Dennis Brown, admin-about-town

[JCM]

CrowsNest, your hostility is not welcome here.

Personally, I collapsed all his comments right after my last comment to him. But if others believe that he may soon be qualifying for disciplinary action if some sort, I would at least initially not necessarily object

[Bezdomni]

https://www.etymonline.com/word/hostile

reminds me of a recent discussion about The Stranger with Prospero Drmies. You spoiled the green thunder of Tarantino's signature, JCM. tsk. tsk. ^^

[No Ledge]

One last thought on this. Take a gander at MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown (T-H-L).

Note that one of the block rationales on that drop-down list is:

* Clearly [[WP:NOTHERE (T-H-L)|not here to contribute to the encyclopedia]]

So I don't think it's fair to single out Dennis here. If you don't like that rationale, and no, I'm not keen on it, start a separate thread to debate the merits of that block rationale rather than single out a specific editor who used that rationale.

It's not too much of a stretch to interpret that as "someone here only to solicit comments from editors regarding dispute resolution on Wikipedia" is someone who is "not here to contribute to the encyclopedia".

[Moral Hazard]

CrowsNest, your hostility is not welcome here.

Arbcom elections mark the renewal of new accounts yet familiar concerns & personalities on Wikipediocracy.

[Zoloft]

CrowsNest, your hostility is not welcome here.

Concur. Vigorous discussion is welcomed here. Name calling and gnawing on people’s ankles are not.
Bans can be objected to here: support@wikipediocracy.com

[Dennis Brown]

The ones who engaged with the editor found that they were a crank.

Speaking of crankiness, Nihlus (T-C-L) (who apparently has been around for 4 months) didn't like not getting his PageMover permissions as soon as he asked. Callannecc had no qualms handing the "most sensitive unbundled right" back to Sagecandor after a perfunctory question.

I wonder who sent email to DB telling him that the investigative reporter was cranky. Was it SoftLavender? Nihlus? NightShift?

Blood glock! §

Perfectly legitimate question. No one had any private communications with me regarding the block, before or after. I did my own research and independently concluded that in this rather unusual case, a block was warranted. After the talk page comments went south, I concluded removing talk page access was warranted. No one had any input in my actions.

I say this because there are times when admin get emails tipping them off as to a problem editor, this is true and the admin is responsible for any action they make, not the tipster. There just wasn't any private communication in this instance, however. I simply stumbled upon it at ANI. Back then, it was very normal for me to patrol ANI and get involved in protracted cases that need someone to make the call. As of late, I don't have the time to do it properly, so I haven't patrolled. It is fairly time consuming.

[Dennis Brown]

Funny, now he is sockpuppeting on my talk page. He can't possibly think that is going to change my mind, its just a poorly drafted attempt to make me look bad. If anything, it just proves I was correct. Journalists are not "special exceptions". Any idiot can call themselves a "journalist" and open a blog, the word is meaningless. If you want to impress me and have me go the extra mile to unblock you, don't call yourself a journalist, try writing a GA or FA instead. It is pretty obvious that this is the "journalist" himself.

Looking up his name, I see his is now banned here, which explains why he is socking there.

[Bezdomni]

Dennis Brown, admin about town
Split from 'Shorter Sumana' topic - Zoloft

Vigorous discussion is welcomed here. Name calling and gnawing on people’s ankles are not.

No one had any input in my actions.

Anyone lived in a pretty how town.

the encyclopedia that (not) anyone can edit

[...] protracted cases [...]

[...] went south [...]

I find it intriguing how "protracted" and "portrait" are etymologically related to the tractor. The one in the Grapes of Wrath for example. The hearse is named for the harrow after all.

This case does intrigue me since all I've ever asked is that the wmf and its duly (duelly) deputies be honest concerning my block and stick to the facts on the records it disseminates. The rules on libel are clear: requests for corrections of libelous material are not legal threats. I have never opposed being characterized as "nothere" for passing some jours being investigative. There is nothere there in such a block notice. It's when you start broadcasting bullshit about people who investigate goodly, in faith, that there is a problem.

No one had any private communications with me regarding the block, before or after.

Well, I guess the accused isn't too upset then. There is nothere there. Now as for your involvement in my cases, which were anything but protracted... I'll just grin a little grin, eye your ankles gnam-gnam-zilla style and move on... ^^

[Randy from Boise]

Funny, now he is sockpuppeting on my talk page. He can't possibly think that is going to change my mind, its just a poorly drafted attempt to make me look bad. If anything, it just proves I was correct. Journalists are not "special exceptions". Any idiot can call themselves a "journalist" and open a blog, the word is meaningless.

<insert WikiTribune joke here>

RfB

[Dennis Brown]

Funny, now he is sockpuppeting on my talk page. He can't possibly think that is going to change my mind, its just a poorly drafted attempt to make me look bad. If anything, it just proves I was correct. Journalists are not "special exceptions". Any idiot can call themselves a "journalist" and open a blog, the word is meaningless.

<insert WikiTribune joke here>

RfB

I can't divulge private data, but now he's trying to play like he's yet someone else on my talk page, and I'm just not up for games. I just delete and move on, but I'm sure he will keep it up until someone blocks him, as there is nothing to lose when you are a sock puppet. *yawn*

[Zoloft]

<snip> Now as for your involvement in my cases, which were anything but protracted... I'll just grin a little grin, eye your ankles gnam-gnam-zilla style and move on... ^^

Note that you're still here and CrowsNest ain't. That's because people can have a discussion with you without having to wade through pages of waffle and personal insults. Thanks!

[Mason]

For the record, blocking someone for being a "paid editor" because they claim to be a journalist who presumably gets paid for journalism is stretching the definition of "paid editor" way beyond reasonableness.

Whether this particular case involved an actual journalist is a different question.

[Dennis Brown]

For the record, blocking someone for being a "paid editor" because they claim to be a journalist who presumably gets paid for journalism is stretching the definition of "paid editor" way beyond reasonableness.

Whether this particular case involved an actual journalist is a different question.

That isn't why they were blocked. If any admin has spoken out for paid editors being able to edit with more reasonable terms, it has been me. You don't even have to look hard to find that. This is one of the problems of WPO, some (but not all) of the members oversimplify situations and take them out of context. Their talk page and contribs is the best place to find the reasons, not here.

[Mason]

For the record, blocking someone for being a "paid editor" because they claim to be a journalist who presumably gets paid for journalism is stretching the definition of "paid editor" way beyond reasonableness.

Whether this particular case involved an actual journalist is a different question.

That isn't why they were blocked. If any admin has spoken out for paid editors being able to edit with more reasonable terms, it has been me. You don't even have to look hard to find that. This is one of the problems of WPO, some (but not all) of the members oversimplify situations and take them out of context. Their talk page and contribs is the best place to find the reasons, not here.

I haven't read the various walls of text from your detractors. I'm just going by your block notice:

==You have been blocked==

There are some problems with your account that makes it incompatible with Wikipedia's goals. For starters, you aren't here to improve the encyclopedia, but instead to improve your career, thus you haven't added a single edit of value. That falls under WP:HERE. Second of all, you make mention (on your user page) that your reports have been seen on "CNN, NBC and local affiliate stations", which means you are here with the goal of being financially compensated. While our policies on Paid Editing don't exactly cover this, your actions violate the spirit of those policies enough that I felt action was needed. Using Wikipedia as a means to financially enrich yourself requires disclosure, for starters (per the TOS and policy).

Putting journalists (or "journalists") in the "paid editor" bucket doesn't fit within the letter or spirit of the paid editing policies.

[JCM]

For the record, blocking someone for being a "paid editor" because they claim to be a journalist who presumably gets paid for journalism is stretching the definition of "paid editor" way beyond reasonableness.

Whether this particular case involved an actual journalist is a different question.

That isn't why they were blocked. If any admin has spoken out for paid editors being able to edit with more reasonable terms, it has been me. You don't even have to look hard to find that. This is one of the problems of WPO, some (but not all) of the members oversimplify situations and take them out of context. Their talk page and contribs is the best place to find the reasons, not here.

I haven't read the various walls of text from your detractors. I'm just going by your block notice:

==You have been blocked==

There are some problems with your account that makes it incompatible with Wikipedia's goals. For starters, you aren't here to improve the encyclopedia, but instead to improve your career, thus you haven't added a single edit of value. That falls under WP:HERE. Second of all, you make mention (on your user page) that your reports have been seen on "CNN, NBC and local affiliate stations", which means you are here with the goal of being financially compensated. While our policies on Paid Editing don't exactly cover this, your actions violate the spirit of those policies enough that I felt action was needed. Using Wikipedia as a means to financially enrich yourself requires disclosure, for starters (per the TOS and policy).

Putting journalists (or "journalists") in the "paid editor" bucket doesn't fit within the letter or spirit of the paid editing policies.

But it should be noted that the first, and presumably primary, reason Dennis gives is WP:HERE (T-H-L). As I said in my belated response to the alleged journalist on Dennis's talk page, both he and I have been interviewed by the press before, along with several dozen if not more other editors. Clearly, people who have been interviewed aren't really opposed to journalists seeking interviews. But there are better, less problematic ways of getting interviews. Honestly, I think even most amateur journalists know that. OK, maybe Geraldo Rivera and his ilk are self-important enough to think that their personal interests are so significant that they take priority, and apparently this individual falls in that camp, but, as I pointed out in my comment there, he can still seek interview subjects in other ways.

[Mason]

But it should be noted that the first, and presumably primary, reason Dennis gives is WP:HERE (T-H-L). As I said in my belated response to the alleged journalist on Dennis's talk page, both he and I have been interviewed by the press before, along with several dozen if not more other editors. Clearly, people who have been interviewed aren't really opposed to journalists seeking interviews. But there are better, less problematic ways of getting interviews. Honestly, I think even most amateur journalists know that. OK, maybe Geraldo Rivera and his ilk are self-important enough to think that their personal interests are so significant that they take priority, and apparently this individual falls in that camp, but, as I pointed out in my comment there, he can still seek interview subjects in other ways.

Sure, I don't disagree with any of that.

But a journalist, paid or not, using their Wikipedia account to contact potential interview subjects on their talk page is an entirely different thing than "paid editing" and should not be treated as such.

[No Ledge]

there are better, less problematic ways of getting interviews.

What is the better, less problematic way of getting an interview with a specific editor who has not enabled email or provided any contact information on their user or user talk page?

[Midsize Jake]

What is the better, less problematic way of getting an interview with a specific editor who has not enabled email or provided any contact information on their user or user talk page?

Well, it's Wikipedia, so you can't just post on some guy's talk page saying you want something from him - that's harassment, so you have to use a turnaround ploy. Find some BS topic the guy is interested in, make a fuss on one or more of the relevant pages, and once you've got a proper dispute going, post something to AN/I and then escalate it up to an RfC or even an Arbcom case. If there's actual COI or rule-breaking involved, so much the better. Then the guy will post on your talk page, so that you can accuse him of harassment. At that point, you've got him right where you want him.

[Dennis Brown]

For the record, blocking someone for being a "paid editor" because they claim to be a journalist who presumably gets paid for journalism is stretching the definition of "paid editor" way beyond reasonableness.

Whether this particular case involved an actual journalist is a different question.

That isn't why they were blocked. If any admin has spoken out for paid editors being able to edit with more reasonable terms, it has been me. You don't even have to look hard to find that. This is one of the problems of WPO, some (but not all) of the members oversimplify situations and take them out of context. Their talk page and contribs is the best place to find the reasons, not here.

I haven't read the various walls of text from your detractors. I'm just going by your block notice:

==You have been blocked==

There are some problems with your account that makes it incompatible with Wikipedia's goals. For starters, you aren't here to improve the encyclopedia, but instead to improve your career, thus you haven't added a single edit of value. That falls under WP:HERE. Second of all, you make mention (on your user page) that your reports have been seen on "CNN, NBC and local affiliate stations", which means you are here with the goal of being financially compensated. While our policies on Paid Editing don't exactly cover this, your actions violate the spirit of those policies enough that I felt action was needed. Using Wikipedia as a means to financially enrich yourself requires disclosure, for starters (per the TOS and policy).

Putting journalists (or "journalists") in the "paid editor" bucket doesn't fit within the letter or spirit of the paid editing policies.

If the ONLY reason they are here is to further their journalistic career and their edits are mainly designed to cause problems, then I would disagree. BEING a journalist isn't a problem. Not being an actual editor is.

[No Ledge]

If the ONLY reason they are here is to further their journalistic career

So what I hear you saying is that it's only OK for a journalist to be here when they are not doing their job, i.e. doing something that, if done to excess, would torpedo their career by virtue of editing Wikipedia to "improve the encyclopedia" at the expense of doing their job which is to report news.

and their edits are mainly designed to cause problems,

That's a rather subjective call that their edits were "mainly designed to cause problems". Cause problems for who? Wikipedia's readers? Editors exhibiting questionable behavior? In other words, Wikipedia would have banned Woodward & Bernstein because their presence was "mainly designed to cause problems for the President".

BEING a journalist isn't a problem. Not being an actual editor is.

So again what I hear you saying is, a lawyer can't practice law on Wikipedia, they can only improve the encyclopedia. A mediator can't practice mediation on Wikipedia, they can only improve the encyclopedia. An arbitrator can't arbitrate on Wikipedia, they can only improve the encyclopedia. A journalist can't request interviews with Wikipedia editors, they can only improve the encyclopedia. But if a lawyer, mediator, arbitrator or journalist does edit Wikipedia to improve its content, then by virtue of that, they have earned the privilege of lawyering, mediating, arbitrating or interviewing editors for the purpose of writing news stories.

FYI. A question was asked at the Wikipedia help desk: How to solicit community opinion to clarify an unclear situation of some significance

[Midsize Jake]

The solution here is actually fairly clear: Wikipedians simply have to update Wikipedia:The duck test (T-H-L) so that it corresponds with the New Reality. Currently, the page reads thusly:

The duck test does not apply in non-obvious cases. Unless there is such clear and convincing evidence, editors must assume good faith from others.

This should be changed to "The duck test applies in all cases, unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the editor being tested deserves the assumption of good faith from others." Also, that page should be considered official policy from now on.

I understand Mr. Brown's point, though. If you're trying to build an office building using all-volunteer labor and someone is snooping around the construction site, distracting the volunteer workers and asking a lot of questions, that's not something your supervisors (also volunteers) should be encouraging. Unfortunately, building construction isn't a good analogy for what's going on here. Wikipedia is a media entity, and in an ideal world, all media entities should be at least somewhat accessible to scrutiny by other media entities. However, in this case I would still (grudgingly) give Mr. Brown a pass because the person in question didn't identify himself publicly, no doubt based on the "they're not doing it so why should I have to" argument, which I personally would reject in the case of someone representing himself as a proper journalist. (It's bad enough that he named his account "Investigativereporter," as if this would somehow be enough to establish his bona fides.)

Ultimately the question becomes, "does AGF apply to someone who isn't contributing, or helping to maintain, actual content?" If it doesn't, then the relevant help and policy pages should say so, and why. If we're agreeing that Mr. Brown made the correct move in blocking this particular account (and I personally would say that he did), those pages should at least include some indication that exceptions are made when the offending account, despite not having explicitly violated any rules, simply "smells too fishy" to allow continued good-faith assumption to continue.

[Poetlister]

So what I hear you saying is that it's only OK for a journalist to be here when they are not doing their job, i.e. doing something that, if done to excess, would torpedo their career by virtue of editing Wikipedia to "improve the encyclopedia" at the expense of doing their job which is to report news.

Obviously, nobody with a job should spend so much time editing Wikipedia that it could damage his or her career. But is it any business of an admin whether or not the editor is doing this?

[AndyTheGrump]

...It's bad enough that he named his account "Investigativereporter," as if this would somehow be enough to establish his bona fides...

Personally, being the cynic I am, I'd call that a duck test fail right away. I can't imagine many genuine journalists being quite that full of themselves. Or if they were, they'd sign on with their own name anyway. Maybe Dennis was a little hasty with the block, but I can't see much merit in inventing a 'journalistic exception' to the general principle that user talk pages are there for communication between contributors. And one also might wonder what exactly it was that the 'reporter' was trying to find. By and large, media commentary on Wikipedia tends to revolve around things that anyone can access without having to interview people about the ins and outs of specific ANI disputes. Stories based on interviews of people nobody has heard of tend not to interest readers. The whole thing looks to me like a fishing expedition for someone with a grudge: something to my mind amply borne out by the 'reporter's' last comment after the block. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =804873487

Of course, I could be wrong about this: in which case we can look forward to an in-depth exposé of Wikipedia 'corruption' and the like, no doubt citing Dennis Brown as a leading culprit. Though I'm not holding my breath...

[Mason]

Well, here's the thing: nobody likes being blocked, but what really cheeses people off is being blocked with a bogus rationale. The "not here to contribute to the encyclopedia" part is fine, but to muddy the waters by adding in an inapplicable "paid editor" accusation just serves to antagonize the blockee and give them more reason to come back and argue they were being treated unfairly. It's the same reason that people who ask three or four pointed questions of somebody and get blocked for "harassment" get bent out of shape, and feel they have a wrong to right.

Dennis is a reasonable, sensible guy; I'm not sure why there's such a blind spot on this particular point.

[Midsize Jake]

Dennis is a reasonable, sensible guy; I'm not sure why there's such a blind spot on this particular point.

I doubt it's an issue with Mr. Brown specifically. It's more like an issue with nearly anyone who's been involved in Wikipedia long enough to be desensitized to things like "blocks" and "interaction bans" and "Arbcom sanctions" - which would include most, if not all, admins. It might never occur to some of them that a mere block of an account, even one with only a dozen non-substantive edits, might be seen as a personal affront, something offensive or even cruel, much less unfair or lacking in a clearly-understandable rationale.

Conversely, going back to what I wrote earlier about Wikipedia being primarily a media entity (as opposed to being a scholarly one or even simply a "reference work"), we're now living in a kind of "anti-media frenzy" era in which we see more people than ever seeking to blame the media for their problems, in some cases with justification. Arguably, most of those people are ideological extremists and conspiracy theorists and fringe-types of various kinds, and Wikipedia is obviously a prime target for anti-media activity. So it's absolutely understandable that admins and other well-established users would be much less willing to "AGF" in cases like this... Thing is, the situation has gotten so bad now that if they did update the rules to include more and wider exceptions to AGF-related policies, then I suspect that people like me, who would have screamed "told ya so" to the rafters about this 10 years ago, would probably just shrug and say oh well, these are the times we live in.

Wikipedia may have helped (a lot!) over the years to create the kinds of online social conditions that lead to these kinds of problems, but now that these are the conditions we're all dealing with, what choice do they really have? In other words, I might not want Wikipedia to survive long-term, but I can hardly blame them for trying, and this is probably what it will take.

[Kumioko]

Well, here's the thing: nobody likes being blocked, but what really cheeses people off is being blocked with a bogus rationale. The "not here to contribute to the encyclopedia" part is fine, but to muddy the waters by adding in an inapplicable "paid editor" accusation just serves to antagonize the blockee and give them more reason to come back and argue they were being treated unfairly. It's the same reason that people who ask three or four pointed questions of somebody and get blocked for "harassment" get bent out of shape, and feel they have a wrong to right.

Dennis is a reasonable, sensible guy; I'm not sure why there's such a blind spot on this particular point.

You're completely right that no one likes being blocked and especially with a bogus rationale. The problem is, it happens all the time and no one does anything, not even Dennis. The Wikipedia blocking system doesn't work, it's designed to be abusive to editors to keep them in fear. If you don't listen to the admins, regardless of the merits of the rationale, you will get blocked and then once that has happened your account is marred for life. I have no respect for the blocking system largely because of these bogus rationales that are too often used and the lack of checks and balances to prevent them from being used abusively by incompetent and/or power hungry admins.

[Kingsindian]

BEING a journalist isn't a problem. Not being an actual editor is.

So again what I hear you saying is, a lawyer can't practice law on Wikipedia, they can only improve the encyclopedia. A mediator can't practice mediation on Wikipedia, they can only improve the encyclopedia. An arbitrator can't arbitrate on Wikipedia, they can only improve the encyclopedia. A journalist can't request interviews with Wikipedia editors, they can only improve the encyclopedia. But if a lawyer, mediator, arbitrator or journalist does edit Wikipedia to improve its content, then by virtue of that, they have earned the privilege of lawyering, mediating, arbitrating or interviewing editors for the purpose of writing news stories.

That is not what I read Dennis Brown as saying: he's saying that the guy "InvestigativeReporter" did not make a single edit which is aimed towards encyclopedic material, but simply used WP as a social network to try to contact people. It beats me why they didn't simply email the people involved (almost all of the people they contacted had WP email enabled), but whatever.

In my view, they probably should not have been blocked, since there was very little harm in what they were doing, and if they want to, they can simply create a new account and continue as before. At the same time, my bullshit detector says: they are not an "investigative reporter" or whatever. Probably some random blogger.

[No Ledge]

BEING a journalist isn't a problem. Not being an actual editor is.

So again what I hear you saying is, a lawyer can't practice law on Wikipedia, they can only improve the encyclopedia. A mediator can't practice mediation on Wikipedia, they can only improve the encyclopedia. An arbitrator can't arbitrate on Wikipedia, they can only improve the encyclopedia. A journalist can't request interviews with Wikipedia editors, they can only improve the encyclopedia. But if a lawyer, mediator, arbitrator or journalist does edit Wikipedia to improve its content, then by virtue of that, they have earned the privilege of lawyering, mediating, arbitrating or interviewing editors for the purpose of writing news stories.

That is not what I read Dennis Brown as saying: he's saying that the guy "InvestigativeReporter" did not make a single edit which is aimed towards encyclopedic material, but simply used WP as a social network to try to contact people. It beats me why they didn't simply email the people involved (almost all of the people they contacted had WP email enabled), but whatever.

In my view, they probably should not have been blocked, since there was very little harm in what they were doing, and if they want to, they can simply create a new account and continue as before. At the same time, my bullshit detector says: they are not an "investigative reporter" or whatever. Probably some random blogger.

Sure, that's all logical. I'd wondered how many actually hadn't enabled email. I read everything you did into Dennis' position, then drew some more implied conclusions from that.

There's now an RfC on first contact between journalists and users.

[Randy from Boise]

BEING a journalist isn't a problem. Not being an actual editor is.

So again what I hear you saying is, a lawyer can't practice law on Wikipedia, they can only improve the encyclopedia. A mediator can't practice mediation on Wikipedia, they can only improve the encyclopedia. An arbitrator can't arbitrate on Wikipedia, they can only improve the encyclopedia. A journalist can't request interviews with Wikipedia editors, they can only improve the encyclopedia. But if a lawyer, mediator, arbitrator or journalist does edit Wikipedia to improve its content, then by virtue of that, they have earned the privilege of lawyering, mediating, arbitrating or interviewing editors for the purpose of writing news stories.

That is not what I read Dennis Brown as saying: he's saying that the guy "InvestigativeReporter" did not make a single edit which is aimed towards encyclopedic material, but simply used WP as a social network to try to contact people. It beats me why they didn't simply email the people involved (almost all of the people they contacted had WP email enabled), but whatever.

Chewing out a rhythm on my bubble gum
The sun is out and I want some
It's not hard, not far to reach, we can hitch a ride to Sockaway Beach
Up on the roof, out on the street
Down in the playground, the hot concrete
Bus ride is too slow, they blast out the disco on the radio

Sock-sock, Sockaway Beach
Sock-sock, Sockaway Beach
Sock-sock, Sockaway Beach
We can hitch a ride to Sockaway Beach


RfB

[MrErnie]

There's now an RfC on first contact between journalists and users.

It seems pretty obvious that the user who opened the RFQ was our friend Crowsnest, TDk, MMAR, etc. The writing style is pretty unique, and the commas are a giveaway.

[JCM]

There's now an RfC on first contact between journalists and users.

It seems pretty obvious that the user who opened the RFQ was our friend Crowsnest, TDk, MMAR, etc. The writing style is pretty unique, and the commas are a giveaway.

MMAR? Again? It doesn't actually surprise me, I guess, and he certainly was narcissistic enough to show up again. I guess I was just hoping he might be able to eventually take the hint to go away and stay away.

[Bezdomni]

I'm afraid that the RfC comments were not as clear as the comments left on DB's talk page. The garden path from WP:PAID to WP:NOTHERE is nonsense. Blocking someone as NOTHERE because they claim to be a journalist is rather surprising, but it should be acknowledged that this is either done or not done... a clear policy should be established as to whether Wikipedia allows members to contact other members concerning conflicts on Wikipedia, or if the standard practice of blocking anyone who investigates and removing their ability to contact other users has become the law of the land (by jurisprudence in Sagecandor v. SashiRolls & by DennisBrown's block of "investigative reporter"). (I would like to thank Euryalus for making it such that the false allegations against me are now hidden in the block record rather than being broadcast to every person who clicks on my contributions page. This is a *huge* improvement, and I appreciate ArbCom taking this first step.)

The questions concerning the right to investigate are pretty simple, really. In getting all caught up in the personalities, it appears that many are missing the point.

RfB & JCM do not seem to see a significant problem blocking people who choose to contribute to the health of WP by studying (punctually or longitudinally) why certain types of conflicts are so frequent. That's a bit puzzling, since others who are equally "in the know" about Wikipedia do seem to get it.

In a more general vein, I think it was Jake who said conflict was an inherent part of the software... which is an interesting claim.

However, I would like to point out that mediawiki ships with the line of code permitting administrators to correct a block record in default_settings.php. (The line in question just needs to be uncommented: $wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['deletelogentry'] = true; ) On en.wiki at least I've been told there is a policy according to which admins never make mistakes and never need to be corrected. (I have been told repeatedly that block records "cannot" be corrected. This is false. A log entry can be deleted. I've done it on my own mediawiki installation without any difficulty.) I also am aware that it has been alleged to have been done before, though, obviously, the evidence of this is necessarily difficult to find. So, while it may well be that conflict is encouraged by the software, local policy is at least in part responsible for the problems. (the policy of admin infallibility on the local en.wiki project as described in this paragraph, for example; the lack of enforcement concerning admin accountability is another,...)

[JCM]

I'm afraid that the RfC comments were not as clear as the comments left on DB's talk page. The garden path from WP:PAID to WP:NOTHERE is nonsense. Blocking someone as NOTHERE because they claim to be a journalist is rather surprising, but it should be acknowledged that this is either done or not done... a clear policy should be established as to whether Wikipedia allows members to contact other members concerning conflicts on Wikipedia, or if the standard practice of blocking anyone who investigates and removing their ability to contact other users has become the law of the land (by jurisprudence in Sagecandor v. SashiRolls & by DennisBrown's block of "investigative reporter"). (I would like to thank Euryalus for making it such that the false allegations against me are now hidden in the block record rather than being broadcast to every person who clicks on my contributions page. This is a *huge* improvement, and I appreciate ArbCom taking this first step.)

The questions concerning the right to investigate are pretty simple, really. In getting all caught up in the personalities, it appears that many are missing the point.

RfB & JCM do not seem to see a significant problem blocking people who choose to contribute to the health of WP by studying (punctually or longitudinally) why certain types of conflicts are so frequent. That's a bit puzzling, since others who are equally "in the know" about Wikipedia do seem to get it.

In a more general vein, I think it was Jake who said conflict was an inherent part of the software... which is an interesting claim.

However, I would like to point out that mediawiki ships with the line of code permitting administrators to correct a block record in default_settings.php. (The line in question just needs to be uncommented: $wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['deletelogentry'] = true; ) On en.wiki at least I've been told there is a policy according to which admins never make mistakes and never need to be corrected. (I have been told repeatedly that block records "cannot" be corrected. This is false. A log entry can be deleted. I've done it on my own mediawiki installation without any difficulty.) I also am aware that it has been alleged to have been done before, though, obviously, the evidence of this is necessarily difficult to find. So, while it may well be that conflict is encouraged by the software, local policy is at least in part responsible for the problems. (the policy of admin infallibility on the local en.wiki project as described in this paragraph, for example; the lack of enforcement concerning admin accountability is another,...)

Two points.
:1) Despite your attempt to basically misrepresent me and others, even I would have had no objections whatsoever to the person in question remaining unblocked if he had ever made so much as a single productive edit, or if he had acted in a way more consistent with best journalistic practices. In fact, as has been pointed out on Wikipedia, his behavior had been what others have described as basically bizarre, including his having said he had credentials as a journalist without revealing his name. Particularly if he is a standard journalist, his name would almost certainly have come out anyway. His half-way revelation is almost itself evidence of it being false. Also, I indicated in the Wikipedia discussion several ways he could proceed without any real difficulties. However, yes, if a reporter is unaware of or incompetent to adhere to basically standard rules of conduct, well,, a temporary indefinite ban until he gets his act up to par is certainly consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which don't have special exceptions for journalists who like playing bull in the china shop.
:2) As is actively being discussed here, on another thread, this individual looks to a lot of people to be someone with a definite grudge and penchant for sockpuppetry who has previously been banned here and at wikipedia for his unacceptable, and self-serving, behavior.

[Bezdomni]

I'm afraid that the RfC comments were not as clear as the comments left on DB's talk page. The garden path from WP:PAID to WP:NOTHERE is nonsense. Blocking someone as NOTHERE because they claim to be a journalist is rather surprising, but it should be acknowledged that this is either done or not done... a clear policy should be established as to whether Wikipedia allows members to contact other members concerning conflicts on Wikipedia, or if the standard practice of blocking anyone who investigates and removing their ability to contact other users has become the law of the land (by jurisprudence in Sagecandor v. SashiRolls & by DennisBrown's block of "investigative reporter"). (I would like to thank Euryalus for making it such that the false allegations against me are now hidden in the block record rather than being broadcast to every person who clicks on my contributions page. This is a *huge* improvement, and I appreciate ArbCom taking this first step.)

The questions concerning the right to investigate are pretty simple, really. In getting all caught up in the personalities, it appears that many are missing the point.

RfB & JCM do not seem to see a significant problem blocking people who choose to contribute to the health of WP by studying (punctually or longitudinally) why certain types of conflicts are so frequent. That's a bit puzzling, since others who are equally "in the know" about Wikipedia do seem to get it.

In a more general vein, I think it was Jake who said conflict was an inherent part of the software... which is an interesting claim.

However, I would like to point out that mediawiki ships with the line of code permitting administrators to correct a block record in default_settings.php. (The line in question just needs to be uncommented: $wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['deletelogentry'] = true; ) On en.wiki at least I've been told there is a policy according to which admins never make mistakes and never need to be corrected. (I have been told repeatedly that block records "cannot" be corrected. This is false. A log entry can be deleted. I've done it on my own mediawiki installation without any difficulty.) I also am aware that it has been alleged to have been done before, though, obviously, the evidence of this is necessarily difficult to find. So, while it may well be that conflict is encouraged by the software, local policy is at least in part responsible for the problems. (the policy of admin infallibility on the local en.wiki project as described in this paragraph, for example; the lack of enforcement concerning admin accountability is another,...)

Two points.
1) Despite your attempt to basically misrepresent me and others,

foul. please present evidence

even I would have had no objections whatsoever to the person in question remaining unblocked if he had ever made so much as a single productive edit, or if he had acted in a way more consistent with best journalistic practices.

You are talking about a personality, those looking at the case -- in my opinion more seriously -- are talking about a policy. Two cases were cited above. My own & investigative reporters. I was blocked for having investigated a particular area of Wikipedia (books related to Trump & Malcom Nance). I was blocked and gagged. What we are talking about is whether there is a policy or not.

In fact, as has been pointed out on Wikipedia, his behavior had been what others have described as basically bizarre, including his having said he had credentials as a journalist without revealing his name. Particularly if he is a standard journalist, his name would almost certainly have come out anyway. His half-way revelation is almost itself evidence of it being false. Also, I indicated in the Wikipedia discussion several ways he could proceed without any real difficulties. However, yes, if a reporter is unaware of or incompetent to adhere to basically standard rules of conduct, well,, a temporary indefinite ban until he gets his act up to par is certainly consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which don't have special exceptions for journalists who like playing bull in the china shop.

You have extrapolated a whole lot of stuff out of very few public comments. Fair enough. What exactly was this account's "half-way revelation" -- could you provide the exact quotes, please? I'm curious what that's all about.

2) As is actively being discussed here, on another thread, this individual looks to a lot of people to be someone with a definite grudge and penchant for sockpuppetry who has previously been banned here and at wikipedia for his unacceptable, and self-serving, behavior.

foul. please present evidence. which individual? investigative journalist? Sagecandor? SashiRolls? Dennis Brown? I'm soooo confused. ^^

ps: I have little doubt that "investigativereporter" was a troll account, but it would surprise me (based only on style, admittedly) to learn that that account was run by the QP Cereal Critic formerly known as whatever s/he was formerly known as.

[JCM]

You do know blocks can be lifted, if there is evidence of changed behavior, right? Anyway, thanks for pointing out the nature of your own axe to be ground here. That makes it kind of obvious to me that you may be more about rehashing your own.complaints, or at least seeing everything in light of them. It makes it easier to ignore them.

[Kumioko]

You do know blocks can be lifted, if there is evidence of changed behavior, right? Anyway, thanks for pointing out the nature of your own axe to be ground here. That makes it kind of obvious to me that you may be more about rehashing your own.complaints, or at least seeing everything in light of them. It makes it easier to ignore them.

Of course blocks "can" be lifted but you have been around long enough that there's no point in playing stupid or trying to poke holes in another member of this forums credibility. Heck, everyone knows that the blocking culture on Wikipedia is a joke, so you're not likely to sway many people here to the contrary. Too many of us are, or have been the victims of that culture.

[Dennis Brown]

You do know blocks can be lifted, if there is evidence of changed behavior, right? Anyway, thanks for pointing out the nature of your own axe to be ground here. That makes it kind of obvious to me that you may be more about rehashing your own.complaints, or at least seeing everything in light of them. It makes it easier to ignore them.

Of course blocks "can" be lifted but you have been around long enough that there's no point in playing stupid or trying to poke holes in another member of this forums credibility. Heck, everyone knows that the blocking culture on Wikipedia is a joke, so you're not likely to sway many people here to the contrary. Too many of us are, or have been the victims of that culture.

As you know, socking is pretty much a guarantee that you won't get unblocked, whether or not the original block was fair. That isn't an admin thing, that is a community thing. When put to a vote, they tend to vote down any unblocking when socking has taken place in the last 6 months or so. It's been that way the entire 10 years I've been there.

[Kumioko]

You do know blocks can be lifted, if there is evidence of changed behavior, right? Anyway, thanks for pointing out the nature of your own axe to be ground here. That makes it kind of obvious to me that you may be more about rehashing your own.complaints, or at least seeing everything in light of them. It makes it easier to ignore them.

Of course blocks "can" be lifted but you have been around long enough that there's no point in playing stupid or trying to poke holes in another member of this forums credibility. Heck, everyone knows that the blocking culture on Wikipedia is a joke, so you're not likely to sway many people here to the contrary. Too many of us are, or have been the victims of that culture.

As you know, socking is pretty much a guarantee that you won't get unblocked, whether or not the original block was fair. That isn't an admin thing, that is a community thing. When put to a vote, they tend to vote down any unblocking when socking has taken place in the last 6 months or so. It's been that way the entire 10 years I've been there.

It has been my experience that declines due to socking are often used as excuses even when there is no valid evidence. Given that so many people edit from popular IP locations like Verizon, Comcast, Universities, Open WiFi Connections, etc. and given the checkuser tool is completely garbage, the chances of being accused as a sock even when the individual hasn't been socking is nearly 100% if someone runs a CU on someone who is blocked.

In my case, everyone knows I have socked constantly to evade a ban that was neither warranted nor in line with policy because I refuse to be bullied out since day one and I will continue to do so. Had I not been blocked, bullied and hounded out of Wikipedia by policy violating admins and their lackies I would likely still be editing large numbers of articles daily. However, a large number of the socks I have been credited with aren't even mine and a large number (hundreds at least) that I have created have yet to be blocked. In fact, believe this or not, I voted 5 times so far with various accounts I created and seasoned carefully solely to be used in the Arbcom election.

Russavia is another good example of someone, who can, literally, evade bans forever and since we both know how the process works technically, we can incur a large amount of proxy blocks and collateral irritation knowing that our presence on a certain network will cause it to be range blocked on site. Russ once got the entire Western side of Australia range blocked...because the Wikipedia tools suck!

My point here is those are problems not in our behavior specifically, but in the effectiveness of the tools, the users of those tools and the lack of a technical mechanism to prevent it. Further proof of the incompetence of the WMF and the people operating those tools and a cultural willingness to allow certain admins and editors to do whatever they want with no regard for the long term health of Wikipedia or the collateral damage caused by their actions.

[No Ledge]

You do know blocks can be lifted, if there is evidence of changed behavior, right?

If one is blocked, how can they show "evidence of changed behavior"? If you're blocked, you can't edit. If you can't edit, you can't show any evidence of behavior.

Catch-22 (logic) (T-H-L)

[JCM]

You do know blocks can be lifted, if there is evidence of changed behavior, right?

If one is blocked, how can they show "evidence of changed behavior"? If you're blocked, you can't edit. If you can't edit, you can't show any evidence of behavior.

Catch-22 (logic) (T-H-L)

I meant willingness to change behavior, and mistyped. And at least one previously sitebanned edifor here, Peter Damian, showed such a willingness and got his ban there lifted.

Regarding sockpuppeteers rarely getting unbanned, yeah, the only person I know of right now who had previously been sitebanned for socking and is now active again is Hijiri88. I have no idea what different things happened there.

[Kumioko]

You do know blocks can be lifted, if there is evidence of changed behavior, right?

If one is blocked, how can they show "evidence of changed behavior"? If you're blocked, you can't edit. If you can't edit, you can't show any evidence of behavior.

Catch-22 (logic) (T-H-L)

I meant willingness to change behavior, and mistyped. And at least one previously sitebanned edifor here, Peter Damian, showed such a willingness and got his ban there lifted.

Regarding sockpuppeteers rarely getting unbanned, yeah, the only person I know of right now who had previously been sitebanned for socking and is now active again is Hijiri88. I have no idea what different things happened there.

I can tell you what was different, in both cases, they told the Arbcom what they wanted to hear and both after several years of being off the site.

For what it's worth, Rich Farmbrough, GoodDay and Beyond My Ken, among others were all previously site banned for some duration and are now editing. Good Day and BMK should still be IMO!

[Poetlister]

You do know blocks can be lifted, if there is evidence of changed behavior, right?

If one is blocked, how can they show "evidence of changed behavior"? If you're blocked, you can't edit. If you can't edit, you can't show any evidence of behavior.

Catch-22 (logic) (T-H-L)

Being a good editor on Simple Wikipedia has often been used as a ploy.

[The Garbage Scow]

You do know blocks can be lifted, if there is evidence of changed behavior, right?

If one is blocked, how can they show "evidence of changed behavior"? If you're blocked, you can't edit. If you can't edit, you can't show any evidence of behavior.

Catch-22 (logic) (T-H-L)

Being a good editor on Simple Wikipedia has often been used as a ploy.

Or Commons, or any of the other projects.

[TNT]

Being a good editor on Simple Wikipedia has often been used as a ploy.

Oh, really? Simple could do with some good editors though.. it's the Wikipedia That Time Forgot over there

[Bezdomni]

Being a good editor on Simple Wikipedia has often been used as a ploy.

Oh, really? Simple could do with some good editors though.. it's the Wikipedia That Time Forgot over there

I'd say we've veered off-topic somewhat. Still, a look at the DYKs... well....

DYK that Chicago is the largest city in the United States to have had a female mayor since 2012?

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Byrne

[TNT]

Being a good editor on Simple Wikipedia has often been used as a ploy.

Oh, really? Simple could do with some good editors though.. it's the Wikipedia That Time Forgot over there

I'd say we've veered off-topic somewhat. Still, a look at the DYKs... well.... DYK that Chicago is the largest city in the United States to have had a female mayor since 2012? Erm, no actually I didn't. ^^

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Byrne

One last veer, Simple says she was the 50th mayor, whereas English says 40th

[JCM]

Being a good editor on Simple Wikipedia has often been used as a ploy.

Oh, really? Simple could do with some good editors though.. it's the Wikipedia That Time Forgot over there

Wholeheartedly agree.

[Bezdomni]

I see there's no simple page on the ICIJ (T-H-L). Maybe that needs some fixin'. ^^

I also see that James Marshall Y got blocked and that the GMG weighed into the RfC discussion colorfully.

[Dennis Brown]

I see there's no simple page on the ICIJ (T-H-L). Maybe that needs some fixin'. ^^

I also see that James Marshall Y got blocked and that the GMG weighed into the RfC discussion colorfully.

He could have been blocked at any time, by me or anyone else. In this case, it was more effective to let some of his BS play through and demonstrate that it isn't about me, the community as a whole didn't support him or his ideas. Nor did they believe his claims of not being a sock.

Simply claiming you are a journalist doesn't convey special privilege, nor should it. Any idiot with a wordpress blog can claim they are journalists, and many do. I would also note that the original "journalist" account went to great lengths to hide themselves, via CU, by a proxy that was blocked in an unrelated case. Real journalists don't do that, there is no need.

I would note that often when a block is made, there is information that the public doesn't know about. As the blocking admin, it kind of sucks because you often hear people complain and whine, yet they don't understand they don't have enough information to understand the situation. CUs get questioned less about this, although we all know the CU tools are very limited and far from conclusive in many cases.

[Kumioko]

I see there's no simple page on the ICIJ (T-H-L). Maybe that needs some fixin'. ^^

I also see that James Marshall Y got blocked and that the GMG weighed into the RfC discussion colorfully.

He could have been blocked at any time, by me or anyone else. In this case, it was more effective to let some of his BS play through and demonstrate that it isn't about me, the community as a whole didn't support him or his ideas. Nor did they believe his claims of not being a sock.

Simply claiming you are a journalist doesn't convey special privilege, nor should it. Any idiot with a wordpress blog can claim they are journalists, and many do. I would also note that the original "journalist" account went to great lengths to hide themselves, via CU, by a proxy that was blocked in an unrelated case. Real journalists don't do that, there is no need.

I would note that often when a block is made, there is information that the public doesn't know about. As the blocking admin, it kind of sucks because you often hear people complain and whine, yet they don't understand they don't have enough information to understand the situation. CUs get questioned less about this, although we all know the CU tools are very limited and far from conclusive in many cases.

Let's be honest here, most "real" journalists wouldn't waste their time reporting on Wikipedia anyway. They have better scandals to report on at the moment than an out of date, aging family of websites with dwindling communities and reducing relevance.

The site/community already has a well known reputation of abuse and hostility towards it's editors so that's not news and none of the long list of other problems are going to have enough shock effect in todays media to make the paper. No need for a Journalist to debase themselves reporting on issues no one in the world outside the community and us critics really cares about.