Wikipedia talk:Wikiblower protection

message: I see that Radiant! has blanked this page and moved the contents to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikiblower protection, for no intelligible reason since it was transcluded on VfD anyway. Anyway, I have restored it as a transclusion from VfD to here, which I can't imagine any objection to.  A pity that we have to continue to involve the VfD process at all, however. Backwards compatibility, such a pain.  -- Visviva 11:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Placement

message: I wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea to move this to Wikipedia:Wikiblower, and expand the definition and examples of the term, also explaining why it is likely to be contentious.  -- Visviva 11:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Move?

message: "Wikiblowing" is nothing like whistleblowing. Whistleblowing is stating the truth about a conspiracy or the like, and deserves protection, but it's solely speech. What this policy describes is disruptive behavior that hurts Wikipedia and ultimately is nonproductive for any purpose other than inciting controversy. Even if there is sometimes an excuse for making a WP:POINT, I think those cases will be obvious, making this instruction creep. ~~ N (t/c) 01:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This policy is badly named 

message: I just now came across this page, and it just makes me laugh. I don't know what Ben made it for, but it's not going to make me more partial to his POV on nuclear power plant indemnity legislation. I wish he would just blank the page, himself. (I'm tempted to "shoot on sight", but that would be taking the can of worms, turning it upside down, and shaking it vigorously so that every last one of the consarned, wriggly little varmints would spill out onto the floor. Yecch! ;-)
Ben, thanks - but no, thanks. Get my drift? Uncle Ed 02:44, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
:Hi Ed. Well I hope that it won't make you partial either way - that would be a poor mediator. I made it because I think there ought to be a fair rule rather than an elite rule in dealing with Breaching Experiments - which I'm rather inclined to endulge in myself from time to time. If you're going to rock the boat, i'll support rational rocking on the basis of a fair rule - but I won't support elitist rocking on the basis of priveledge. Proportionality is the measure of such things - or should be. Benjamin Gatti
::My view is that neither the ordinary editor nor the "elite", "old-timer" admin should rock the boat with out-of-process deletions, and that anyone who does so should be appropriately sanctioned. That is a fair rule, i think. DES (talk) 21:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ... and rather silly, too 

message: Sections seem to be being transcluded all over the place, for no obvious reason, leading to what seems to be three different voting sections that are forks of a single section, but soem of which do not inlcude all the votes cast. Re merge this to a simpler page design with far less transclusion, please. DES (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: excessive tranclusion

message: "Generally, those opposed to fair rules like Wikiblower protection"... POV, anybody?  First off, I think I speak for a great number of the people opposed to this proposal when I say that we do not consider it fair at all.  Furthermore, to label us as "openly or tacitly" supporting an "unfair alternative which imposes major sanctions for minor Wikipedians and minor sanctions for major wikipedians for similar violations of Wikipedia:Policy" is misleading.  At least in my case, I oppose this policy but support a fair alternative that's not mentioned: major sanctions for everyone.  I, and I believe at least some others agree with me, oppose "wikiblower protection" not because I believe some people deserve to get off lightly, but because I believe that there is no such thing as an "act of constructive boldness in violation of policy;" that "the suspension of the normal rules of Wikipedia, such as WP:POINT" is never justified, beneficial, or even a good idea; and that "sanctioning a contributor for aggressive editing when such edits were made for the purpose of drawing attention to a greater problem," especially when such aggressive editing is unilateral, is appropriate, desirable, and indeed the duty of all administrators, bureacrats, members of the Arbitration Committee, Jimbo, and every lowly member, such as myself, of the general editing populace.  In light of that, to say that anyone opposed to "wikiblower protection" supports an unfair hierarchy of protection for some and throwing-to-the-wolves for others is a falsehood, and the need to resort to such demagogy in order to support this proposal could serve as further evidence of its lack of merit.  The Literate Engineer 16:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Serious problem in Arguments section

message: For those interested, I counted 22 valid delete votes and 12 valid keep votes.  I disregarded votes from  for being far too new (second edit), and  for being a reactivated account with only two dozen edits prior to 18 July. --Tony SidawayTalk 01:21, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Result of the VfD