fitting example of a similar situation is that of the Catholic Church when dealing with things like Protestantism, the Albigensian Crusade, or even Galileo. In this case (agf) both parties are proceeding in their view how the 'pedia or world would be benefited more. The methods used were less then favorable. I was recently blocked for being uncivil. I Was attacking Arbcoms decisions when describing their behaviors and I used foul language when I did so. I likened their behaviors to Nazis, this is a accurate description of behaviors but the manner in which I did it was wrong, I'm not suggesting that Arbcom is mass murderers or the like but the behaviors have the same underlying problem, if you don't agree with the viewpoint you silence it altogether. During my block while trying to describe the situation like I did above, my block was extended because a Administrator thought I hadn't learned my lesson enough. Per the policy, if I am describing behaviors and not talking about personal characteristics I am 100% allowed to use historic examples, however the action taken was I disagreed and although I had used more appropriate language and context I was wrong to do so and should be silenced.

My main point here is that it isn't hard to find an Admin that will block or topic ban at the drop of a dime (not saying all will) and this is especially why topic bans should be left to consensus. I think I've stated my case on the matter, I want to thank you for taking the time in responding to this. I would like to thank you for founding this website, I never thought I would find pleasure volunteering until I started editing Misplaced Pages and I fully laud the effort by all here to maintain free knowledge. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Hell in a Bucket, you say above that "Currently David Toomb can't even appeal to Arbcom because it's a violation of his sanctions.", however I have corrected you already over at User talk:David Tombe#attacks on Jehochman and Arbcom. He is able to appeal, by following the appeal process. He is able to participate in request for comments. I have explicitly said that those two venues remain open to him. I have asked him to stop disputing it on other pages, especially this page like he did at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 52#Arbcom appointments. Do you have a problem with this? I'd really like to get this sorted, because it seems tangential to your query about topic bans which could be a productive discussion. John Vandenberg 00:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You state that like you've posted that a long time ago. You posted that today on his page. I then refered you here. However he may appeal in private is that correct? Since when is matters so serious they require private inquiries. private inquiries only lead to deeper suspicionsand breed mistrust in the dispute resolution process. It's easy to shrug off a good arguement if no one can see it3*.. Can you really argue a decision that is based on a flawed ground? If a good deal of this transpired over actions that are not allowed here then things should be looked at.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The original message from a few days ago was clear enough. I restated it in a reply to you at 10:34, 25 December 2009. Your post above was six hours afterwards.

He has already appealed to Jimbo in public here, but strayed into attacks on an admin and arbcom. As a result, I've asked him to stop. Jimbo can continuing to hear his appeal privately if he wants to, or set up a public appeal page if he wants to. That is beside the point. David Tombe has been asked to stop disputing it on pages other than the proper venues.

It isn't a case of matters being "so serious" that it needs to be handled privately; the problem is that David Tombe is drawing it out and attacking people, so he should no longer be allowed to continue this except on the appropriate pages. I've told him which pages he can use to publicly pursue this.

The Arbcom decision is binding. Jehochman's actions were upheld by Arbcom. Like it or not, that is the decision. It is time to move on, and maybe better prepare for the next time.

John Vandenberg 02:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Prepare for the next time? Already planning that far ahead? I hadn't though this issue was decided. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to come in here with two points of fact,

(1) There are two aspects to my sanctions. The more serious of the two is an indefinite sanction which is sometimes referred to as 'probation'. ARBCOM made it categorically clear that I am not allowed to appeal this sanction for one year. In my view, such a command was pushing their powers well beyond that which would be expected. And the sanction in question is so vague that it has become a licence to bully. There is no better illustration of the abuse of that licence than in the case where admin Tzntai expanded my sanctions on the totally spurious grounds that I had breached my topic ban when I made a perfectly legitimate complaint at AN/I about an editor who had misrepresented the grounds for my topic ban on a policy page.

(2) When jehochman pagebanned me on 19th August 2009, I challenged his grounds for doing so. In a follow up thread in which an attempt was made to similarly ban Brews ohare, I was totally silenced by jehochman in a manner which can be read here, and which any impartial observer will agree was ill-becoming of wikipedia. Look here and find the section "Tendentious discussion at 'talk:speed of light'". Then scroll down to my first edit on that thread, and then look at jehochman's response,

As a result of this second thread, the matter went to ARBCOM. I would have expected that ARBCOM would have looked into the edits that caused jehochman to page ban me on 19th August. But that did not happen. Instead, a wide range of issues were brought up against me, most of which were a hill of beans dating back to 2006, and alot of which related to other problems that had already, rightly or wrongly been dealt with. A tirade of lies prevailed on an enormous scale, and no attempt was made to prevent these lies from festering. In the end I made a statement to the extent that it's all starting to look like Goebbels's tactic of repetitive lies, in which when a lie is told often enough, people will start to believe it.

Then followed a most disgusting display of phoney indignation, and my analogy was thrown back at me in order to make out that I had committed the ultimate heineous offence by comparing other editors with nazis. The campaign of lies then escalated to include the claim that I had engaed in nazi insults. And it has recently escalated even further to the idea that I had previously been indulging in nazi insults on a regular basis as a matter of course.

This had the effect of getting jehochman off the hook, because the whole case then focused on this big lie about nazi insults, and I got topic banned from all physics articles and put on probation indefinitely.

So jehochman's initial actions had the effect of stirring the pot and causing a phoney reaction which was falsley used to retrospectively justify jehochman's initial abuse of authority.

At no stage was any attempt made by ARBCOM to analyse the edits which jehochman used to justify his initial actions.

So, Jimbo, when you say that a topic ban is not justified where a block is not justified, I think that you have got a clear cut case here were no topic bans were justified either against myself or Brews ohare. David Tombe (talk) 04:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Having reviewed the case, and having observed your behavior both here and in your appeals to me, I do not share your views. Talking about "big lie about nazi insults" is a bit rich, coming mere moments after you invoked the name of Goebbels to describe others. I think you really should step back and take a break from even looking at Misplaced Pages for a month or so. Get some fresh air. Find another hobby. And come back and let's discuss it when you aren't so angry.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

p.s., anyone who is interested in this topical area, and is looking for another hobby, or just tired of flushing time down the drain in edit wars, come on over to Wikisource where we have a few ongoing transcription projects for James Clerk Maxwell. We especially need MediaWiki math markup gurus.

John Vandenberg 07:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo, I don't recall that I ever used the name of Goebbels to describe others. There was an ongoing campaign of lies in which it was being maintained that I had been engaged in long term disruptive behaviour as a proven fact. It was being repeated over and over again at ARBCOM and diverting attention away from the real issues of the case. When I used the name of Goebbels, I was using it in connection with his famous statement that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will start to believe it.

There was absolutely no harm in making such a statement. But the statement was maliciously used as a strawman argument to switch the tables and divert attention away from the real evil, and make out that the evil lay with me for drawing attention to the analogy.

And it seems right now that you are continuing to use this statement as a basis for diverting attention away from the real issue of whether or not I said anything in the middle of August that warranted a page ban at the speed of light. I would say that everything in my previous statement still stands. An admin abused his authority, and the ensuing commotion that followed was used as a basis for retrospective justification. That's hardly cricket. David Tombe (talk) 07:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out this is precisely the reason we should have specific policy in effect to make sure a situation like this doesn't happen again. It's very similar to "cool down" blocks, all the unilateral action did was make the editors in question more angry leading to other problems. Either way Mr Wales, I appreciate your open page policy and again thank you for the time you spent discussing the issue with me. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with conventional wisdom about "cool down" blocks. I think they are a useful tool in some very obvious cases.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Would you agree we could benefit from a more clarified policy on topic bans? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I think more discussion would be potentially valuable. This discussion got a bit side-tracked, unfortunately.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Well we got there in the end. I do intend on working on something for topic bans and getting imput from various administrators to see about possibly making it into or amending existing policy, I will return when I have things fleshed out to see if it might be somethign you can support. thanks again for your time. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

"Disturbing" comments :-)

• Peripheral (personal/rhetorical) comment re Nazi insults
  (whether insidious rhetorical escalation indicating incorrigibility of disputant — or transient hyperbole/mockery for extraordinary moments :-)

  Personal note: I have — with great restraint (wisely, see above:) — oft-refrained from the pleasures of alliteration in designating teams of Misplaced Pages disambiguation page cleaners who undertake blitzkriegs (albeit under the flag of MOS:DAB, rather than one containing a swastika) ... Dabnazis. ^;^ (Heil JHunterJ! LOL)

  Oops. :-)
  (sotto voce: "foreshadowing" / and, ps, looking forward to description the ever-wise but unknown-middle-named John Vandenberg will place in the hat/hab-collapse of this irreverent holiday-licensed peripheral comment, previously alluded to in the true tale of the beginning of Proofreader77. lol Cheers.)
  -- Proofreader77 (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Re your comment about cool-down blocks: "I don't agree with conventional wisdom about "cool down" blocks. I think they are a useful tool in some very obvious cases." Please note that the conventional wisdom about cool down blocks is Misplaced Pages policy. See WP:BLOCK: "Blocks intended solely to 'cool down' an angry user should not be used, as they often have the opposite effect." Bolding and italics in the original text. Bishonen | talk 21:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC).

  Yes, I'm aware of that. One of our more misguided policies, I think.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Jimbo, I'm all in favour of blocks. They are necessary to maintain law and order on the project. But beyond vandalism, and edit warring on main article space, and repeated blatantly unacceptable abusive language on talk pages, which would of course cater for the 'cool down block' scenario, I can't think of any problem that could ever arise on wikipedia that could not be handled by a maximum three month block. Topic bans and ARBCOM sanctions in general serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever other that to generate discord and sense of foul play. The issue of administrators issuing blocks abusively is a separate question which requires some kind of higher tier arbitration committee to monitor. David Tombe (talk) 06:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

  Mr. Tombe (David, whichever you would prefer to be addressed as): While I certainly do not speak for Mr. Wales, and on other occasions might even tend to concur with implications of some of your points here — but speaking as somewhat knowledgeable of rhetorical matters, it seems the choice of combative stance might appear to be the basis of the response you've gotten (and continue to get).

  If I remember correctly, I saw words somewhere to the effect that you could "appeal to Jimbo." Consider that if you were appealing to, e.g., the Supreme Court, the justices would treat a rhetorically disrespectful appeal ... with contempt.

  So, even if you are correct, the starting point is behaving rhetorically as if the people/roles you're appealing to are honorable holders of their positions of authority (and that the rules applied — are not going to change the instant someone disagrees with them.) If that is not the starting point, "you cannot get there from here."

  Now: At this time, the "rhetorical field" is far too negatively charged to back up and start again (whatever the merits may be). Again: at this time.

  I have fairly good rhetorical judgment on things like this. (Although others may disagree profoundly:-). But I will offer you the following rhetorical rule I operate from: "Do not fight battles. Transcend them." It seems you are much invested in "this battle." My unsolicited and probably hugely unwelcome advice ... is to step back and see if the project means enough to you ... to, yes, transcend the emotions of the moment ... and see if there is not a "higher solution" which may be reached ... in the future.

  ("We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming." :-) Proofreader77 07:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

– ĈĠ, Super Sounders Fan (help line|§|sign here) 04:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Farsi Banning Policy

Dear Mr.Wales, first of all I would like to say "Merry Christmass"! The problem which forced me to come here, was that in Fa wiki, there is no banning revision, and admins easily ban users without clear explanation. Ultranationalist groups are editing there freely without any obstacle, but democrat and pro human right users, are under great pressure. They are being banned one after another. No admin would answer why he has banned a user. They speak about it, in their mailing list and ban whoever they want in a discriminative manner. Special notice should be paid to fa wiki. Such an enviroment has made it really inactive. What should we do in your opinion? sicaspi 15:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sicaspi (talk • contribs)

A Two Tier Administration System and division of responsibility is what is required

In fact, it has now become quite clear what the problem is. We have a core of admins and an arbitration committee with overlapping responsibilities, and arguments going on about what their respective jurisdictions are. The admins can issue blocks and freeze pages for the purpose of maintaining law and order on the project. But ARBCOM are concentrating on topic bans and other sanctions. The latter function seems to be exclusively political and not necessary for the maintenance of basic law and order on the project. The situation has been further exacerbated by the fact that some ARBCOM sanctions are like Tudor Ordinances or wartime emergency legislation in that they legislate a full dictatorial power to admins. And some admins adopt ARBCOM powers unilaterally without any opposition from ARBCOM.

What is needed is a clear division of responsibilities. We need a core of admins to control law and order, and we need an Arbitration committee that is totally independent of the core of admins, for the exclusive purpose of monitoring abuses of power by the admins. David Tombe (talk) 07:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Out of order, Mr. Tombe. You are now abusing this public space. Proofreader77 07:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Completely lost

OK, this is probably completely the wrong place to be but in 45 minutes of searching it is the first place I can actually post a comment. The last thing I want is to conceal my internet address.

I looked up the (British) NHS (National Health Service) for a book chapter I am writing. I found a number of significant sound clips but clicking on any one of them brought up the message "this is not available in your area". We are talking about items that are 60 years old and so out of copyright. So what gives? Can anyone give me an answer?

OK, I have really low expectations of getting a reply.

I've moved this to the Help Desk.  Skomorokh  11:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)