Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/ExternalSites

The following is quoted from a post made by MZMcBride on his talk page. MZMcBride has just been indefblocked by AGK, in response to his posting a link to the website Wikipediocracy to this thread at the ArbCom noticeboard (discussing ArbCom's return of Kevin's administrator rights — see this announcement and its discussion for context).

Today, AGK:

1. has indefinitely blocked a long-time user without providing a block summary;
2. has added wikipediocracy.com to the spam blacklist with a highly misleading edit summary;
3. did not log his addition to the spam blacklist, as directed on both MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist in large, red, bold font; and
4. added the blacklist entry in direct defiance of consensus from an explicit discussion about this particular site.

AGK subsequently undid his addition to the blacklist, but this kind of unilateral action, in defiance of both consensus and policy, is unacceptable for any administrator, not least one trusted by the community in the role of an arbitrator. I believe that AGK's continued access to admin tools has the potential to pose a risk to this project given the fashion in which he has been using them. Consequently, I seek community consensus for the emergency removal of AGK's sysop permissions until such time as sufficient assurances can be provided that he will use the tools in a controlled and policy-compliant manner. — Hex (❝?!❞) 23:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - the risk claimed is extremely overstated. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Hex has had a friendly chat with AGK about this, but he's just forgetting to link to it ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think tools should be removed until ArbCom passes a motion.Volunteer Marek 23:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support putting Hex in a padded room until he comes to his senses. Seriously, Hex? What are you smoking? Prioryman (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The bureaucrats won't take action based on a discussion here, so we can't decide to do more than to block him. I don't believe that a block is appropriate right now, although if this behavior continue, it would be appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• AGK's actions were inappropriate, in my opinion, but this is excessive.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• For heaven's sake. Everyone, put down the pitchforks, step away from the keyboard, and just calm the heck down already! -- KTC (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that we all return to the status ex-ante, which would include unbanning Cla68 and MZMcBride, and then everyone just shuts the hell up, is a good one.Volunteer Marek 23:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ooooh yay. Community desysops are suddenly allowed now? Hmmmm.... Who should I pick? Oppose desysop (not that a "support" vote would do anything, anyways), and suggest sanctioning Hex if he keeps up this nonsense. If Hex's goal here was to make ArbCom thoroughly regret not desysopping him, I imagine he's succeeded. Or is the idea to make all the Arbs too INVOLVED to pull his rights the next time he shows he's not fit for the tools? — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 23:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) As Hex is aware, nobody had drew my attention to the VP discussion. When I was made aware of it a few moments ago, I removed WO from the Spam Blacklist (pending a decision on the blacklist talk page). The only outstanding issue—at least for anybody who wishes to assume a degree of good faith—is the block of MZ, and whether MZ will continue to link to the article on WO that so flagrantly outs another contributor. AGK [•] 23:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The main issue I see is the lack of a block summary/rationale. It's totally unclear whether this block was made as an arbitrator/checkuser/oversighter or as an admin. Given the chilling effect of recent ArbCom prohibitions on reversing blocks by functionaries, it's important that blocks by functionaries are clearly explained. Is this just a block by an admin that can be overturned with a consensus? We also need a coherent answer to the question of whether or not the website in question can be linked to. That said, even if the answer is "yes, in some places" - that isn't a licence to plaster it around to prove a point. WJBscribe (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the link issue was linking to outing (not a particular site per se). Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was an ordinary administrator's block, and is afforded no special protection. It was a mistake on my part not to make that clear in the block log. AGK [•] 00:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I am curious about whether AGK is considering the addition of Wikipediocracy to the edit filter so that any mention of the site would be blocked as well.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Desysop him, block him, then execute him by his choice of lethal injection or firing squad. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I assume you're aware that your !vote to desysop has as much effect as your !vote to execute? — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 00:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I suppose my including "execute" in there is a pretty good indication of my expectation that these things won't be taken all that seriously. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support immediate desysop of all administrators, and then emergency RfAs for any user with greater than 2 edits on the English Wikipedia, to be moderated by either the Stewards who are active on the Esperanto Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales. In lieu of that gaining support, sanctions for Hex for actually trying this nonsense. In lieu of that, nothing at all and speedy archiving :) gwickwire^talk_editing 02:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep MZM blocked / AGK remains a sysop - MZM's behavior was clearly an attempt to get himself blocked in order to create an issue, and Hex's suggestion to desysop is utterly ridiculous. My opinion: some people need to get back to improving the encycylopedia, and spend less time pretending to be Joan of Arc. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MZMcBride is a great Wiki(p|m)edian, and it saddens me that I can't in good conscience propose a full unblock here. However, MZ's comments were trollish, and, in the wake of a 72-hour block for the same behavior, and considering his "above the law" demeanor post-blocking, I think it's clear that some sort of action was in order. However, an indefblock was unnecessary, I think, and I propose that the block's length be reduced to a week or two. Let him cool off and realize that he's not invincible, but don't permanently deprive Wikipedia of a valued contributor. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 23:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Unblock Sorry, but the whole way this has been handled is absurd. MZM linking to the page and Newyorkbrad telling people the name of the site are little different in effect and Brad didn't get blocked for that, obviously.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally, I think the block should be reversed immediately and the admin reprimanded for making it; the block was merely for violating the nonexistent BADSITES pseudopolicy, which should be banished to the deepest pits of Hell. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that the block needs to be removed immediately. As I stated here, this is not the way to deal with a external link issue - add the site to the blacklist and remove it from en.wiki, or don't randomly block somebody for linking to it - when it's used a couple hundred other times. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Normally I wouldn't give a fuck if it was a few days, but indeffing for violating a non-existent policy is not right. The block should be lifted immediately. Legoktm (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• unblock totally excessive. The Banner talk 00:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep blocked MZMB knew exactly what he was doing when he linked to WO. He was warned by several admins and was blocked once for this. I would only support unblocking if MZMB agrees to stop playing chicken with policies. (If you look at his history including his two arbcom cases you would see that this isn't an out of the blue incident) --Guerillero | My Talk 00:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict)MZMcBride was violating a behavioral guideline: disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. The proper response to AGK drawing a stupid line in the sand is saying, Hey, AGK, that's pretty stupid line you're drawing in the sand there, and here's why. Both editors (AGK & MZM) were unnecessarily escalating the situation; I'd like to see MZM accept responsibility for their part in the drama before the account is unblocked. NE Ent 01:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I do suppose that a lot of blame can be passed around all over the place with regard to whipping up drama, but probably the best way out of it now would be to undo all blocks and desysoppings related to this squabble and tell everybody on all sides to just chill it. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Unblock unless we now use blocks for specifically punitive purposes. See WP:Tiptibism for my take on some of the behaviours present on Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - was the block due to "linking to a BADSITE" or due to "linking to WP:OUTING"? There's a pretty significant difference, there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the content of the page in question is dynamic, so I'd think that the WP:WRONGVERSION concept could be applied. — Ched :  ?  02:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When the link was initially made it was to Greg Kohs' article on Russavia in The Examiner (reposted on wikipediocracy). Mathsci (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Reduce block length to one week, in normal escalation. His behavior was unacceptable. He re-linked to WO after it was removed. He had an "I'm above the rules" attitude. Normal escalation should apply here. gwickwire^talk_editing 02:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, Ignore All Rules is a rule here... *Dan T.* (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No, remain indef until pledges to stop creating unnecessary turmoil Beyond My Ken (talk)
  • Aside to PinkAmpere: A "great Wikipedian" wouldn't do shit like this. Period. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Remain indef Basically I agree with Beyond here; this should be an indef until MZMcBride agrees to not continue to be POINTy. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Unblock.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 02:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• In principle, blocks should last as long as they are needed to prevent the behavior for which they were made. In this case, I think that this means that the block should last until the user gives credible assurances not to add any more links to outing websites.  Sandstein  05:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Reduce to a week. Yes, he was being POINTy and he shouldn't have acted as he did, but indef is excessive. Reducing to a week in normal escalation is a reasonable outcome. Prioryman (talk) 08:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Unblock. This "encyclopedia" needs to be called in quotes, just because the amount of bureaucratic non sense we have here, I see no justification for the block. Petrb (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep indef block per Beyond My Ken.--В и к и T 19:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep indef until he agrees to cease the pointy disruption. Unblock immediately if and when he does. Resolute 19:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Just because some authority figure tells somebody to do something, that doesn't always mean they're right. But I guess he's still gotta be stoned anyway, because he said 'Jehovah'! *Dan T.* (talk) 12:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Unblock Talk about petty  TUXLIE  16:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm posting now as I believe MZMcBride's block is currently serving no purpose whatsoever. Last night, I removed MZMcBride's talk page access as he had continued to post links to WO on his user talk. This was swiftly reversed by another administrator. Looking over the community consensus about links to WO, it seems clear that the community isn't prepared to ban links to the site. As such, I have to ask, what is the block on MZMcBride currently serving? Essentially, he's blocked for doing something that he's allowed to do. For full disclosure, I would personally support banning links to WO, but I can't in good faith continue to support the block on MZMcBride given that there is no consensus to stop editors linking to WO. As such, I must suggest that MZMcBride is unblocked immediately. Thoughts? Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 14:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• He said 'Jehovah'! Stone him! *Dan T.* (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many people do not see a reason for this block and I have never seen it. I would be more than happy if all these sysops who feel as some superheroes who can do whatever they like and bother everyone with their silly "I will block you if you won't obey me" threats would chill out and think of true purpose of this website. Maybe MZ violated some /stupid/ policies, but common sense tell me that he didn't disrupt this open encyclopedia at all. Petrb (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never saw a reason for the block in the first place (and said as much above somewhere), and agree with your analysis of the situation. Legoktm (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All blocks mentioned on this page which serve no rational ongoing purpose should be ended. Simple solution. Collect (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Collect. This block is more complicated than usual because the page linked to by McBride contained the real names of editors. And, clearly, it was an act of civil disobedience and "going to jail" is part of that process. But, equally clearly, there is no consensus on excluding that website. By all appearances, drama appears to grow exponentially so it is best to nip it in the bud and though AGK probably had the right technical call in blocking McBride, the more sensible thing might have been to entirely ignore him. At this point, it's best to unblock McBride unconditionally and ignore any further posting of that unmentionable link. Even better if AGK takes the high road and does the unblocking. --regentspark (comment) 18:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• MZMcBride has been offered an unblock, contingent upon his agreement to refrain from linking to the website in question. Like others (including MZMcBride, who declined the offer), I find this peculiar, given the fact that we currently have no such rule.
  Logically, shouldn't the unblock be contingent upon MZMcBride's agreement to not intentionally link to pages (from that website or any other) on which editors' personal information is divulged? Isn't that the behavior considered problematic? —David Levy 19:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  David, I don't understand your point here, as the community have made it clear that linking to WO should not be banned. Why single out MZMcBride when what he's doing isn't against policy? There's over 200 links to WO on Wikipedia, yet for some reason MZMcBride ends up blocked for it. As I noted above, I personally think that linking to WO at the minute should be banned as it contains personal information about an editor, without their permission to post it. However, what is clear is that the community doesn't agree with me and as such, MZMcBride's actions weren't against policy. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  See Wikipedia:Linking_to_external_harassment#In_debate. The problem is the external site's content is not static; linking to it while it is being critical of wikipedia is not prohibited, but linking to it while it's actively outing an editor is arguably harassment. NE Ent 19:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Ryan: I believe that you misread or misunderstood my message (in which I opined that it's peculiar to make MZMcBride's unblock contingent upon not linking to WO, given the fact that no such prohibition exists). —David Levy 19:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ryan here. The block never was valid, unless we decide to remove all uses/links to the WO site from Wikipedia, we cannot single out one user. It's that simple™. Rjd0060 (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Per Wikipedia:Linking_to_external_harassment an unblock condition that the editor not link to outing seems appropriate. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]