Wikipedia talk:Requests for bureaucratship/Nihonjoe 4

RfB standard Statistics

Username: Nihonjoe
User groups: abusefilter, sysop
First edit: Sep 21, 2005 00:20:14
Total edits (including deleted): 65,315
Deleted edits: 3,629
Live edits: 61,686

Namespace totals
Article        28953    46.94%
Talk           10598    17.18%
User            1531     2.48%
User talk       5048     8.18%
Wikipedia       6609    10.71%
Wikipedia talk  3337     5.41%
File             921     1.49%
File talk         19     0.03%
Template        1556     2.52%
Template talk    458     0.74%
Help              17     0.03%
Help talk         13     0.02%
Category        1426     2.31%
Category talk    570     0.92%
Portal           362     0.59%
Portal talk      167     0.27%


Month counts
2005/09    57    
2005/10    634    
2005/11    793    
2005/12    735    
2006/01    1076    
2006/02    836    
2006/03    1872    
2006/04    2772    
2006/05    1484    
2006/06    1347    
2006/07    1328    
2006/08    1616    
2006/09    939    
2006/10    1600    
2006/11    531    
2006/12    1348    
2007/01    1481    
2007/02    517    
2007/03    857    
2007/04    1604    
2007/05    887    
2007/06    2246    
2007/07    1252    
2007/08    1613    
2007/09    783    
2007/10    526    
2007/11    576    
2007/12    848    
2008/01    953    
2008/02    1629    
2008/03    1413    
2008/04    354    
2008/05    321    
2008/06    746    
2008/07    2072    
2008/08    1180    
2008/09    1726    
2008/10    839    
2008/11    682    
2008/12    908    
2009/01    650    
2009/02    987    
2009/03    2264    
2009/04    2659    
2009/05    1530    
2009/06    4387    
2009/07    1328    
2009/08    687    
2009/09    552    
2009/10    613    
2009/11    947    

Logs
Users blocked: 700
Pages deleted: 5909
Pages moved: 1524
Pages patrolled: 2907
Pages protected: 261
Pages restored: 297
User rights modified: 3
Users unblocked: 27
Pages unprotected: 34
Files uploaded: 405

disclosure

In the interest of disclosure: I sent Nihonjoe an email related to an oppose in this RfB. The gist of the email was a note regarding the 2007 arbitration committee's decisions relating to pedophilia-related articles, and that as a result "Many editors were banned or topic-banned." I also said that Ryan should've referred this to Arbcom rather than acting unilaterally.

After reading the AN/I thread on this subject from late October, I may have been in error with that statement. I'll plead ignorance as I don't know ARBCOM's guidelines in this matter.

Don't bother looking for these decisions in public ARBCOM cases - you may find a few but some were handled privately for the good of all concerned. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I've found that User:MBisanz/ArbAp provides enough clarity in such situations. MBisanz ^talk 04:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

In most cases, yes, but ironically, not the case in question. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Consent to move discussions to talk page

Given the length of some of the discussions, it would be good if all participants in long discussions signed below if you are okay with your discussions being moved to here. Not signing won't keep your text from being moved but it will at least let editors know you have no objections.

• davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)
• It's fine by me, though it appears the discussion may be winding down. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ryan's oppose

1. Oppose, I'm sorry but I can't support this request. The flippant attitude which Nihonjoe showed here toward self admitted pedophile editors makes me seriously question his judgement. His process wonkery in this matter also astounded me ("You aren't paying attention to what I'm writing: there is no policy which supports this block. Just because someone hasn't called you on it before (perhaps no one noticed it before) doesn't mean you can keep blocking people outside of policy."). His complete inability to move away from the precise words of policy over the incident had the potential to seriously damage the project and I therefore don't believe that he should be handed a position where discretion is required. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

   I'm sorry if you think that's a "flippant attitude", but I still can find nothing in any policy anywhere here or on Meta which states that if someone does something on another site which has absolutely zero impact here that they can or should be blocked. Tyciol was blocked simply because of comments made on another site, comments which he has not expressed here. He has broken no policies here at all. As I stated there, I do not support pedophilia in any way, but I don't think we should be blocking someone for actions elsewhere unless it has a very clear and direct impact on the site. We can't be the world thought police, and we should not try to be by blocking people for opinions, ideas, or thoughts expressed on other sites when no direct correlation can be made. Unless someone has broken a policy here, they should't be blocked here. Tyciol hasn't advocated pedophilia here at all (and you have even stated as much). Thanks for participating here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

   You may not support pedophilia (I've never said I believe you did) but the position have taken with respect to Tyciol is one that suggests you're okay with it here and you're okay with the ability for self admitted pedophiles (Frankly I don't care where they admitted it, the point is that they have) to edit here, along with children and having access to methods of private communication such as the interface email system. This is why I strongly question your judgement. The block may not have ticked every exact box on the blocking policy, but it was necessary to protect the project and its editors. The fact that you put significant weight on the fact that it wasn't specifically noted in policy makes me believe your ability to use discretion is not what it ought to be when we are considring you for the role of the bureaucrat. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

   You are just plain wrong. I've never once given any indication that I think pedophilia is okay here on Wikipedia. Not even close, so please don't attribute a position to me which is blatantly incorrect. I don't think it's okay at all. What I did state was that I could find no policies which supported your unilateral block of Tyciol as he had violated no policies here. The block didn't tick any boxes at all in the blocking policy. That's my only problem with the block. If you can find any policy at all that supports the block, I'd be fine with it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

   I'm not misrepresenting you in the slightest - what you have done is advocate for Tyciol's continued participation on the project, knowing full well that he is a self admitted pedophile. You have therefore made it perfectly clear that you are okay with a self admitted pedophile taking part in the project. I cannot possibly infer your objection to my block of him in any other way - if you believed Tyciol as a self admitted pedophile should should have been blocked then you wouldn't have come complaining about my block at all. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

   Apparently I haven't made myself as clear as needed for you to grasp it: my concern has nothing to do with the specifics of this incident. My concern is that you are blocking people without any policy to back up your block. This is what I find unacceptable. Again, please find me one part of one policy which supports you block and I'll be happy to support it. Your continued misconstrued notion that I'm somehow supporting pedophilia (or those that do support it) is blatantly false. My concern has nothing to do with pedophilia at all, and I would have brought it up had the specific circumstances of the block been different. Blocks must always be supported by policy. Period. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

   But, as I will restate for the final time, by disagreeing with my block, you were therefore directly saying that you supported Tyciol's continued editing, even though he was a self admitted pedophile. You wanted the block overturned - you knew he was a pedophile, yet you believed he should still be allowed to continue editing. That's why I question your judgement. This is nothing to do with the blocking policy - whether it says it or not, merely questioning the block that I made had the effect of supporting a self admitted pedophile editing here. Also, per your reasoning that you questioned my block because it doesn't say it in the blocking policy - this is precisely the kind of block which admins have to use discretion for - By disagreeing with the block simply because the policy doesn't describe the situation, you have shown (in my opinion) your inability to use discretion wisely - that's something which is incompatible with being a bureaucrat which needs users who have record of using their judgement in situations requiring discretion wisely. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

   A block has to be grounded in policy. It must be, or admins can start blocking people because they think it's a good idea or because they disagree with the person or don't like something they've done, regardless of if it's a valid reason or not. I've already stated in the strongest possible terms that I don't support pedophilia in any measure whatsoever, and your continued intimation that I do is distasteful and blatantly false. I've already told you that my objection to this block had nothing to do with the specific circumstances of this block, but that you gave no policy reasoning to support the block. That is my only objection to the block. If you want to continue to delude yourself into believing I had some other motive for it, that is your choice, but the only reason for my objection is what I've laid out here. We can't have admins blocking people for reasons outside what is clearly spelled out in the blocking policy; that's why the reasons are so clearly spelled out there. All I have ever asked is that you provide a reason for the block that is based in blocking policy. It is up to the blocking admin to provide that policy-based reasoning if a block is questioned, and you have steadfastly refused to do so despite many different requests. I strongly encourage you to go to the blocking policy and find the appropriate reasoning for the block. If you can provide it, I'll drop my objection to the block. It's really that simple. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

   This is another petty oppose vote that only further strengthens Nihonjoe's credentials. Is this oppose vote suggesting that Nihonjoe should have ignored all rules and be prejudiced against the user in question? I, for one, am glad you linked to your "evidence". It shows me that Nihonjoe is not a bigot in the least, and that he would be a fine representative of Wikipedia. Vodello (talk) 06:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

   If you believe that a block for being a self admitted pedophile is" prejudiced" and by making the block I am a "bigot" then that is extremely sad indeed and I would suggest completely off the mark with what most rationale people would believe. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

   I'll admit I strongly disagreed with Joe's position in the above referenced matter and am still concerned with his response here, but I am reminded that crats have no special powers when it comes to blocks or bans (arbs and stewards via sanctions and account locks have the special powers), which is why I did not oppose here. MBisanz ^talk 08:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

   Indeed they have no special powers, which is specifically why I've stated that this oppose is based on Nihonjoe showing particularly unsound judgement in a position where he is expected to show high levels of it. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

   They do have status. If anything were to come of this, and it got a lot of attention, that'd make a difference. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

   In this context, one of Nihonjoe's phrases bears repeating for emphasis: "... so please don't attribute a position to me ...." The otherwise arguable proposition put forward by Postlewaite is developed entirely from a an attribution which was only "suggested" by inference.

   I don't understand why the tenor of argument doesn't diminish in the face of Nihonjoe's explicit statements; but there you have it -- an antagonist viewpoint which persists in intensity despite clarification, reason, restatement and denial. In this thread, I can add nothing which others have not already expressed; but it seems relevant to identify a pattern of counter-intuitive opposition which has very little to do with Nihonjoe or his judgment. --Tenmei (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

   Nihonjoe has so far put forward absolutely no reason why he would question the block and in doing so NOT condone pedophile's editing here - his actions in this regard had the direct effect of supporting Tyciol's position and therefore supporting a self identified pedophile's continued editing. He has yet to put forward any reasoning at all which would suggest differently. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

   Howabout we move all this to the talk page, shall we? The thing that should not be 21:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

   Nihonjoe seems to be arguing from a technical/procedural point of view, not for or against the merits of the block per se. He also seems to be arguing from a point of ignorance of ARBCOM precedent, as I've outlined elsewhere on this page. Given his apparent ignorance, his arguments are rational: If I were an admin and saw what looked like an unwarranted block, I would search the policy and, if I could find no policy to support the block, I would ask you about it. In the interest of not wheel-warring I would probably ask you in private, or at least very politely, but I would probably ask. In this case, if you had simply said you were acting in accordance with an arbcom precedent and given the general topic of the precedent, and if possible pointed me to previous public or admin-l discussions of that precedent, that would've sufficed. As far as arguments that he's "supporting a self-admitted pedophile's continued editing" the way I see it he's supporting a requirement that all blocks be justified, and that administrators who don't provide a clear justification that reflects policy explain themselves by pointing to a reason other than their own whims, which in this case would be ARBCOM precedents. This entire discussion is IMHO revealing that both Nihonjoe (talk · contribs) and Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs) have the strengths and weaknesses shared by human beings: They are both willing to be bold when they think it is necessary, but they are both capable of errors in judgments and have both have blind spots. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

   I think this a fair description. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

   After reading through that discussion thread and a subsequent ANI thread, I can understand Nijonjoe's ignorance of the arbitration committee's stance on this topic. The initial arbcom decision relating to this topic was apparently a long time ago. The off-wiki edit (not linked here, NSFW) that appeared in the user talk page or the ANI discussion is from 3 years ago, and I haven't seen much publicity on the topic lately. Absent Arbcom's previous decisions, Nijonjoe would have been correct that the block was unwarranted as public policy pretty much restricts blocks to on-wiki editing only. As it happens, the editor's block was confirmed by a sitting arbitrator. Nijonjoe's ignorance can be attributed to one of two things: 1) Nihonjoe isn't monitoring all admin-commmunication-channels, OR 2) arbcom is not doing a good job of communicating issues such as this with administrators. As I am not privy to off-wiki administrator discussions, I don't know how much of Nihonjoe's ignorance is his fault and how much is the fault of others.

   The whole topic of how to handle cases like this should be on a prominent but possibly private list of "if you see this issue, contact arbcom before taking action" or "take this action then refer to arcom" items that all administrators should read shortly after getting the bit and regularly thereafter. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

   Speaking as an admin, this is an area that is not covered by any policy but rather by ArbCom precedent, and it was significantly more muddled 3 years ago than it is today. This is the sort of area where the natural dispute that arises (as well as any possible privacy or safety issues) should be resolved by ArbCom and not the whims of any individual administrator or bureaucrat. Shii (tock) 01:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

   While many people have taken offense to Nihonjoe's callous reaction, I have even more faith in him since he/she are able to take all personal opinions off the table in making a decison, and stick to policy. I doubt I could have made such a decison, especially since I feel just as passionately about the situation as Ryan, but Nihonjoe's ability to focus on WP gives me even more faith in their ability to be a bureaucrat. Angryapathy (talk) 14:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

   Indeed. I find it shocking that so many admins take Ryan's lead in characterizing this as "the pedophilia case"-- an emotional hot-button if ever there was one-- rather than the "Administrator blocking at whim" case. As I read it, the blocked editor had done nothing wrong here, but the Admin found something unsavory on said editor off-Wiki. There are some allusions (by other editors) to a mysterious, hidden decision by Arbcom which may or may not back up Ryan's actions. But if they do so, it is by pure coincidence, since Ryan indicates no knowledge of it in his arguments. Given the known facts of the case: Ryan, to all indications, blocked without reason based on personal prejudice. Nihonjoe has simply asked for Ryan to show policy which supports his actions. Dekkappai (talk) 14:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

   From what I gather, Ryan acted in good faith in that he believed he was acting in accordance with ARBCOM decisions. His mistake was either 1) to not directly refer the person to ARBCOM, or 2) to not clearly communicate his reasons to any administrator who questioned him on it. Since I don't know ARBCOM's actual desires in this matter - do they want admins to block-and-refer, or simply refer - I don't know what Ryan's actual mistake was. In either case, neither it nor the mistakes Nihonjoe made on this issue are worthy of the huge dramaz they generated in this RfB. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Pedophilia and ARBCOM - are they monitoring this discussion?

• Can someone who knows for certain say that ARBCOM is aware of this discussion? If not, they should be made aware of it.
• Without breaking the confidences of private communications without the authority to do so, can someone who knows say whether or not incoming and longstanding administrators are made aware of all "sensitive topics" which should be referred to ARBCOM for final decisions and under which conditions ARBCOM has requested "block first then let us decide the matter" actions? If the answer to this question is not "yes, administrators know the areas ARBCOM is exercising primary jurisdiction over and what to do when you encounter such a situation" then this is a problem that should be fixed sooner rather than later. It's not important that ARBCOM's policies be completely transparent, but it is important that they be transparent enough to prevent arguments between administrators because the administrators are using different playbooks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

considering that an arbcom member is also a 'crat and that at least two other arbcom members have !voted, I think it is safe to say the answer is yes.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Some history on ARBCOM v. Pedophilia

In 2006, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war#Final decision was released. Among it are two items which may or may not be supported by later ARBCOMS:

• Administrators may make mistakes
• Wikipedia is open to all

In light of events in 2007-2009, the second statement may or may no longer be true, and it's pretty clear that true or not, it's truth or lack of truth is not universally understood even among administrators. I simply don't know. But still, the 2006 ruling is instructive, especially the "Administrators may make mistakes" line. We are all human. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I read further:

• Administrators granted blocking power provided policy is followed
• Wikipedia is open to all: "10.2) It is not an accepted practice to ban users from editing Wikipedia unless they are actively disrupting, endangering, or otherwise harming the project. Such bannings usually require either broad community consensus, an action from the Arbitration Committee, or an action from Jimbo Wales. In addition, 'The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against current or prospective users and employees on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or any other legally protected characteristics.'

So I don't know. If these decisions still stand, then, at the very least, these opposes to Nihonjoe based only on this one incident seem very weak. Dekkappai (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure those decisions still stand, at least not in their finer detail. I hope ARBCOM has given relevant guidance to all administrators, or that they will soon, or we'll see unnecessary drama like this on other this and other issues every few months or so. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I take Coren's post below to mean Ryan's block was extraordinary, and there was nothing wrong with Nihonjoe's questioning it, even though Arbcom did uphold the block. So I'd say both the drama and the Oppose votes based on Nihonjoe's questioning of the block are unnecessary. Dekkappai (talk) 02:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The pedophilia-related block

To make things perfectly clear: the block by Ryan of the externally identified pedophile editor was endorsed by the committee (and, indeed, officially taken over) after it was done. This is a case where referral of the matter to the committee for review is the best thing to do.

That being said, Ryan's original block — while supported by practice and some committee rulings in the past — is an application of IAR on its face given there is, indeed, no policy directly supporting it. Disputing the propriety of the block on basic questions of policy or fairness was not inappropriate and NihonJoe was not unreasonable in raising those concerns even if, ultimately, the committee would not have agreed.

In fact, it's unarguable that the block does go against policy and general practice; but this is a case where "disrepute to the encyclopedia" overrides our collective desire to assume good faith on otherwise well-behaved editors. That NihonJoe expressed dismay about, and contested, a block that is otherwise clearly against policy absent a clear directive from ArbCom or the Foundation is no reflection on his character, and certainly should not be construed as support of pedophilia in any form.

The correct solution, of course, is for the community to sit down and codify this in policy so that administrators cannot be surprised thusly in the future. We expect our admins to be conversant with policy, but not necessarily with every possible application of every past event or ruling from the Committee.

— Coren ^(talk) 01:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

As a minimalist policy, "Administrators are expected to keep abreast of Wikipedia:Topics the Arbitration Committee has oversight of and of communications from the arbitration committee on admin-l. Editors who edit in topics on Wikipedia:Topics the Arbitration Committee has oversight of or who have been notified by a representative of the arbitration committee that they are editing such a topic are required to follow all guidance made on behalf of the arbitration committee, whether public or private. Questions should be directed to arbcom-l or any arbitrator or arbitration clerk." I personally don't like it because it puts too much authority in the hands of ARBCOM, but it is better than what we have now, which is a system where ARBCOM has basically the same authority this policy would give it but without the communications responsiblities this proposal requires. In other words, it's a concession to what appears to be the status quo with an added communications requirement.

No insert-group-here need apply

While I understand some of the reasons behind the desire to protect the project from disrepute, when you kick people off for things they do off-wiki that have no bearing on the project's content, you are close to or past the line of reasonableness. It becomes WP:IDONTLIKEYOU or WP:SOMEONEWHOSEOPINIONWEVALUEDOESNOTLIKEYOU. The bottom line: If someone abuses his editing privileges to bring the project into disrepute or otherwise hurt the project, that's actionable. If they use the fact they are a Wikipedia editor in good standing off-wiki to bring the project into disrepute or hurt the project that may be actionable. If Wikipedia kicks people out because the general public or some outside group deems the person so toxic that everything they touch is brought into disrepute by the person's merely being there, that's dangerous. What's next, No Irish need apply? By the way, if someone is engaging in criminal activity or threatening to do so, call the police. That's what I pay taxes for. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this post, Coren. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the point is that an individual admin shouldn't make justice themselves, those cases should be deferred to ArbCom. This case is about pedophilia but this could be really about anything - a membership, political positions and so on. Otherwise, this would be an open door for arbitrary blocks based on an admin's personal values. Cenarium (talk) 18:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Moved from RFB page

1. STRONG COMMENT and call to DISCOUNT OPPOSES. I am disgusted at the attitude that pedophiles are not permitted to edit Wikipedia. It screams utter ignorance and cold, hard indifference to the plight of some members of humanity. Wake up people. Pedophilia exists as a defined psychological condition in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. The people in society who are pedophiles are not criminals because they have a psychological condition. Editing an article about pedophilia when you are a pedophile yourself might generate a conflict of interest, but it isn't wrong on the face of it. Nobody is a criminal until they commit a criminal act. One can be a pedophile and never once do anything criminal. How many other classes of people are you going to throw out of Wikipedia because they have a diagnosable psychological disorder? A crap load of you are knee jerking opposing saying, essentially, "OH MY GOD! He stood up for a pedophile? BURN HIM AT THE STAKE! WE CAN'T HAVE AN EDITOR HERE LIKE THAT MUCH LESS A BUREAUCRAT!!!!!!!!!!!!" All of you should be ashamed of yourselves. What next, discriminating against people who are HIV+ and insisting they not edit anything AIDS related on the project??? Every single opposed based on Nihon's support for a pedophile's right to edit here should be discounted. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Surely you can understand people are concerned of the possibility of a pedophile editing amongst children? I for one would not want to risk the possibility of grooming over the internet. Considering the editor in question has apparently edited in areas that tend to interest children (wrestling, video games, cartoons), this is rather concerning... Majorly talk 22:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Surely you can understand people are concerned of the possibility of manic depressives editing in the general population? Schizophrenics running for arbcom? Asperger's suffers being an administrator? Good God this attitude is disgusting. Having a condition against your will isn't a crime. Being discriminated for having it is. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Adults can generally take care of themselves on the internet. Nobody said it was a crime, but what they presumably desire most certainly is. We should not be enabling an environment that supports possible child abuse. Majorly talk 22:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This ought to be moved to the talk page or deleted altogether as irrelevant. This is exactly what several people were afraid was going to happen. Nihonjoe, indisputably a massive net positive to Wikipedia, is having a very visible page of his turned into a discussion vis-à-vis the rights of pedophiles. Sluggo | Talk 22:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please delete it. Majorly talk 23:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Do not delete it I'll stop responding to it and spinning off discussion about it, but it needs to be seriously considered by the bureaucrats. it is my 'vote'. You do not have permission to delete it. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Please reformulate it as a !vote rather than as a comment. Comments like "discount opposes" should not be made in your actual !vote but should be put on the talk page anyways, or as a specific reply to a specific oppose. BTW given the nature of your comments it's far better to have them here than to put them after each and every oppose. You may put general comments at the top, above supports, but I can all but guarantee that your comments will be taken more seriously here than there given their nature. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Per the link provided by Elen of the Roads, it is ArbCom-made policy to block any self-admitted pedophile. I support this. I wasn't aware of it when Ryan made the block, and he didn't reference this decision in his block, but (thanks to Elen), I am now aware of it. I fully support it, and I will enforce it as well. Thank you for your strong feelings on this issue, but until the policy is changed, it should be enforced (and there are some pretty good reasons for enforcing it, too). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

For history's sake, can you add the link here? Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Here you go:

• I asked about the block
• Ryan replied, but gave no specific reason for the block, offers to email information
• I asked him to email the information to me (he never did)
• Rodhullandemu questions the block
• Ryan refuses to go into details, offers to email the information
• One minute later, Ryan posts the link to his talk page
• I post that I don't condone pedophilia, but that I don't think we should be blocking people for actions outside Wikipedia's purview, and I state that no policy has been broken
• Rodhullandemu continues questioning the block, states the block is very weak
• Elen of the Roads points out the email addresses are the same for both Tyciols, and points out the edits were made over three years ago (in 2006)
• Elen of the Roads posts additional information about the intent of the WikiProject Tyciol had joined, as well as its intent to stay within Wikipedia policies
• Ryan replies to me, excusing himself for taking the moral high ground, replies to Rodhullandemu stating it's clear they are the same person
• Gazimoff states that Ryan has contacted ArbCom, and suggests others do the same
• Elen of the Roads states she'll leave it to ArbCom
• I post stating that I don't think off-wiki activities are or should be covered by policies here unless he can be shown to have done something illegal, and that we shouldn't convict people for what they might do, state that it's not an ArbCom issue unless it's directly associated with an ArbCom case and I state again the block wasn't based in policy
• Ryan states he's blocked people before for similar issues and never had a problem, gives multiple examples of Fred Bauder blocking people
• I ask again for policies which back the block
• Elen provides a link to the specific ArbCom case. I provide the full quote of her post here (including the link correction she made):

I found what I was thinking of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war specifically Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war/Proposed_decision#Wikipedia_is_open_to_all. During the events leading up to the RfAR, Jimbo Wales blocked someone that he suspected was a paedophile and stated that pedophiles were not allowed to edit Wikipedia. ArbCom overturned this (or rather found that he didn't have the right to make the statement - it was from some other event involving a Jimbo 'pronuncement from on high' that he didn't have the right to make, that I came across this case) and endorsed the rather guarded statement that It is not an accepted practice to ban users from editing Wikipedia unless they are actively disrupting, endangering, or otherwise harming the project. Such bannings usually require either broad community consensus, an action from the Arbitration Committee, or an action from Jimbo Wales. In addition, "The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against current or prospective users and employees on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or any other legally protected characteristics." Which while certainly not a ringing endorsement of paedophilia (which I would neither expect nor want) does suggest that the current action was somewhat premature. There needs to be some actual evidence of harm.

• Ryan states that case had nothing to do with Jimbo blocking a pedophile, states that he sees nothing wrong with discriminating against pedophiles
• Ryan accuses me of being flippant
• Elen posts that Ryan is being extremely disingenuous, states that ArbCom did not specifically support on-sight blocking of pedophiles, and that blocking policy doesn't support it
• Ryan states that Elen is incorrect, and states that Fred Bauder blocked several pedophiles while he was an arbitrator
• Elen points out the accounts had been inactive for 6-12 months when blocked
• Elen points out that they were blocked fro on-wiki advocacy, and that Tyciol never advocated on-wiki
• Ryan states that Fred blocked them in part because they weren't welcome because they identified as pedophiles, as well as to avoid a PR nightmare for Wikipedia
• Elen asks for a link to where the consensus was reached to block pedophiles on sight
• I again ask for a link to any policy at all which supported the block (this is my last post on the topic)
• Elen indicates there should be some guideline or policy about this, and offers to write one if necessary
• Skomorokh asks for clarification on the reasons for the block
• Ryan states it's because Tyciol was well known for being a pedophile and has been banned elsewhere for it
• Skomorokh states that is not a good reason for being blocked, asks if there is evidence of being disruptive onwiki or damaging to contributors or any plan to do so
• Equazcion posts supporting Elen and Skomorokh
• Ryan states that none of the people questioning him know all the facts and that he's sent everything to ArbCom, states Tyciol had a large campaign advocating pedophilia
• Elen states that her concern is that one person made the call, and that such an action could be damaging if it turns out the block is overturned due to not being based in policy
• Skomorokh asks Ryan again if he is "entirely confident that this editor disrupted or intended to disrupt Wikipedia or harm its contributors"
• Conti asks Ryan if he shouldn't have contacted ArbCom first and waited for a response before acting
• Ryan says he didn't need to contact ArbCom and only did so because they were the only ones who could review all the evidence, states that Tyciol's mere presence was detrimental to Wikipedia, and that FloNight had posted on ANI for people to contact ArbCom with questions
• Elen states that this was done the wrong way, expresses a need for a guideline again
• Skomorokh expresses understanding of Ryan's position, but states that the reasons Ryan has given are not grounds for an indefinite block, states that he will be contacting ArbCom
• Nathan states there are no specific policies which support blocking pedophiles, but there are precedents of ArbCom doing so, suggests not unblocking and waiting for ArbCom and/or community discussion before any unblock
• Equazcion says he would be fine with an open discussion of the issue, but that ArbCom had apparently issued a gag order
• Elen point out that it took two incidents of issues with LiveJournal before a policy was codified
• Skomorokh points out that there is precedent, but that policy specifically forbids this kind of block

You can read the full thread here. Some related commentary is here and here ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting look at the opposes and strange twists of fate

I skimmed the opposes after Ryan's. Many were springboarded on Ryans but included good reasons to oppose. Only maybe 4-6 were a simple "per Ryan" or "Per WP:IHATEPEDOPHILESANDCRATSSHOULDTOO." Looking at the support dated prior to Ryan's post, it looks like he lost 4 but had 3 re-affirmed. For those dated after Ryan's post, at least 8 alluded to Ryan's oppose or similar opposes. It's probably fair to say some of those 8 would not have supported but for Ryan's oppose or related opposes or comments.

At 127/27/1, even if the 4-6 relatively trivial opposes are discounted, this barely puts it back in the normal 'crat discretion. In a way it's sad that a single decision that in and of itself was valid under the circumstances (namely, that his understanding of the facts was incorrect - he was unaware of ARBCOM's desires in this matter) uncovered other issues which caused people to oppose or withdraw support, dropping this from a likely 90+% to a below-85% in a fairly short period of time. On the other hand, maybe it's a good thing - not because it is derailing the RfB but because it got some issues out in the open and gives the candidate a few things to do to improve his administration skills. Also, being below 85% makes it much easier to summarily fail the nomination without having to explain why, although an analysis by the closing crat would be nice for the sake of history.

I can't help but wonder how things would've turned out different for this RfB if, right after Nihonjoe questioned Ryan, either Ryan or another editor had pointed out ARBCOM's desired and Nihonjoe replied with "ok, thanks, carry on" or something similar. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This is why I strongly encourage admins to use User:MBisanz/ArbAp when blocking, since it tells the person and the reviewing admins exactly why they were blocked and how to handle the next steps. MBisanz ^talk 04:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)