Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/My block of Miltopia

I am sure this will cause some drama, but please let's try to minimize the drama.

I think it is about time that we stop putting up with some really useless users who have done little more for months that simply troll and cause problems. The specific reason for his block was his "LOL I have aids" comment, which I find deeply offensive. But the more complete reason is a thorough evaluation of an ongoing pattern of behavior. He's been indef blocked numerous times.

There are others like him who need to go, but please let's not have this block set off a spree of bans of obnoxious irritants. Let's go slow.

I am going camping this weekend with my daughter. I will not be online again much until Monday. Stay chill until then. :-) We can have a fight about it on Monday, if necessary, after a period of reflection. He'll live through the weekend somehow, even if still blocked.--Jimbo Wales 19:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Responses

• Good block Jimbo, there's been numerous disruptive actions by Miltopia in the past and in many situations he comes here soley to troll about. It's well known that he's that "editor from ED" - I'm surprised we put up with him for this long. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• I endorse the block as well Jimbo, good call. And I agree fully that we need to stop baby-sitting the vandals and trolls and get around to showing them the door, a-la the block function. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 19:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC) Added: I've put the {{indefblocked}} message on the user page. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 19:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • For those of us who don't know the background, where's a good place to start?⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Miltopia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), just to provde the basic links. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Good call, Jimbo. --Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 19:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Thank you Jimbo. You have restored my faith in the values of the project. The circumstances of my last run-in with this user nearly had me at the point of bailing out. - Crockspot 19:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Agreed; good block. Acalamari 19:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• endorse block - AIDS is ever-so-funny, of course. Geez :( Just the last in a long litany of offenses - Alison ^❤ 19:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• I wish I was Jimbo and could ban useless editors if they overdo the obnoxiety :oP dab (𒁳) 19:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Seems justified. I've encountered users like this who toe the line on purpose, and they're quite frustrating. Leebo ^T/C 19:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Agreed. Frankly, there's been several times in the last couple months where I saw an editor acting so poorly that I couldn't believe that noone had thought to block them before. The overt racist who was editing BLPs to add the vital information that they were "race traitors" (and that one of the milder things he did) - and had evidently been doing things like that for months - was enough to make me wonder whether all the other admins had gone mad, or at least had optimism to rival Pangloss. Vanished user ^talk 19:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with this block, but let me play devil's advocate here, if only for the sake of argument. If you look through Miltopia's contributions, there's a lot of useful ones mixed in with his arguing; he's not here solely for the purpose of trolling. He claims not to have anything to do with ED anymore, and he does make useful article edits.

Miltopia is difficult to be around, but so are a lot of editors. Many editors as disruptive as him were given topic bans (back when Community Sanction was still around) or are referred up to ArbCom. Perhaps Miltopia could be barred from interacting with Mongo and banned from the noticeboards or something like that.

I'm not sure if Miltopia is worth the trouble to watchdog if he is kept around, and I realize that Jimbo's word is law and that there is not (nor should there be) anything like due process on Wikipedia. I'm just a little uneasy that maybe we're allowing someone to be indef blocked for the crime of possessing an unpopular set of opinions and an abrasive attitude. Comments welcome. A Train^talk 20:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

(Addendum: I hadn't read Vanished user's comment proir to leaving my comment above; if Miltopia was adding terms like "race traitor" to biographical articles, then consider my above comment a thought experiment and dismiss any thought of my supporting an unblock. A Train^talk 20:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)) This doesn't have anything to do with Miltopia, as mentioned below. Striking out to avoid any confusion. A Train^talk 22:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Miltopia wasn't adding "race traitor" to articles. Vanished user was referencing a different user as an example. IrishGuy ^talk 20:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your original position. He has provided commentary valuable (IMO) commmentary lately. Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. I am not seeing much prevention here except removing a set of opinions that differs from others. He originally was disruptive but the last 500 edits were decent. Spryde 20:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Atrain, lets not be hasty to someone people disagree with, and who enjoy's baiting MONGO. I'm not saying he shouldn't be banned, just not to be hasty about it. --Rocksanddirt 21:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

What's being prevented is future trolling. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support. When I was reading the argument I thought "Oh crap, zOMG drama to come," but when I saw Jimbo's signature at the end, I was pleasantly surprised. Since I joined Wikipedia in 2004, the standards of what admins are willing to tolerate have fallen drmatically. I see users carry on with behavior that was unacceptable years ago; I applaud Jimbo for taking a stand for building an encyclopedia; a jump back from the poisonous atmosphere which has pervaded for so long. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 21:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

81.158.211.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - probably a sock of the user. The evidence is this diff. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 21:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but look above, too... --Ali'i 21:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You guys do realize that Miltopia does not live in London? At least not according to what could be found by Googling and looking at what has been posted about his whereabouts on a certain other site we don't link to. If he is getting indef banned now a checkuser to establish this before he becomes stale would be in order. EconomicsGuy 21:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're just going by a whois, it's meaningless on BT accounts as they all trace back to BT in London, same as AOL accounts worldwide trace back to AOL in Virginia — iridescent 21:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Miltopia is in North America. Unless BT has some extremely excentric setup the traceroute I did which led to Birmingham, England can't have been that far off the target. Still, I'd like to see a checkuser on this before we jump to conclusions. EconomicsGuy 21:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Since I joined Wikipedia in 2004, the standards of what admins are willing to tolerate have fallen drmatically. Uh, to be fair to the rest of us, the standards applied to admin behavior have also fallen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Since admins are but editors with a few extra buttons, thats not really surprising. After all, the admins are a product of the pool they are drawn from. We should worry less about what admins are willing to tolerate and more about what the community is willing to tolerate, including poor standard of behaviour from (some) admins. Rockpocket 22:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ab-so-lute-ly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Out of curiosity, how long ago was this "I have AIDS" comment? Can anyone provide a diff? Thanks.—AL ^FOCUS! 21:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • He was edit warring on his own user page back in April. At least that's the instance I found. Mahalo. --Ali'i 21:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Is it really justified to indef-block him now for something he did back in April, when his recent edits (as far as I can see) have been generally polite and constructive (even if sometimes opinionated in a way that disagrees with some others here)? He does have a "smartass streak" to him, certainly, but he doesn't seem lately to be obnoxious to a bannable extent. *Dan T.* 21:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
      • "[T]he more complete reason is a thorough evaluation of an ongoing pattern of behavior." He doesn't seem to have been doing much constructive editing that I can see, and he appears to have been baiting other users. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
        • He disagreed with Jimbo on the Ombudsman block. Maybe he just got tired of him. His previous overturned indef blocks made it all the more easy to block him (though at least the Fred Bauder block was a mistake). I'm actually more interested in knowing what other editors he apparently plans to get rid of. EconomicsGuy 22:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Though I have never had person interactions in any matters involving Miltopia, there were numerous instances where I was very aghast at his actions. This was a ban that indeed needed to be enacted.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support, and reiterate RyanGerbil10's point. We seem to be tolerating consistently poisonous behaviour with the justification that the perpetrators have a history of constructive edits. Constructive edits are easy to quantify. What is less difficult to ascertain is the persuasive knock-on effects that obnoxious behaviour has on the encyclopaedia and its editors. Rockpocket 22:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• I can't believe you people. Miltopia is a good person. We owe him because he stood up for Wikipedians on Encyclopedia Dramatica, and was banned there repeatedly for doing so. We have stooped to the lowest level and betrayed him by banning him here. MONGO blocked him for no reason and started threads about him here just for harassment. Yet, the person who gets banned for baiting is Miltopia?? And, how is saying that he has AIDS so offensive? I guess it might be offensive if he said people who have AIDS deserve it. "Jimbo" obviously spends too much time with elites from the media, because he seems to have developed an intolerance for what he defines as "political incorrectness." He didn't insult anyone.

  Not only has he been banned, we have blanked his user page that he obviously spent a lot of time on. It's not your page, people.--Gnfgb2 22:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not his, either. A Train^talk 22:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Why does it have to be blanked and replaced with a threatening-looking box? He's not a vandal. He shouldn't even have been banned -- certainly not for something he did in April, or for an argument he had recently, or for predictions we try to make. I put a {{retired}} template there, but was reverted. He doesn't deserve this.--Gnfgb2 22:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

If the boss thinks he deserves it, he deserves it. HalfShadow 23:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't work that way. If this were one of those cases where he was exercising his special Jimbo powers, he wouldn't have asked for comment, he would have just done it and maybe made a short note that he did. -Amarkov moo! 23:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• What is wrong with all you people? Tolerating constantly poisonous behavior because of constructive edits is what we've done constantly with MONGO. Some of the people commenting here are the same people who have told me that we shouldn't do anything about him? I knew there was a double standard working here, but I didn't expect it to be so obvious. -Amarkov moo! 23:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • So does that mean we can expect a block for MONGO soon as well? Goose and gander, both the same? That would be wonderful. If we can't block MONGO for the behavior attributed to Miltopia, how can we block Miltopia? ThuranX 23:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Miltopia is a troll. MONGO is a pair of boots that stomps trolls. You do see the difference, don't you? One is trying to harm the project, the other is trying to help it. Enough handwringing, please. - Crockspot 23:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• I see two users. Both are incivil pretty much equally... but one is defended because he also happens to do good things, while one is now banned despite the good things he did. Accusations that someone is deliberately trying to harm the project are serious, and must be backed up by evidence. -Amarkov moo! 00:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• I also see two users, one more good than bad, and one more bad than good. It's a matter of balance. Maybe "trying to harm" is too harsh, but he was harming the project. - Crockspot 00:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Um, yes. MONGO is also harming the project. In fact, I don't thing even he denies that, just says that it doesn't matter because he's dealing with the trolls. -Amarkov moo! 00:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• And, of course, that anyone who opposes what MONGO wants is a troll. There's a HUGE double standards going on here. ThuranX 00:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah yeah, MONGO EEEVIL, MUST BURN MONGO! And Miltopia is a saintly misunderstood cherub, and we have only society and EEEVIL MONGO to blame for his antisocial drain on our resources. Got it. - Crockspot 01:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Croskspot, Amarkov, Thuran... to be fair. Miltopia is an editor who has done some trolling in the past, far less in the more recent past, and who has been working to improve Wikipedia. MONGO is an editor who has done a lot to improve Wikipedia, and who would like to think of himself as a "pair of boots that stomps trolls". This is, sadly, not the case; he's in fact a troll-feeder, but not intentionally. They've both created their share of drama, often working as a team.

  If you persist in believing that (and acting as if) there are "good" and "bad" people in the world, then you will persist in creating drama, feeding trolls, and working against yourself. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not picking good or bad. I just want to see two editors who can both be great, or incredibly disruptive, treated equally. ThuranX 04:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• It's funny now, if you switch "Miltopia" and "MONGO", that's almost exactly what people who support this sound like. -Amarkov moo! 01:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• • • We had a block for MONGO not that long ago. Then it was overturned because he also has productive contributions. But clearly, that only applies in the special cases, and Miltopia wasn't fortunate enough to target the right people with his behavior. -Amarkov moo! 23:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• (double edit conflict) I'm going to have to strongly disagree here. It's true that Miltopia has done some stupid things in the past. The "LOL I HAVE AIDS" thing, was undoubtedly a trollish move — however, it was back in mid-April. On the other hand, while he's recently been speaking out against policies he disagrees with such as the attack sites clause in WP:NPA, he's been doing so in a relatively civil manner, trying to work on a compromise even in the face of constant personal attacks targeted directly at him. He's also been contributing to the encyclopedia while doing so. To block/ban Miltopia now over his past actions months ago, when his behavior now is fine, is unnecessarily punitive and out-of-line. --krimpet⟲ 23:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• He's built a record of persistent low-grade trollishness, active participation in whatever drama is going, and mediocre contributions. I support the block. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

To me, this entire argument is a non-issue: Jimbo, who (unless I'm reading this wrong) effectively is Wikipedia, has decided someone needs to be blocked. So they are. HalfShadow 23:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, Jimbo is normally just like any other respected user. When he's exercising his special powers that let him overrule everyone, his word is law, but there is no evidence that he is doing so in this case. -Amarkov moo! 23:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose block. Of course, Jimbo can do what he wants, but he's sought opinions here, so that's mine for what it's worth (not very much, I guess, since I seem to have gotten various people including Jimbo peeved at me for my tendency to be out of step with the common belief system around here, especially among admins). Miltopia was pretty annoying a few months ago, but hasn't been that way lately, and blocks are supposed to be preventative rather than punitive. His main recent "offense" has been to be politically/philosophically opposed to some policy positions taken by others, just as I have myself. *Dan T.* 23:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• His behavior recently has not been fine. I had a serious complaint about him earlier this week that was basically ignored and archived. He pushes buttons as far as he thinks he can get away with, and then chuckles about it. I certainly won't miss him, and neither will the project. More: I also am not so sure that Jimbo was requesting comment here. It looks more to me like he was notifying the admin pool of what he had done, and was asking for no one to unblock at least until he is back on Monday. - Crockspot 23:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Pushing buttons as far as he thinks he can get away with and then chuckling about it... prompting others to make serious complaints that get basically ignored and archived... does that sound familiar? There's an editor or two who this description also applies to, but nothing ever gets done about them because of their status and social network here. *Dan T.* 23:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose block. Wikipedia can't be micro managed in this way. Terrible decision. Privatemusings 23:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Unsure about block If "He doesn't seem to have been doing much constructive editing that I can see, and he appears to have been baiting other users" is enough to get you an indefinite block without a warning, will this be applied equally to all? I don't know this user and cannot comment on the rights and wrongs of his behaviour; however we would not normally block, let alone ban a long term user for an incident from 6 months ago. I can think of at least one other user who routinely edit-wars and abuses other users, yet seems to lead a charmed life with regard to the unblock button. I don't know, this makes me uneasy and I need to think about it some more. --John 23:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose block I have just reviewed all of Miltopia's contributions back to 06:24 22 October 2007, and the edit summaries (with some contributions) to the beginning of the month; I do not see trolling. Perhaps someone could supply specific diffs for the last week, or month.

I also note that the "AIDS LOL" edit summary and placement of Wikipedians with AIDS happened back on 21 April 2007 and was substantially amended on 1 May 2007 (the page was "protected" against Miltopia editing it for the duration of the week long block, disallowing removal by the user).

Also, taking a self admitted controversial decision just before absenting oneself for the weekend is unhelpful for the volunteers who are going to have to deal with this in the meantime. This is a bad decision for bad reasons.LessHeard vanU 23:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

(Apologies for the last attempt - for some reason there were quite a few edit conflicts. LHvU)

• I have some concerns about this situation, bearing in mind some of this user's history (some positive and some negative) that may be being overlooked here. However, before we spend much more time discussing this issue, dramatically or otherwise, please note that at least thus far, Miltopia has not responded to the block or posted an unblock request. His talkpage is not (and should not be) protected, and perhaps we should wait to see what his response to the block will be. If he never requests an unblock, then further discussion here would be moot (except perhaps as a continuation of the neverending philosophical debate on the Role Of Jimbo). If Miltopia does ask to be unblocked/unbanned, then his request will be entitled to consideration (although an administrator's granting the request and undoing a Jimbo block unilaterally would certainly not be acceptable), but the conversation here would benefit from being informed by what he might have to say in his defense. Newyorkbrad 23:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose block. Ditto Privatemusings's comment above. Mr.grantevans2 15:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• It sounds as if Miltopia has used up his share of the community's patience, which was never very large, due to the path by which he arrived. I think it would therefore be in our best interests to support Jimbo's block. Now more than ever, Miltopia's presence here is likely to generate more heat than light, whether or not that be his intention. I'm sorry it came to this, because I think the kid's got potential; YMMV. I think the community is generally headed in a good direction, and that scenes like this will be less common in the future. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose block - If Miltopia were a user who hadn't stood up to a particularly poisonous former admin, none of his actions would have merited any more than than a warning or perhaps a brief "cool-down" block, and no one would be discussing him or wheel-warring over him. He's a generally constructive editor. He may get into scraps with admins from time to time, but let's face it - sometimes we need dissenting voices - dissent is the reason "there is no cabal." I personally think far more good than harm has come out of Miltopia's contributions to Wikipedia. --Hyperbole 06:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Unblocking

• This just in: Zscout370 has unblocked. EconomicsGuy 00:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh jesus - be prepared for wheel warring. Viridae^Talk 00:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Quite a WP:BOLD move... for all my own anti-authoritarianism, I would never counsel getting into a wheel-war with Jimbo! *Dan T.* 00:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless someone comes up with some real good reason how that was a valid unblock, I'm going to revert it soon - Jimbo blocked him, and there's a consensus here that the block was valid. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• • As much as I hate wheel warring, I can understand why someone would unblock (still a very bad idea, though). Doing something controversial right before you leave for a couple days, and asking for people not to reverse it, is pretty much just begging for someone to do so. -Amarkov moo! 00:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not ask Zscout370 to self revert first, to avoid a potential wheel war? LessHeard vanU 00:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Sorry to perhaps be a little cynical, but could anyone above confirm if this is being discussed elsewhere, perhaps IRC? The block notice, followed by several 'supports' seemed to arrive somewhat quicker than the concerned responses below. No biggie if this isn't the case, but if it were, it would be healthy to disclose. Privatemusings 00:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you mean something of a Cydeside issue?LessHeard vanU 00:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, I think a reblock would lead to further wheel warring. (Since Zscout370 is standing behind his unblock). Is there real harm in allowing for the formation of a consensus before rushing to reblock? (I oppose the unblock, and am neutral on the original block per Newyorkbrad's comments above). --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Pretty much, I didn't see anything recently that is blockworthy. Whatever he did in the past, he was blocked for. I even interacted with the user before, I found him civil in all regards. Anyways, if you want to block someone, just wait and get a full consensus, then just block then bolt for a trip. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I have had quite a few dealings with Miltopia very recently, and although he is not the best contributor, nothing he has done recently is worthy of an indef block. I have to agree with Zscout370's take on the situation. Viridae^Talk 00:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support - the required 22.3 years has not passed, so the comment wasn't anything but offensive. Will ^(talk) 00:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Did anybody actually read all of Jimbo's message? Look at the first sentence, the last paragraph and, especially, "But the more complete reason is a thorough evaluation of an ongoing pattern of behavior." That last sentence suggests that there may be more to this than what we can see at first glance. I think it would be interesting to see what else Jimbo has to say before support/oppose. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Just when we got a badly needed infusion of backbone towards useless editors -- courtesy of the Big Boss, no less -- something like this has to happen. Do we have a collective death wish? Raymond Arritt 00:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I thoroughly approve of Jimbo's block. The editor was here to drain volunteer resources, not to build an encyclopedia. Consistent low-level disruption is bannable, in my opinion, once it becomes very clear that a user contributes little to nothing of positive value and is gaming the system. In other words, Miltopia is a troll. Websites ban trolls. Nothing personal; that's just how normal websites operate. Durova^Charge! 00:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

But... he HAS contributed things of positive value. It's possible that this value is outweighed by other things, but it exists all the same. -Amarkov moo! 00:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• I don't have the time to deal with users who are not here for the project. For the record, if this unblock stands, I'll be indef blocking this user if I see even one jot or tiddle of disruption outside of encyclopedic building as a separate action. Mercury 00:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that that is a very bold assertion, one that you need to back up with diffs that show that Miltopia isn't "here for the project". He has been making good faith, productive edits of late. A Train^talk 01:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[1] Mercury 01:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

"Revision as of 13:44, 21 April 2007". A Train^talk 01:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, there is also the contributions occurring over the life of the account (long) Mercury 01:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the block. Please leave it in place while discussion continues. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind leaving the userpage in place? - It actually serves as a useful starting point for discussion of the situation. thanks, Privatemusings 01:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

No strong opinion on that; As long as it isn't misused, I'll leave it for others to decide. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Putting the genie back into the bottle

This is going to get nasty. I think that

• 1) Zscout370 should re-block Miltopia, if only to prevent a wheel war and keep Jimbo from taking his sysop bit away the moment he gets back.
• 2) Later (not this week), we need to come up with a concrete policy page for interpreting/dealing with Jimbo sysop/crat actions. A Train^talk 01:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Except that's not the problem. It's not like Jimbo did something and everyone's disagreeing. Jimbo did something, yes, but most people (inexplicably) are agreeing. The problem is that he unblocked against consensus, not against Jimbo. -Amarkov moo! 01:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that regardless of the outcome here, there's sufficient grounds for Zscout's actions that he won't and should NOT lose any admin status. There are a number of peopel pointing out that shooting and running is awkward, and makes discussing this obviously controversial ban difficult. That Zscout opened things up for Miltopia's replies and a defense isn't unthinkable, and had any 'regular' admin done this ban and then left for a weekend, the repeal would be far less controversial. While I accord Jimbo great respect, he's made his judgements open for review in the past, and I think it's fair to assume he knew by posting it here that it would be discussed, and objected to by some. Zscout also cited Milt's recent editing history and the incredible gap between the AIDS line (which I cannot and won't defend in any way, reprehensible) and Milt's recent contribs, which he interprets as having an upward, positive turn to their quality. Let's avoid trying to 'nail' Zscout for his efforts in this, and focus on Milt, for better or worse. ThuranX 01:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

From what i understand of this, the big question we have here is, if a user makes 500 great edits, does that excuse 50 vandalistic edits? If so doesn't that mean that the more edits you have, the more license you're given with regards to rules. I personally have had no interaction with Miltopia as far as i can remember, but as far as i can tell it sounds like a case of edititis caused arrogance, which seems to pop up a lot more, i.e. "oh, well i've got a lot more edits than you, which makes me right, i can do what i want, because [insert several links to essays/policies/precedents].--Jac16888 01:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

That seems to be the general way things I have seen it done; if the first edits are vandalism, blocks are issued right away. If they occur later on, then stuff like this happens. Think of the former account SPUI. Anyways, I have been notified the block was reapplied by another user. I will respect that block and we will wait until Monday until this is settled. I would probably be able to answer questions about 6 PM, Pacific Time, if anyone about the block occurs on Monday. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should have waited for Miltopia to post an unblock request. Just saying. - Crockspot 01:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

What happened is early on in his presence here at the project he was disruptive and generally trolling. Over time, his edits have been much more productive. The most recent "incident" is at [WT:NPA] and he and others were arguing civilly about a certain position and trying to build a consensus. Other editors were by all definitions editing disruptively by reverting based on who was editing and not what was being added. The argument you are putting forth (more edits == more leeway) is what I have been arguing against. I want equal application of the rules. IE, one person does X and gets banned instantly and another does X gets a light slap on the wrist is not fair especially when it comes to someone arguing about content rather than the person behind it. The bottom line is he was dealt with about the "LOL I Have AIDS comment" back in April [2] and is being punished for that and having a difference of opinion. Spryde 01:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a date for what you claim was the most recent incident? I left him a WP:POINT block warning just a few hours ago for this edit.[3] Shortly after he made that edit he posted this bizarre comment to an arbitration case. He's here to game site processes and features. Durova^Charge! 01:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

No comment (beyond what I said above) about any other aspect right now, but I didn't consider that comment on the arbitration page bizarre at all. I had exactly the same reaction myself when I saw the post he was responding to. Newyorkbrad 01:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. I thought email prevented WP->User, not User->User. I linked WT:NPA as that is the most contentious of the recent edits.. The issue you saw on the ANI was making a valid comment. Nobody wants to see MONGO blocked for expressing his valid opinions but we want him treated equally. The comment could have been made anywhere but that is where the discussion was. We do have a autoarchiver that comes through and clears out the ANI page periodically (now that CSN is closed, it probably should be tweaked to run a bit more :) ). Spryde 02:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, an ArbCom was started about this, but has since been reverted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Can everyone please look down the page at the "Quick block review" section. Basically some editor, has made a few decent edits, then comes up with a pretty dammed racist comment on an raf, gets blocked for 24hrs, then bumped up to indef, but now being considered for unblocking because of the good edits. Basicially, it comes down to, if a person is a model citizen all their life, then commits some terrible crime out of the blue, does their previous behaviour excuse the crime?--Jac16888 01:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want it in simple terms, yes. I call people shitcocks in edit summaries before and I get just a "don't do it again." If it was done by another user, I expected a block to be issued by another admin. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I know the polling phase is over, but I'd just like to vote who does this "Jimbo" think he is, anyway? - would any other admin be able to get away with making a controversial (admitting he knew it was controversial) block with no prior discussion and then leave for a weekend expecting everyone to wait patiently before even _discussing_ overturning? If he thinks _anyone_ on this wiki has that kind of patience, he's, at best, out of touch. Should be deGodKinged immediately. —Random832 05:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It has worked before, though. In fact, last time it resulted in the true offender being banned rather quietly. Of course, he kinda self-destructed at the end (demanding that Arbcom dismiss all complaints that have ever been discussed before), and that's unlikely to happen here. But at the worst, it just makes the same amount of drama happen a couple days later. -Amarkov moo! 05:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Er, Random, did you really want to express yourself in that way? Jimbo thinks he's Jimbo. He's also not just another Admin. I don't always agree with the guy, but ranting like that about what he did doesn't help convince anyone to agree with you. -- llywrch 06:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh, I thought Random wasn't really being entirely serious. (The RfdeGodKing bit seemed over the top to me). Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 06:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Silly rabbit, everybody knows sarcasm is easy to detect on the Internet. east.718 at 10:36, 10/27/2007

Well, to be completely honest, it was half directed at everyone else here. The part about the chronic lack of patience, etc. I honestly think it would be GREAT if we could wait until monday for this discussion, so Jimbo can explain his reasoning, etc (at the same time, maybe it would have been wiser to wait until after that discussion is held before actually blocking anyone). But, in any case, that's not possible (self-evident), and Jimbo should know by now that it's not. If any other admin had done this, they would have been reverted and they might be coming back to an Arbcom case monday. Or perhaps we could have had another wheel war on the scale of the Brandt deletion one. I did sort of mean the "deGodKing" semi-seriously insofar as I don't think it's healthy for the wiki that we're raising one user's opinions above the consensus process (some have even characterized Zscout's action as "wheel warring", when the definition of wheel warring explicitly excludes an initial revert), but that's not entirely Jimbo's fault to begin with. —Random832 21:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• No that things have calmed down a little (or everyone is having a nice refreshing sleep), whatever, can somebody please provide diffs for recent examples of "trolling" (that is, starting discussions in a manner or intention to disrupt Wikipedia)? I would ask Jimbo himself but he is currently unavailable - and I'm familiar with what happened this last week when an editor requested Jimbo provide reasons for his actions, and I doubt if my spotless record for civility and contributing to the encyclopedia would make me immune to accusations of trolling in turn - so I would be grateful if members of the block supporters above, or anyone else, could provide same. Examples for this week, or month, or last three, would suffice - remember, examples of Miltopia starting disruptive discussions. I (and others) will then have the opportunity to review them. Thank you. LessHeard vanU 11:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • There is nothing wrong with asking and Jimbo did state above that there could be debate on monday. The real problem is not Jimbo's block - the real problem is the number of people with an axe to grind who immediately fuels the fire when Jimbo asked for as little drama as possible. So far all that has been accomplished here is that Miltopia is now this week's hero on ED. I somehow doubt that was the point of this to begin with. If anything it backfired because he wasn't here to respond to those questions. EconomicsGuy 12:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    • There are those, who despite Jimbo's request for no drama, immediately agreed with the block and confirmed Jimbo's conclusions - even to the point of expanding upon Jimbo's comments. Since these people have obviously reviewed the contributions of Miltopia to arrive at their decision, and I wasn't able to find examples after over 2 hours looking, I was hoping that they would be able to assist me (and other seekers of fact). LessHeard vanU 12:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Why erect this extraordinary standard as the definition of trolling? That's quite simple to game. Miltopia specializes in edits that seem reasonable at a cursory glance, but a good look at the context shows how insidious they are. Durova^Charge! 16:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Do you need some sort of secret decoder ring to detect the insidiousness of the edits? I apparently missed getting issued one. *Dan T.* 16:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
          • Didn't you get the memo? There's no need to provide evidence that someone who annoys the wrong people is acting in bad faith. All that's needed is to shove him into a duck costume and say "LOOK, THERE'S A DUCK!" -Amarkov moo! 16:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
            • Sarcasm doesn't help. Durova^Charge! 17:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
              • Neither does it help to label somebody permanently as a "troll" and then interpret everything he does from then on, no matter how innocent-seeming, as more evidence of his trolling. This is self-fulfilling. I know this well, since I fall into similar traps myself at times; it's a natural human tendency. With me, it's the trap of labeling people as "the sinister Wikipedia clique" and then judging everything they ever do in that light, and judging every other person who ever agrees with somebody I've labeled this way as being a clique member themselves; it's a self-reinforcing spiral, and ends up doing no good for anybody. I'm trying to learn to back off, take a deep breath, think carefully, and judge the actions of people on their own merits without dragging in prejudices based on my past experiences with them, but it's a constant struggle with the more prejudicial side of my own personality. The same may be going on among people who have decided that some others (maybe including me?) are trolls and disrupters, and once that notion is firmly implanted in their minds they can interpret every possible thing they do as more evidence of it. *Dan T.* 18:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
                • That was well said. I think we often don't give each other enough credit for ability to learn, and grow, and change. The community's patience for Miltopia ran out, it seems, more quickly than he and our ideas about him changed. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • I looked at WP:TROLL, which has some very good consideration of what is and isn't trolling, and broke it down into a very short descriptive phrase; it is the creation of content to elicit responses in a disruptive manner. Responding to comment, or otherwise engaging on topic, no matter tenuous the point, cannot therefore be trolling. "Responses" which are not to topic might be determined to be trolling, but they need to be independent of the subject matter and designed only to provoke reaction to the comment and not the case in hand. Examples might be a discussion on economics where a troll may comment that a certain racial or cultural grouping is lazy/greedy/criminally inclined; the subject of economics is irrelevent to the trolls purpose, which is to elicit comment upon the characterisation of the grouping, or a discussion on Reliable Source criteria might be interrupted by an interjection that the holders of certain views are attempting to allow links to attack content on certain sites on which they have (had) a presence, which is to provoke a reaction regarding off wiki affiliation rather than the subject at hand. (This is my understanding of trolling - and I realise that not everyone has the same criteria, and anyway it is an essay rather than a guideline or policy). Per my understanding of WP:TROLL I cannot see any recent examples by Miltopia, but I am willing to discuss (per below) any that might be produced as examples. LessHeard vanU 22:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
          • LHvU... on Wikipedia, if you're making an argument that's based on the wording of a page, whether it be policy, guideline, or essay... if you have to split a semantic hair to make your point... if you seem to be arguing based on a technicality... then you are already missing the point. "Responding to comment, or otherwise engaging on topic, no matter tenuous the point, cannot therefore be trolling." That's nonsense. If someone is trying to get a rise out of others, that's trolling. It doesn't serve the project, so it's discouraged. Don't make lawyerly distinctions; this isn't court. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
            • I don't intend to wikilawyer, but can I confirm that you are suggesting that the definition of trolling is the subjective response to the alleged event and not a technical interpretation of an essay (not even a policy, although it has become pretty much de facto). LessHeard vanU 11:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
              • So you say: "I don't intend to wikilawyer, but lawyer, lawyer, leading question, lawyer, split hair, lawyer, lawyer, lawyer." My answer to your request is mu. Stop thinking that way. Shift paradigm. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
                • What else is there but policy, and its interpretation, to glue this community together? If you are not held to policy then you are either Jimbo or a vandal; and I'm neither. LessHeard vanU 13:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
                  • What holds us together is not policy, but the common goal of building an encyclopedia. Please read WP:IAR and WP:WIARM; Wikipedia has never been a rules game. When you say "if you are not held to policy then you are either Jimbo or a vandal," you're at variance with long-standing tradition. Policy is our attempt to write down what works most of the time. We are radically free agents, constrained only by each others' boundaries and by the traditions and customs we've built up. Am I making sense, when I say "not a rules game"? Do you know what I mean by that? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
                    • I'm pretty sure I understand what you mean by "not a rules game". I take your point that policy followed and was shaped by convention and practice, but those policies are now amended or extended by discussion and consensus. While the rules may be interpreted broadly, or even tested, it is not permissable to act contrary to a rule (even if that rule is IAR). My understanding is that invoking IAR requires that an existing rule - or part of it - is broken and unsuitable; IAR may not be used to act contrarily to a rule that is otherwise subsequently applied under the same circumstances. Therefore, the rules, policies and guidelines (although not set in stone) are the base upon which the encyclopedia is built. There are many different ways in which the encyclopedia can be built, as there are different talents which dispose different people to contribute in their own way, and it is the rules, policies and guidelines that form a coherent basis for the varied contributors to proceed from - and not the maverick/free radical expressionalism that may or may not gel to form a strategy. I stand by my point that nobody but Jimbo can stand outside of the rules, etc., and remain part of the community. Finally, yes, you are making sense, and I appreciate the logic in your conclusions, but I differ in my understanding. I am not attempting to persuade you but to explain myself. It is to the good that we both might learn from each other. LessHeard vanU 21:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo is very good at some things, and not so good at other things. Anyone who thinks that indef blocking someone and then going away for two days so he can not be asked about reasons and evidences will help reduce drama on Wikipedia is not someone who is good at reducing drama on Wikipedia. Jimbo's goal here is a correct one. We need to reduce drama. But we need someone who actually knows how to do that. Jimbo has just demonstrated that he does not know how to do that. Maybe no one does. Any suggestions? Do we have an expert at reducing drama in the house? Start with make a list of the drama queens including both sides of each major wikipedia drama fest? I don't know. What do others think? WAS 4.250 16:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, blocking people who intentionally create drama(trolls) at the expense of the community is a good start. 1 != 2 16:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

That's only true if it's actually clear that they are trolls. Or will that statement become true if we assume it without evidence often enough? -Amarkov moo! 16:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I just reread what Jimbo stated, and he says he knew it would create some drama, so my above statement is a little too strong with regard to Jimbo. None the less, de-dramatizing Wikipedia is gonna take some careful thoughtful analysis and maybe more than a few trial-and-error experiments. WAS 4.250 17:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Some drama is better than lots of drama, and that's what trolls create. Jimbo has occasionally intervened by blocking folks to cut through the bureaucracy (and drama) that sometimes prevents action. He was candid in saying that he wouldn't be able to respond but requested patience from the community. Some folks were more interested in allowing trolls than in extending good faith to Jimbo. While Jimbo isn't perfect, we should certainly allow him a couple of days to explain himself more fully before reverting his actions. Considering the huge amount of time he puts into this project we shouldn't begrudge him a family camping trip. We should take a harder look at those editors who appear to be more interested in debating and arguing than creating an encyclopedia. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It is still a valid point. This isn't the first time he unintentionally caused more drama than he intended to. Remember the professor Pierce farce? Whenever Jimbo speaks some people are always going to put too much weight on his opinion. Also, some people seem to think that as long as Jimbo has shown support for some variation of their stand point that automatically validates their opinions and in many cases grudges as well. No one particular in mind, just a general observation. It took more people than Jimbo to create the drama. EconomicsGuy 17:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no de-dramatizing anything ran by humans. We have to work through the drama, or take a break. Trying to avoid drama is futile. 1 != 2 17:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It's surprisingly easy. Just find it boring, and it will cease to exist for you. This community seems a bit reluctant to do that, so I guess it is futile as long as we refuse to change our habits in that department. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's entirely fair to label this discussion as "drama", except to the extent that anything involving conflicting beliefs and opinions coming into opposition is "dramatic". This discussion seems to have, by and large, remained civil and constructive, and has confined itself almost entirely to this one page instead of breaking out into every possible forum in a heated and inflammatory way. Thus, as wikidramas go, this is a pretty tame one. *Dan T.* 18:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Overall this editor is less than ideal, but we don't ban people simply for being less than perfect editors. Miltopia has clearly come a long way from when he first started editing and his edits are generally productive. I do have some concern that Miltopia's recent arguments on policy pages (especially external links) may have had something to do with this and I would point out that in those regards he has been polite and helpful aside from a few snide remarks which when compared to many comments by people(including myself!) seemed generally polite. In regards to that issue, it may also be that Miltopia has simply had more attention payed to him due to his history and what issues he chooses to argue about. In any event, whether or not there was some issue coloring the reasons for both the block and subsequent unblock is not as germane as whether the editor should be banned. I have trouble seeing there being good cause for banning. JoshuaZ 21:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I suspect it comes down to a matter of having "exhausted the community's patience". Whether this says more about the editor or about the community's patience, the result is the same. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Evidence the leopard's spots haven't changed

A number of editors asked above for an example to be given of recent disruptive behavior on the part of Miltopia. I feel that the following incident fits the bill.

In December 2006, Miltopia came to the article Vomiting, added a photograph of someone's lunch on the street, and then left without further comment.[4] This slipped under the radar until I removed the picture in June 2007. An extended discussion ensued on talk, after which it was agreed, basically, that the image was uninformative and did not contribute anything to the article. Then, last week, Miltopia readded the image,[5] which I reverted,[6] pointing to the earlier discussion on talk. Miltopia restored the image again[7] and started a new thread on the talk page.[8]

I don't think it would be accurate to describe this as simple "trolling." It strikes me as a much more sophisticated method of leg-pulling. I get the general impression that Miltopia's edits are designed to appear straight-faced at a glance, but, on closer inspection, it becomes apparent that they're not. In his initial edit on Vomiting, Miltopia made an effort to add a passable caption to an image that was, essentially, a bad joke. There are a lot of well-meaning editors who mistakenly intepret "Wikipedia is not censored" to mean "anything goes — and, moreover, must go" and this, I think, is what Miltopia was playing upon when he repeatedly added a picture of someone's lunch to the article Vomiting. I suppose it is amusing, in some sense, to watch other editors forced to put so much thought into what should be a pretty cut and dry case of BJAODN ("They sure like talking about vomit! *snicker*").

The point is that, if the leopard really had changed his spots, he wouldn't continue to pull things out of the same old bag of tricks. I think, after a year, Miltopia would have moved past the schoolyard humour if he had any serious interest in contributing to Wikipedia. -Severa (!!!) 18:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

A replacement of an image, together with an explanation on the talkpage of how they did not agree that consensus had been reached and the argument that an image of the subject matter was beneficial to the article, involving examples from other articles? You consider that trolling? I think a few clicks on the "next edit" button in the article provides far better examples of disruptive editing than a well argued WP:BOLD edit. I see that no valid argument had yet been offered to Miltopia, so I guess joining the hue and cry of "troll" has its appeal. LessHeard vanU 20:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

If you think someone is trolling, the best response not to "call a spade a spade," (worst advice ever) but to give them a perfectly straight answer regarding the content issue. So what if he might find it funny that people are talking about vomit? It's an encyclopedic topic, and whether or not to illustrate it is an encyclopedic question, that can be answered without making any kind of ad hominem assertion.

If you're bound and determined to see trolling in someone's contributions, then you'll find it when you look. That's a readily self-fulfilling prophesy. If you look for the best in editors' contributions, you'll find it, too. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the incident you mentioned. I find I disagree with Miltopia's attempt to add the image to the article, and agree with you and the majority of the editors who took part in the discussion at Talk:Vomiting that the image adds nothing to the article. Whether this justifies an indefinite block seems more dubious. He seems to have re-added the picture twice, on 18 and 19 October, and argued for its inclusion on the talk page. He has not edit-warred or broken any policy that I know of with what I have seen in this incident. If this forms part of a wider pattern, perhaps a block might be arguable. (I stress that I have not reviewed Miltopia's edits in their entirety.) As it is, this was a bit silly but far worse behavior routinely goes unpunished here. --John 20:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm with LHvU on the 'net button' edit he refers to, in which another editor challenged the image on the 'self-promotion' grounds. I don't know that it's particularly trollish, but it's certainly far less substantial than Miltopia's agrument for inclusion. As far as beign an example of Milt's bad conduct, this particular set isn't enough for me. He makes a fairly reasonable argument for it, treats it seriously, and uses civil speech overall, even in the face of a ridiculous counter. ThuranX 20:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I think there was a similar flap at Feces regarding a gross-out but applicable image... I don't remember what editors were involved there. There have also been fights on various sex-related articles about the appropriate imagery there. There's some natural tension between fully illustrating what it is the article is about and avoiding unnecessarily disgusting the reader, and that can both be the subject of sincere and good-faith disagreement, and of attempts to troll for humorous effect. It is not always obvious which is which. *Dan T.* 20:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Durova's analysis seems completely accurate and careful. The remark by Miltopia when he restarted the discussion on his image:

"It's fake vomit" - HELL no. It is not fake vomit. I'm the one who downed the hunch punch and ate the excessive chicken wings and prayed for death in the car and rolled out the door and threw up on the driveway, so I WOULD KNOW. Not up for debate.

seems to be puerile trolling. How can this be considered innocent? It is yobbish, offensive, probably a lie, and clearly designed to shock. Mathsci 21:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It also helps what questions or comment he was responding to with that. I can easily see that responding of "who is the source for the image." User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

"Probably a lie"? Have you never been drunk and vomited? It sounds to me like someone reacting to being told that the image he uploaded was a fake. If you were accused of adding fake images to the wiki, would you not react stridently? Is it juvenile simply because we're talking about vomit? Vomiting is part of life. Rather than "clearly designed to shock" it seems to me that it's designed for readers who can have the conversation without descending into a "shocked" reaction. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anybody doubts that the guy has a strong "class clown" streak to him, which can be annoying at times. The debate is over whether anything he's done (especially recently) is actually a bannable offense, and over whether, if so, this means that lots of other people who are annoying on occasion also have banning to fear. I do wonder what it shows about somebody's personality that, upon throwing up, their first thought is to photograph it for Wikipedia. *Dan T.* 21:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

More likely his friends photographed it to taunt him with, and he realized that the photo might be useful... this is neither here nor there, of course. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not think any of these explanations are reasonable. The "bragging" phrases I quoted seem quite intemperate and barely believable. --Mathsci 21:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it sounds precisely like people I knew in college. Not all or of them, but some. "Intemperate" I'll give you, and one doesn't get the impression of temperate behavior, either. That doesn't make it unbelievable to me. I've heard too many true stories of that variety to think that it's really uncommon or unlikely. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

If any of you bother to look at Severa's diffs, you would see that Miltopia is not responding to a question. He started a new section. Look at the diffs yourself before making inappropriate comments. I have been involved in disciplining undergraduates for drunken behaviour, so I can't really answer the ad hominem question above, which, as a moment's reflection will show, is hardly the point. --Mathsci 22:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

"If any of you bother to look....;" "...the ad hominem question above." Look, man, I've seen the diffs; I'm not unfamiliar with what we're talking about. I know that he started that thread, in reply to being pointed at an earlier thread, and it was to that earlier thread that he was replying. Had you read that part, where someone was speculating that it might be fake? He was replying directly to that; it seems he took umbrage at the suggestion that he uploaded a fake photo. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. As to the tone of his reply, It's an article about puking, spewing, blowing chunks. To take every edit and every conversation anwhere on Wikipedia with all the scholarly tone of a frequency analysis of syllabic contruction patterns in Longfellow's early writings is absurd. There's no break with civility to take his defense with a bit of humor. As a matter of fact, I read it with the opinion that he was specifically trying to be light and cavalier about his defense, and not turn it into a big fight, but give everyone a laugh while attesting to the honesty of the image. Some conversations need a serious tone, and lengthy discussion(I don't think the source for section 4 is solid enough, here are two links to show that writer has a conflict of interest, making him a dubious source for that, can we discuss please?). Other talk page sections can afford to have a more wry, informal tone (I reverted out all today's vandalism, No one knows why Lois's head never exploded, and no one needed that IP's advice about kyrptonite prophylactics), and some can be coldly analytic notifications (I changed all the linking of type X8 to type R7, per WP:SLLY' - Signed, AutomaticBot) If good humor is now incivility on here, then this is only the first of a few thousand bannings. I hope you've got enough deli number rolls for the dispenser. This still doesn't present to me as a recent example of bad editing by Miltopia. ThuranX 03:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think many commentators here are being a mite too charitable in their assessments. Yes, on its face, Miltopia's comment has every hallmark of seriousness, but it's this unnecessary description which gives the game away for me:

"HELL no. It is not fake vomit. I'm the one who downed the hunch punch and ate the excessive chicken wings and prayed for death in the car and rolled out the door and threw up on the driveway, so I WOULD KNOW. Not up for debate."

The point is that four editors (myself included) took the time to engage in discussion and gave thoughtful, policy-based reasons for not including this image. Despite this, Miltopia felt the need to readd the image almost a year after initially inserting it, and to reopen a closed discussion. At best, this is edit-warring, or, at worst, "trolling," if one defines "trolling" as beginning a discussion with the sole intent of provoking a desired reaction. Moreover, Miltopia accused ElinorD — probably the single most considerate editor I've ever encountered on Wikipedia — of "uninformed personal attacks," and suggested that she steer clear of further discussion. From this, my only encounter with Miltopia, I've gathered that he isn't approaching this project in a constructive manner. -Severa (!!!) 22:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand why you'd see it that way; I can't blame you, Severa. I already support the block. I just also see this as an example of a possible trolling situation that could be handled... differently. I don't see why it's necessary to abuse people even as we revert them, block them, etc. I don't see the need for the name-calling and invective. I don't think it's professional or becoming. I'm sorry, and I don't mean it personally; you're a civil editor who assumes good faith and works hard on the project. I agree that he didn't approach the situation constructively, but that's something that a person can learn, by being corrected, with firmness but without insults or malice. It's not necessary to call the person a troll; we can just handle it as a boring content dispute. I'm bothered lately by our reluctance to build the project without having to identify "bad guys" and fight them. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

No discussion on an article is ever closed - that's the way a wiki works - and consensus can change - that is also the way a wiki works. Miltopia considered that the previous consensus was incorrectly arrived at and countered what arguments had been made. This is an editor with over 9,000 edits; his agenda may be suspect according to some but his experience of and use of WP policy is pretty acute. As for your very kind and appropriate appraisal of ElinorD, it can be the case that ones experience of an individual may vary depending on context; I, for instance, have never found Miltopia to be anything less than passionate about contributing to Wikipedia, but I very strongly do not believe that Jimbo is acting for anything other than for the same reasons. I believe him wrong in this instance, but that doesn't mean I think any the less of him for the actions taken. LessHeard vanU 23:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I've had some less-pleasant experiences with ElinorD myself; she's responsible for some of what I consider the more misguidedly overzealous attempts at enforcing the failed BADSITES policy and its relatives. That she's acting out of compassion and consideration doesn't make her actions beyond criticism, or make them incapable of being perceived (even erroneously) as personal attacks by those who are impacted by them. *Dan T.* 23:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

But we agree that she sincerely believes she is acting for the best, to improve the encyclopedia? I also believe that her actions are too restrictive, and based upon fallacies of policy interpretation, but I limit my criticisms to the content and not the person. I guess that what makes us (well, me, certainly) such a wonderful human being... LessHeard vanU 23:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't always in the past, as I got too hung up in making war against those I regarded as "the enemy", but I've recently decided to turn over a new leaf and go back to assuming good faith of everybody. *Dan T.* 23:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Miltopia was blocked for a single thing. Nor do I think a single incident would warrant a block. My own observation is that Miltopia thrived on "lulz" and the drama needed for it. It's a form of low level trolling. Take this for another example. Nothing is outside policy but he thrived on maintaining friction or drama. He thrived on creating, maintaining and resurrecting contentious discussion. I suspect he won't edit as Miltopia as long as the autoblock is on. My own theory is that he kept editing under the Miltopia name even after numerous blocks because he knew it annoyed people. Miltopia did have productive edits. But was that part of the cover? I don't know. I suspect if he really wants to contribute he could just make a sock puppet and return anonymously but that may not be enough "lulz." Anyway, I support the block simply because it takes away the focus from his ED past and the encyclopedia can move past it. --DHeyward 05:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I've read all of the comments so far (a fact of which I'm somewhat ashamed) and think this has been a surprisingly civil discussion. It also seems to lack very much real content in terms of a review of a block/ban. Knowing little to nothing about Miltopia (and only getting bits and pieces from the discussion and the user's contribution history) I'm not entirely sure where I stand, though my inclination is to agree with the block in principle and probably in fact.

But of course the discussion here is not about the block of one particular user, it's about wikiculture and wikipolitics--a discussion which might end up fruitful or destructive or something in-between. One thing we have learned today (unsurprisingly) is that when Jimbo starts a discussion with "I am sure this will cause some drama, but please let's try to minimize the drama" it's about as likely to minimize drama as that one time when someone whispered "Don't think about elephants!" in your ear minimized the level of thinking-about-elephants-going-on-in-your-brain (note: you can substitute other random things for "elephants", but for some reason--god knows why--I thought of elephants). I think the real question here is not about the block of Miltopia (though of course we'll decide that), but rather about the ability of the community to deal with problematic users AND the community's relationship to fairly unilateral actions by Jimbo--the latter of which will undoubtedly grow more noxious with time as the community gets bigger and remains relatively democratic. Also in all seriousness I wish I was camping this weekend, which sounds totally awesome.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that is an excellent synopsis, with only one aspect (and one that is touched upon by DHeyward immediately above) that is of itself problematic, and that is... it has been declared that Miltopia is a problem user, and therefore effectively banned because he is a "problem" user, without any good examples of any behaviour that is not exhibited by many other non-blocked (or blocks quickly rescinded) users - other than he has previously edited a site which has deliberately targeted various Wikipedians. Not only has Jimbo whispered "Do not think about Elephants!" into our collective ear, but there has been a sustained campaign of "...and a trolling elephant at that!" being attempted by some parties. As I have previously alluded, not only is there scant evidence (if any) of trolling in Miltopia's recent activity it is quite clear that he has been far more civil and conciliatory than much of the comments directed at him over the same period.

As far as Jimbo's "unilateral" actions - yes, the community does have a problem; there is nothing we can do but endorse or oppose. Despite the brave actions of one admin (y'know, the ones promoted by the community to serve on their behalf) there is no possibility of anyone other than Jimbo effectively altering the blocking of Miltopia. Jimbo has himself commented on how his exercise of such powers might be an agent for creating schisms within the community. If Jimbo does take a more active role in "imposing" (as is his right, accepted by the community) his vision on how Wikipedia might manage the various personality types and breadth of viewpoints wishing to contribute then he may well indeed produce the encyclopedia he feels is best; how many of the current group of volunteers will feel comfortable in continuing contributing in such a scenario, and how the independence and validity of the "free encyclopedia anyone can edit" will be perceived outside of the internal community is something that Jimbo may or may not feel the need to consider.

Ultimately, what we might have here is the nutshell that is No Personal Attacks; "Comment on content, not on the contributor". If Jimbo wishes to take action according to decisions outside of that pillar (providing that there is no evidence forthcoming of trolling, other than the perception of the individuals motives and past associations) then the community, while agreeing he has that right, can only signal their approval or otherwise. Only Jimbo is immune to the rules, policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, and all other participants to this debate need reminding that they should continue to conduct themselves accordingly. LessHeard vanU 09:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I certainly disapprove of such unilateral decision making and I do not agree that Jimbo has any such right. If it is an absolute fact that he has such unilateral rights then I think that fact should be boldly mentioned in the primary articles about Wikipedia such as [9][10],because left as is, Wikipedia's general presentation of itself as a democratic,collaborative and volunteer run organism is misleading at best if Jimbo has the unilateral control and authority which most seem to be saying that he does have. Mr.grantevans2 13:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. The notion that Jimbo has absolute authority overriding policy makes a sham of Wikipedia's stated operating principles. This whole accorded "god-king" status, even when taken in jest, is just not consonant, nor consistent, with an open source project.—AL ^FOCUS! 16:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the community likes or not, Jimbo can do these things. The consequences of his actions are thus also his own. I feel he understands this, and is thus "guided" but not beholden by consensus. He isn't The GodKing, he is the chief caretaker and has the master keys to the place. The argument of force isn't going to work with him, so we have to rely on the force of argument. That is what I am doing, and I am grateful to be amongst so many who feel likewise. LessHeard vanU 19:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• 100% support for blocking. Reviewing Miltopia's contributions to mainspace, I believe he is no loss. Reviewing his contributions to meta-debate and Talk, I believe we are vastly better off without him. Nothing personal, he's just in the wrong place. This is not a social network, comedy site or drama-fest, it's an encyclopaedia, and Miltopia does not seem to be here to build an encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 11:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Isn't this supposed to be the "Free encyclopedia anyone can edit", not just the encyclopedia where anyone who meets very subjective standards for having personalities compatible with the "in crowd" will be permitted to edit? Does the tagline need to change now to "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason"? *Dan T.* 15:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent Issues

After the April blocking, it seems his behavior changed. Lots of people have brought up the AIDS comment (which lead to the April block) and things before it. My question, what has been done recently? He reopened the Kelly Martin item. He reopened the MONGO "debate" on ANI. One could take it that he thrives on Drama. Others can take it he differs in opinion and things need to be discussed further to gain consensus. What after the April block (which appears to changed the "leopard's spots" so to speak) requires his indefinite blocking? We give people chances to reform and comparing the pre-April behavior to the current behavior shows quite a bit of difference. Spryde 11:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I still think this a more nuanced situation than do many of the other commenters. One thing that struck me was that Miltopia commented a fair amount in the Badlydrawnjeff arbitration case in June (concerning the scope and interpretation of the BLP policy). When the decision was issued, he disagreed with the outcome and announced that he was leaving the project in protest. He posted a coherent statement of his reasons, which were similar to those of at least two other contributors who also left at the same time. He then actually stayed away from Wikipedia for more than two months, until he was, ironically, drawn back by the fuss over his indef-block in August which was based on a mistake and on Miltopia himself having apparently been trolled. (He can't have been socking in the interim, as I'm sure he was thoroughly checkusered when he requested the August unblock.)

I disagreed one thousand percent with Miltopia on the issues in the Badlydrawnjeff case, but I think it unlikely that a single-purpose bad-faith troll would announce that he was leaving Wikipedia based on a fundamental philosophical disagreement, and then actually stay away. This does not, of course, excuse his offensive conduct in April or his other less useful edits or button-pushing, but I think it germane in evaluating the big picture.

As I pointed out on Friday night, though, all of this may be moot anyway, because Miltopia has not posted an unblock request and there is no indication he intends to do so. Sometimes people take a comment by Jimbo Wales a little too much to heart, but if Jimbo publicly classed me among the project's "really useless users" and "obnoxious irritants," I think I would find something else to do with my time, and I suspect that Miltopia may feel the same way. Newyorkbrad 15:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that there is no point of posting any unblock request before Jimbo's return, since there is no admin that would be able to objectively review it before learning of Jimbo's reasoning - plus the fact that only Jimbo is de facto able to release the block. Putting up a request before learning of Jimbo's comments in detail would only invite further debate without any reasonable expectation of a result. Let's hear what Jimbo has to say, and see how or if Miltopia responds. LessHeard vanU 19:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Policy

Why don't we create a policy, Wikipedia:Jimbo Wales, to make clear what is his role, and how his actions should be interpreted? A.Z. 23:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

What would be the point? Jimbo is able to act outside of any policy that might be made, as has both always been the case and has been demonstrated just recently. It is only a question of whether he will feel he can continue to be able to act contrary to consensus (or what others believe to be consensus), and that cannot be set down in cold text. LessHeard vanU 23:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo would agree to act inside this policy, so his actions would be more predictable. If he agreed to make it clear which actions cannot be undone, for example, editors wouldn't do something that could get them desysoped without knowing it in advance. A.Z. 23:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I would echo LessHeard vanU. Jimbo is there to take over when policy fails or is no longer a guide as to what to do. An official policy on his role would be worse than pointless, it would render his role powerless. Sam Blacketer 00:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

A policy intended to constrain his actions would be pointless, yes. But we need some type of page that says what types of things he is going to do. -Amarkov moo! 03:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The community may well not have a say in constraining him, though his power seems arbitrary. But certainly we can make clear that we expect good administrative judgment and good administrative behavior. In particular we should make clear that the community does not condone 'block and run.' If it's an emergency, get another admin to do it. If it's not, wait until you return. Jd2718 03:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Anyone tried talking to Jimbo about this? As far as I can tell, Jimbo's view is that policies boil down to WP:V, WP:NPOV and multiple variants on m:DICK; when taken in concert these give us some fundamental rules like WP:BLP and WP:HARASS. There is no policy to say that a disruptive individual cannot be shown the door. Rather the opposite, in fact. We might have some processes which exist to guide the thousand-odd of us who have not been here since God was a lad, but WP:IAR is also policy and in this case I think Jimbo has improved the encyclopaedia by getting rid of someone whose main function was to cause and exacerbate drama and dissent; nothing personal, but Miltopia is simply in the wrong place for what (s)he wants to do. In fact, I looked at the block and thought "hell, why didn't we think of that months ago?". Sometimes it really is obvious only when it is pointed out. Guy (Help!) 13:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• • I agree and would add that it will always be the case that someone who is here to generate drama and disruption will have more time and energy to devote to those aims than those who are writing and improving articles. Miltopia's contempt for his fellow editors, for Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and for the aims of the project was abundantly clear in his response to my removal of his image on Talk:Vomiting,[11] a response carefully crafted, in my opinion, to appear reasoned and thoughtful, but designed to engender pointless discussion and conflict. This occurred 2007-10-20, which should satisfy those wishing recent examples of bad behavior. I would add that Miltopia's edits to Vomiting, wherein he repeatedly attempted to add his photograph, represent a significant fraction of his main-space edits for October. I note that after 20 or so edits following my removal of his image, it has not been restored. Many of his other edits were to Horseland which he follows by suggesting on the talk page that the article should be deleted,[12] and subsequently suggests the OR tag is unjustified. Again, the pattern is that of engendering drama and conflict, as well as a few main-space edits to which his defenders may point. In my review of his October main-space edits, I was hard put to find any edits that added significantly to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. I endorse Jimbo Wales's block. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I do not know and do not care if Miltopia was what you claim or not as I'm sure that that will in the end be handled appropriately and maybe already has. But please stop bringing up the Vomiting example because it does not demonstrate what you think it does. It is standard to illustrate the object of the article and indeed we used to at that article and the German language version still does. Another standard thing we do is link to WikiMedia for images (and other media) on the subject so I added such a link to Vomiting and categorized the image of Miltopia's vomit which he contributed (public domain) so that that image and the German vomit image and some fake vomit and a few other images appear if a user clicks the WikiMedia link. Too often editors fight between two positions without looking for creative alternatives. And its just so darned easy to see evil intent in those we disagree with. WAS 4.250 17:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Guy, you could well be right. Maybe this should have been done long ago. Any Monday. But right before taking off for a weekend? I think the community has been pretty clear that we don't really like that, that we expect better from admins. Jd2718 01:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo's desysop of Zscout370

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/My desysop of Zscout370. violet/riga (t) 23:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Essay

The essay Wikipedia:Don't "call a spade a spade", which I've just written and posted, was created partly in response to these events. Some readers here may find it interesting. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• We'd have a lot fewer problems if we simply blocked spades without the need to call them anything at all, but there is a small cohort of hysterics who will cry foul over any block simply because it might indicate that a power structure exists, and that is ethically unacceptable to them. Bottom line: we don't need Miltopia or others with similar behaviour patterns. We can call them non-agricultural manual earth-turning implements if we like, it won't change the fact that the drama to contribution ratio of these people is far too high. Guy (Help!) 13:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Guy, you'll note that I've supported the block of Miltopia. You seem to have completely missed my point, which is that we should put out those fires of hysterics with water instead of with gasoline. Your imputation that I'm advocating soft-pedaling anything makes it clear that you failed to understand the thrust of the essay. We must maintain a firm and clear distinction between comments about content, and comments about contributors. The former are great; the latter are never helpful, and always discouraged. If you insist on including "...and on a personal note, I think you're an asshole," at the end of what should be a dry, professional interaction, then you're being unprofessional, and you're hurting Wikipedia. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    • As to whether it's a spade or an earth-turning implement, my point is there's a hole that needs digging, so why are you standing around arguing about semantics? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Great, another essay on handwringing/handholding. Despite popular belief, this community exists for the benefit of the project, not the other way around. Wikipedia is not a grand social expirement in equality and justice for all, malcontents and busy bees alike. It is an encyclopedia, and anyone who is not here to help build an encyclopedia should be culled from the herd with extreme prejudice. I have no problem with Jimbo's actions related to Miltopia or Scout. If some people can't accept that Jimbo is going to do whatever he feels he must from time to time, then perhaps those people need to find a new project. There are plenty of wikipedia knockoffs on the net. - Crockspot 15:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Despite your misunderstanding, I'm only arguing for the good of the project. I'm arguing that the project would be damaged less if people stopped putting out fires with gasoline and behaving unprofessionally. What part of, "ad hominems are not needed in order to do our job" do you disagree with? Do you think it's impossible to block someone without also calling them names? That's an interesting position, because all I'm arguing is that the block generates less heat when the name-calling is omitted. Apparently you disagree. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If I had the admin bit (which I don't, because of trolls by the way) I would block them with the kindest of words. But since I cannot, I have to persuade others to do the blocking. Interestingly, I was unsuccessful in persuading an admin to take action against Miltopia just a couple of days ago. (This is AFTER the incident that you were involved in.) When a troll keeps smacking me, and then smacks me even harder because I tried to do the right thing and complain, but was dismissed by an admin, then yes, I will get frustrated, and may not have rainbow and lollipop comments about it. It's a chicken and egg thing. Block them before they have finished pissing all over me, and I will have no reason to not sing Kumbayaa. - Crockspot 19:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, a couple of points. You're not going to convince me that Miltopia was not contributing in good faith, because I know him better than you do. I know that does nothing for you, but I find it utterly convincing. My point though, is that whether or not he was contributing in good faith is beside the point. It never needs to come up, and when it does, it's distracting and heat-generating.

If you're being trolled, do this: (a) Avoid any comment about the person like the plague, (b) get me, or another admin who knows how to handle trolls without descending into namecalling. It's not about Kumbaya; it's about simple professionalism, which WP:SPADE is an argument against. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting essay. I tend to agree with you that WP:SPADE does more harm than good. Instead, with Jesus, I tend to think that "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God" is a better way to proceed. We can easily block or ban people who are unequivocally here to cause trouble and whose drama/productivity ratio is in the wrong direction without insulting them or putting ourselves in the wrong. Of course a power structure exists here as in any online community; but that power structure has to operate transparently and fairly. That has not apparently happened in this case, and we can see the amount of unnecessary drama which has been created as a result. This should serve the useful purpose in the future of serving as an example of 'how not to do it'. --John 17:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the points expressed in GTBacchus's essay. Calling people "trolls", etc, does not usually help in a dispute. If they are trolls then treat them as trolls should be treated. Crockspot is also correct, though I think he didn't get the gist of the essay. We are here to write an ecyclopedia, and that should always be our focus. Spending time calling spades "spades" can become an end in itself and doesn't further the goal. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with GT and Will. The best way to deal with trolls is to ignore them, but if ignoring doesn't work, block them with a minimum of fanfare. This latter point is the key because, above all, a troll wants to get a rise out of you. When you don't feed them, they are forced to escalate, and then it's a quick and uncontroversial block. Let them dig their own grave. The flip side of this: if he wasn't a troll to begin with (sometimes they're just clueless newbies), dispassionate but firm guidance is the best way to lead them to productive contribution. In other words, unwavering civility helps the project all the way around. ATren 19:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with GT, Will, and Atren. The most important point being "In other words, unwavering civility helps the project all the way around." Unfortunately, I don't think that many of the community feel that way. --Rocksanddirt 20:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I suspect we're a silent majority. I hope we are. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)