Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Wiki brah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After conferring with User:Bishonen who was previously unaware of this discussion, I have decided to permanently block the account. I'm not acting out of spite and I hope that I'm not acting above and beyond my administrative duties, but I am convinced that we're dealing with a troll, plain and simple. If another admin deems it necessary to unblock the account for the duration of the RfC, please do so. - Lucky 6.9 02:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the only question now is how to most effectively deal with this nuisance. We are here to write an encyclopedia. Our community is based on this common goal. The trick is to stay focussed on this goal. A block is as good a tactic as any IMO. I'd only question whether it should be permanent. Perhaps indefinite would be a better term? Andrewa 09:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm the one who filed this and I never never in my wildest dreams foresaw this turning out so horribly; I was just trying to help this young guy and point out some of his mistakes -- not have him banned. And you know this talk about "permanent" v. "indefinate" is just semantics at this point. Can we at least unblock him for the R.F.C. and Arbitration process if it goes to that. The mere fact that he's responding to the R.F.C. shows his willingness to listen -- just look at most of the other R.F.C.'s -- most of them go unanswered completely. TheDeletator 15:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Due Process 2 Proceedure 3 The diagnosis of autism 4 Banned?

[edit] Due Process

Lucky 6.9 wrote, on the RfC article page: "That tears it. Unless this is ready for an RfA, I'm ready for a permanent ban. If it's appropriate at this point in time, I'd like to pull the plug. Any objections?" I agree with TheDeletator. The subject of this RfC is a problematical editor, but I do not see any basis for one or two administrators putting either a permanent or an indefinite ban on him. I agree that Lucky 6.9 is not acting out of spite. I do think that banning a user permanently is beyond his administrative duties. Users can be banned by consensus of the Wikipedia community, by Jimbo Wales, by the ArbCom, or by the Board of Trustees. Perhaps this case illustrates that the powers and duties of admins need to be defined more carefully. Admins should block users for 3RR. They can block users for personal attacks. I do not see any statement that admins can block users for being trolls.

Also, I am not sure that this user is "simply a troll". I also do not see any policy stating that admins can shoot trolls on sight. I think that this user is similar to Maoririder in terms of being bizarre, and that Maoririder is now the subject of an RfAr. Robert McClenon 15:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proceedure

As much as I would love to slap an indefinite block on Wiki brah I think we should go through the appropriate channels (filing an RfAr). He's a nuisance and he should be banned; unfortunately, my thoughts alone on the issue aren't enough to make it happen. As Robert McClenon outlined above, there are only three groups (with community consensus banning no longer sanctioned) with the power to order a ban. I think we should let one of them (in this case ArbCom) be the one to arrive at that decision. Soltak | Talk 19:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

After some thought, I agree. I feel bad about this whole thing but he's just...weird. I'll unblock him. I've gotten positive feedback for initiating the block, but I feel lousy about it. I'll unblock it and we'll let the ArbCom decide. Sorry to have added to the trouble. - Lucky 6.9 19:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, the account is reopened. I actually feel better. - Lucky 6.9 20:04, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The ArbCom is extremely backed up at the moment. If a RFAr were to be filed immediately it might be weeks or even months before a final decision would be reached. The best temporary measure we could hope for would be an injunction banning him from editing in article space, which might take a long time, too – at least five arbitrators would have to review and accept the case.

Unless WB radically changes his behavior after being unblocked, the outcome of the RFAr will be a permaban. That much is obvious. An indefinite block at this point is out-of-process, but we are trying to build an encyclopedia here. If it takes the attention of a dozen editors to keep WB's nonsense in check, that's damaging to our goals.

(Edit conflict, just saw what Lucky wrote.) Well, if that's the case, let's throw together some evidence for an RFAr. It's sad that one person can disrupt our work here so easily, and we have to put so much effort into getting him to stop. android79 20:06, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Here's a question, and I don't know the answer and think it's relevant: Has this person yet contributed anything useful? If so, I think the examples, or claimed examples, should be listed somewhere. Either way, I think it's relevant.

Even doubtful contributions should be considered, articles which have been stubified for example, or unverified claims that have just the same been copied to other articles, just so long as someone with a decent edit history considers it a useful contribution. I can think of one doubtful factoid that has been added to an article, but I've recommended its removal, see Talk:São Paulo, São Paulo. Can we do any better than that?

I agree with most of what is said above regarding procedure. But my experience of Wikipedia has been, if we have a strong consensus, we go with it and fix the policies and procedures afterwards (sometimes) regardless of the rules! The trick is getting that consensus, some of us are (rightly IMO) very wary of disregarding the rules. Andrewa 20:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm a stickler for rules as much as anybody else, but there comes a point after which common sense ought to reign. Our rules aren't a suicide pact. If the rules get in the way of writing a quality encyclopedia, then there's something wrong with the rules.

Anyway, I voted keep on a VfD'd Wiki Brah article: Juban (Cuban). Not exactly the greatest article ever created, but it wasn't total nonsense like most of the other crap I've seen from him. His creation of this article might help explain the obsession with "Hot Jewish Actresses." android79 20:34, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

I think that the user in question may have put himself onto a faster track to go to the ArbCom, because he vandalized an RfAr. Robert McClenon 20:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

When I said that he should not be permanently banned administratively, I did not mean that he should not be blocked periodically if he engages in anything that resembles vandalism. Robert McClenon 20:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you to Lucky 6.9 for unblocking this bizarre user. I agree that the ArbCom is very badly backlogged. It needs changes in procedures so that cases can be heard by panels of three or five arbitrators rather than the entire committee, as well as more arbitrators. I am trying to promote a discussion of the need for reform in Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedure at User:Robert McClenon/Crisis (because I couldn't find any specific place to put it). Robert McClenon 21:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the time to fast track this is right now. Please see the message poor User:Paul Klenk left on my talk page. Next RfC might very well be leveled against User:Imdaking for aligning himself with said nonsense. Geez, the things that happen when I check in during a wiki-break! - Lucky 6.9 05:43, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• And now he's leaving nonsense on my talk page. - Lucky 6.9 02:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The diagnosis of autism

Tony Sidaway: the world's first encyclopedia that anyone can edit should not continue knowingly to alienate, abuse and reject autists. We need a policy that enables autists to be identified early and welcomed in an appropriate manner so that, whenever possible, they can produce valuable work for Wikipedia.

This presupposes that Wikipedia knowingly alienates, abuses and rejects autists, and this in turn presupposes a number of things, among them that some of the people involved are autistic. Are they autistic? I haven't a clue. Can anyone here with knowledge of autism say if it's possible to identify autists from patterns in WP contributions, and not merely to say that autism is or isn't likely for a particular user?

In general, though, I think it's better to judge people by what they do than by their declarations of intent or inferred psychological states. I'm certainly willing to cut somebody slack if his or her occasional contributions that are nonsensical (or destructive, abusive, etc.) are greatly overbalanced by good contributions. But then I don't need to know what prompts the bizarre or unwelcome behavior. -- Hoary 07:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The question that has exercised my mind for some time is this: why, exactly, is this behavior unwelcome? I really see absolutely no good reason why the early contributions of User:Wiki brah were falsely described as vandalism and why he was threatened with a block in his first few days of editing. I don't see why, having read his apologies and requests for help, editors treated him as a troll. This was an editor who had made clear, obvious, good faith attempts to produce good articles. Why was this person misidentified as a vandal and a troll? --Tony Sidaway^Talk 07:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd rather not talk about Wiki Brah as I'm only dimly familiar with his name and lack the time and energy to investigate further. Because this is the talk page (and because you've raised general issues), I think it's permissible to talk in general terms and not about the specific person.

Perhaps "vandalism" is a term that thrown around too freely. I do often suspect that it means something like "knowingly or persistently do the kind of thing that I and others obviously don't like", which seems an enormous stretch. Still, there seems to be a grey area somewhere between this inclusive understanding at the one extreme and the replacement of my user page with "Hoary is an asshole" (bold and all caps of course) at the other. (Oh, I use my user page for my example merely in order that the example will be less likely to offend others.)

If I concede that a certain user hasn't actually vandalized anything, there may yet come a point where his cumulative irritatingness makes me wish he were banned -- "he" because most seem to be male -- not just for my own peace of mind but for WP. Perhaps I and others should try harder not to call such people vandals when, however irritating they may be (and regardless of their state of mind), they aren't vandals.

Still, whether or not a user is autistic doesn't seem to me to be a factor in this. Whether a user is autistic, very young, occasionally inebriated, or whatever, we can surely agree that he shouldn't be accused of vandalism when he doesn't actually vandalize. -- Hoary 09:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think we can agree that people who make odd edits, obviously in good faith, shouldn't be alienated, abused, and rejected. I don't know why some people find Wiki brah's edits irritating; personally I find most of them rather amusing. I found the description, in this RfC, of the South Park Hitler articles as "Unnecessary and offensive" to be utterly incomprehensible. The article, as written by Wiki brah, simply gave a bare outline of Cartman's actions in an episode of South Park in which he dressed as Adolf Hitler and marched around at the head of a crowd screaming anti-Jewish slogans in German. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 10:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The article is perhaps unnecessary; indeed its content was later merged elsewhere. It's also not written very well. What it describes is perhaps offensive. The article itself isn't offensive at all, and no, I don't understand how creating it could be regarded as vandalism. (It could be: e.g. if its content were clearly untrue. But I infer from its survival that it is true.) And, er, sorry to keep banging on about this, but I don't need to know that the writer is autistic or whatever in order to say that there's no vandalism involved. -- Hoary 11:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Discussing Maoririder in this RfC only confuses the issue. I'll grant Maoririder is almost certainly autistic, but I've seen no conclusive evidence that Wiki brah is. Some may find articles like Anal Sex in Brasil amusing, but I certainly do not. android79 21:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Banned?

Wiki brah seems to have been banned as a sockpuppet of User:Rainbowwarrior1977. See [1] for details. "This comes as the result of a sockcheck performed by brion that determined that that there was evidence that all three are using the same ISP and thier IP activity indicates they are likely the same user." Secretlondon 05:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)