Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try .

E4 and E4.1

These proposals are, in my opinion, confusing; it should stipulate that blocks pursuant to the explicit bans in this decision (ie. sockpuppeting to avoid the one-year bans, or the one-year bans themselves) are NOT appealable to the community.

The sentiment is (to someone knowledgeable on the history of the Committee) obvious: to allow for community appeals of discretionary-like sanctions such as topic bans, given the recent issues with arbitration enforcement. However, the current wording creates an ambiguity with regards to the other remedies, such as one-year bans, which aren't up for review by the community.

Daniel (talk) 07:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

4.1 seems to address the main issue by limiting the scope of review to sanctions "imposed by administrators", thereby exempting the explicit/specific remedies imposed here, such as the one-year bans. Addressing an example you raised, I do not see why evasion blocks should be exempt from the review of other administrators and the community. As I see it, (for example) a block for sockpuppet ban evasion should be open to review the same as any other sock block. On a related note, I do not see this as a situation where wheel warring or deep community division over imposed sanctions is likely. Nevertheless, I am open to being convinced that a more restrictive enforcement provision is necessary. Could you elaborate on your concerns? What leads you to believe that community review could be problematic? Vassyana (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

A rose by any other name

So, uninvolved admins can issue topic bans and escalating blocks to anyone disruption Ayn Rand and related articles. Any reason not to just call it article probation? Thatcher 20:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Replying purely as an individual, the current proposals encourage admins to step in, using topic bans and blocks to deal with disruptive users. It is not asking them to do anything they are not already permitted to do. It also explicitly leaves the blocks and topic bans imposed by admins open to community review, as with normal admin actions. Imposing a formal article probation would do little but funnel all complaints from the normal places (ANI, 3RR noticeboard, etc) into the AE noticeboard and ArbCom appeals. This is not a situation where wheel warring and/or extreme community division is likely to erupt, so the extra formality and force provided by an article probation does not seem to be a necessary evil. Vassyana (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The current wording of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ayn_Rand/Proposed_decision#Topic_bans suggests that admins may unilaterally impose topic bans of whatever duration and scope they wish. This seems like an inordinate amount of power to grant administrators over regular editors. I strongly suggest that topic bans ought only to be implemented after community consensus has formed. Checks and balances are important, especially given the current climate surrounding the behaviour of individual administrators at WP:AE. Skomorokh 21:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Proposed decision#Community review 2 provides for community review of administrator actions, providing check and balance against inappropriate unilateral action. Administrators already possess the ability to impose sanctions, up to and including indefinite blocks from the entire site, subject to community review. The proposed decision simply encourages administrators to take action and reaffirms the community's right of review.Vassyana (talk) 15:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Topic banning with talk page privileges

Will topic-banned editors who are allowed to edit the talk pages of these articles count towards assessments of consensus? If so, the remedies will do very little to alter the status quo of the behavioural problems; stalemates on the big issues will continue, and the preferred version of one side or the other will prevail depending on which can muster enough editors to revert without breaching 3RR. Please clarify this point. Skomorokh 21:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I assumed that this would not be an issue as edit-warring would be punished more severely by enforcement remedies 1 and 2. However, I would also like to know the status of topic banned editors as far as consensus goes. Idag (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Editors permitted to participated in the talk page but under a mainspace topic ban are generally expected to productively work towards consensus. This is true regardless of the particular topic area, and regardless of whether or not the topic ban is established by ArbCom or the community. From my perspective, signs indicate that the mainspace topic bans are the right way to go forward. TallNapoleon has started a draft workspace, which I have found to be very helpful in many cases during my time as a mediator, and seems willing to work towards compromise and consensus. Idag has been very polite, cooperative, and accepting of his proposed restriction. Is there a particular reason that the three editors with such a proposed remedy should not be permitted to continue talk page participation? Vassyana (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, but it does not address my concern. I am not objecting to topic-banned editors being able to participate in talkpage discussions, I am questioning the Committee's will as to whether the opinions of those editors will be weighted in determining consensus over content. Banning strongly-disagreeing editors from editing the article is addressing the problem on a superficial level. The Committee has thus far taken the easy option of attacking the symptoms rather than the disease. If you read the edit summaries and associated talkpage threads, you will see that the thrust of the edit war (Peter Damian's soapboxing excepted) was that there was no consensus for one version (e.g. "philosopher") over another, so that the "other side" had no right to restore their preferred version. Attempts at mediation and compromise have been stillborn, as there are a wealth of sources to support a range of very different conclusions and editors are polarized and unwilling to seriously engage with those who disagree with them or write for the enemy.

So with the current proposed remedies, we will be left with more or less the same group of editors, the same diversity of perspectives on the topic and the same total absence of consensus on the touchstone issues. The even distribution of topic bans means that the remedies will not cause the weight to shift towards one perspective, meaning consensus will remain elusive unless editors spontaneously decide to co-operate. Incivility and edit-warring are problems on Objectivism articles, yes, but nothing existing venues (WP:3RRN, WP:WQA, WP:ANI) and firm administrators can't handle on their own. The reason this is at Arbitration is because of the failure to resolve disputes, and the current remedies do nothing to address that. Skomorokh 15:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

^{(Edit Conflict)} On the contrary, I think the proposed decision makes it clear that continued nonsense and conflict is not going to be tolerated. I believe the vast bulk of editors are going to take that sort of "warning" seriously and that those who do not will find themselves removed from the article. While it's clear that reaching a consensus will not be at all easy, a look at Talk:Ayn Rand indicates to me that people are willing to work towards both short- and long-term agreement. As someone pointed out, if there's a squeaky wheel taking an extremist position against nigh-universally agreed compromises, that is an issue that can be handled through reporting the problematic conduct. Furthermore, if further sanctions are necessary to bring stability and a productive editing environment to the article, this proposed decision explicitly permits and encourages the community and uninvolved administrators to enact them. (See: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Proposed decision#Editors not named, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Proposed decision#Topic bans, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Proposed decision#Blocks.) Vassyana (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think it would be wrong to forge a consensus by artificially excluding all editors on one side of a good faith content dispute. From a behavioral point of view, Snowded and I both agreed to Skoromokh's proposed compromise, and the only person to substantively disagree with it was SteveWolfer (TallNapoleon also disagreed, but his disagreement was based on procedural issues). Speaking for myself, the only reason that I even got into that stupid edit war was because Steve began editing a topic that was clearly still under discussion on the Talk page. Now I realize that I should have gone to ANI instead of edit warring, but hindsight is 20/20. As far as the diversity of views, that's why I proposed moving this debate to the NPOV noticeboard to get more editors involved. Idag (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Looking back, I think I may have misunderstood Skoromokh's comment. To the extent that he is asking for a more definitive interpretation of the involved substantive policies (WP:Undue and WP:OR) I completely agree with him. Idag (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Can I get some sort of last meal before I am banished forever? A cigarette, maybe? Forever is a long time. You don't think one year is more reasonable? Stevewunder (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I could use a mentor. They offered Brushcherry a mentor. Why not me? Stevewunder (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

A further defense:

Despite my edit warring, which many others engaged in as well:

I did in fact actively seek consensus, proposing comprises, and agreeing with compromises of others. My attitude was never "my way or the highway", unlike many on both sides of the Rand debate.

I did not engage in ad hom attacks, except in the case of Snowded, whose constant ad hom attacks and "my way or the highway" attitude finally broke me.

I did not "grease the squeaky wheel", except in my one attack on Snowded, as stated above.

My edit warring has been labeled "vandalism" or "soapboxing", but it was really just edit warring like most everyone else was doing. The major difference being that my edits were usually satirical, because as long as an edit war isn't going to be won -- what difference does it really matter what is said in the edit? Is there somehow "good edit warrring" and "bad edit warring"? Stevewunder (talk) 02:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You have threatened to purposefully act in a disruptive manner and have made edits that seem to follow through on that threat, as indicated in the proposed findings of fact. You have not acknowledged the impact of your edits, including inappropriate conduct before the threat and followup. Brushcherry openly acknowledged the flippant nature of his comments and appears open to mentorship and improvement. Sanctions are essentially used to prevent likely disruption. Given your statements and edits, the likelihood of continued disruption is very high and the proposed sanctions reflect that. Regarding your concluding statements, it appears to be a rationale to "pointedly disrupt" the project. Most of your talk page contributions were constructive and focused on-topic, but previous constructive behavior does not counterweight the threat of continued disruption. Being very forthright, sudden remorse in the face of probable sanctions is usually viewed (understandably) with a healthy measure of skepticism. However, the possibility remains that arbitrators may be convinced that a lesser measure would serve the preventative purpose. Vassyana (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

My threats to act in a disruptive manner -- I assume you refer to what I wrote on my talk page -- were made in the midst of an edit war. Others were engaging in the same edit war; I acknowledged the premeditation, which in a court of law makes things worse, but I suspect everyone else in the edit war planned to react as they did as well. I don't see how it makes things worse that I predicted how I would react. The catalyst of the edit war, from my point of view, was the "my way or the highway attitude" of those who simply refused to accept under any form of compromise that Rand MIGHT be more notable as a philosopher than as a screenwriter or playwright. There reached a point in the discussion where no one was discussing, merely repeating there same arguments over and over. I kept coming up with new arguments, new points of view, new attempts at compromise. Because the "my way or the highway" folks ignored all of it I got frustrated and engaged in edit wars. My edits were mainly satirical, because everything seemed worth satirizing at that point. But go ahead and ban me. You're right: I have no remorse. The uptight prudes here are clearly meant to inherit Wiki-space. I'm with Brushcherry: he had the right attitude. So fuck off. No remorse here. Stevewunder (talk) 07:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree with Steve here. When he participated on the Talk page, he was pretty constructive (far more so than Brushcherry). He did vandalize articles and pull some fairly stupid stunts, but I assume that he's already been blocked and served out his time for those. I think that there is a chance for rehabilitation here. Idag (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, the only way Steve should not be banned is if he retracts his threats to disrupt the project further, promises not to engage in vandalism in the future, promises to remain civil, seeks mentorship, gets a lengthy topic-bann from Ayn Rand and related talk pages, and is placed on some kind of probation. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

"My way or the highway", please and what ad hom attacks? I am on a wikibreak at the moment for family reasons and just checking things from time to time. However those statements are a total nonsense and typical of what happens on these pages. --Snowded (talk) 06:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, unless you want to recant, you were against Ayn Rand being called a philosopher, unwilling to compromise on that point entirely. That is the "my way or the highway" attitude. I was in favor of Rand being labeled a philosopher, but willing to compromise. As for ad homs, you engaged in them all the time. You often attacked other editors by name, dismissing them not on the grounds of their points but on the grounds their behavior was not to your liking. Of course, you could have ignored much of this behavior, but instead you used it as a point of attack (gave oil to the squeaky wheels) to dismiss the opinions of those who were against your opinion, and more importantly greatly disrupted the flow of discussion about content. Other than making the same point over and over, you did not engage in discussion. You did not seek consensus. You wanted your way or the highway. Your strategy has been character assassination. Instead of debating those who wanted honest, good faith debate, you put your focus on this arbitration in order to ban those who disagreed with you. You spent more time talking about editors than talking about edits. Certainly, you never were willing to debate any of my points, but instead wrote me off as someone who didn't belong in the discussion in the first place. Maybe you are right. Maybe that is how Wiki is supposed to work. Stevewunder (talk) 07:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

If you read the talk page Steve you will find I consistently said it was a matter of policy, there was cited evidence to say she was, and multiple cases of where she wasn't. How we handle negative evidence is for me a wikipedia issue which has not been properly addressed on this article and on others. I also said (at least half a dozen times) that if a limited number or reliable sources was enough (by policy) that I would accept the label. I also supported several compromises such as "she created a philosophical movement" or similar. Yes I frequently asked other editors (including you) to stop impugning motives to other editors, and when no agreement could be reached I first supported mediation (rejected by your namesake and others) and then arbitration. --Snowded (talk) 04:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, the Arbcom started before I ever joined the Rand discussion. I have never understood what Arbcom was, what it was supposed to do, and still don't now. I am/was a newbie to Wiki, tho I am about to be an oldie. I have never impugned the motives of other editors. The only editors i have addressed directly are you and Idag, and with Idag I was trying to make progress on a compromise. I think we were making some progress, but it got sidetracked/ignored by those of you who liked to post the same arguments over and over. Your position of "number of reliable sources" is disingenuous because you know from the get-go that you don't accept the Rand-philosopher sources as reliable.

But your first sentence above explains all of my hostility. You said consistently it was a matter of "policy". It has never been clear that you are the one with a monopoly on the interpretation of policy here. Yet you speak as if you have it. The "policy" that is always quoted is Undue Weight, but as I have pointed out, yet you have ignored, by Undue Weight in citations Rand wouldn't be known as either screenwriter or playwright either. Why have you ignored that point? You have ignored it by dismissing the editor making the point. Against that point, we have gotten nothing but filibustering. You have filibustered the point until Arbcom gets rid of people like me making reasonable points.

There is a slight irony in all of this as I am not a Rand fan in the least--and those on my side in the argument are those i have generally disagreed with most. but on the philosopher issue, my point -- again ignored by you -- is that if there is to be all the criticism of her philosophy in the article, it only belongs if she is considered a philosopher in the fist place. Yes, i can be very stubborn myself. and i am not saying, Snowded, that your points are not valid also. but i don't quite get that banning me from wiki -- other than topic-wise -- is proportional to my transgressions here. Stevewunder (talk) 06:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Permanently banned

So, has ArbCom decided to abandon its long-standing practice of limiting bans to only one year? Not that I'm complaining; there are a few cases I've seen where I thought it should have been used already. Really, though, my biggest question is why "permanently" and not the more usual term "indefinitely". The former seems to pretty much lock out any possibility of appeal, whereas the latter suggests that the ban lasts until otherwise stated by the community committee, which seems a bit more far-sighted. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I had noticed this point and will comment on the wording when I vote on the proposals in the next day or so. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Xiexie. (Also, note a correction to my prior post.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Taking a break and several issues of policy/concern

I originally intended to post this earlier in the week but family circumstances limited my time, and even now i can't put the time in that I would like. However:

1. There comes a time in any conflict when it is necessary for some parties to withdraw to create a space for new blood. I am happy (very happy) to take an extended break from Ayn Rand given that the number of single issue editors will be reduced for a period. I'll look in from time to time but I have several hundred articles that I watch which need attention. A good 50% of my edits are to rv. vandalism and I have rollback privileges as a result of that activity which I have never abused.
2. I remember towards the start of this conflict placing an extensive series of proposals for change on the talk page here. Its a longish post but I would ask Arncom members to read it as it illustrates the efforts several of us made to have a sensible discussion that proved impossible. Three of those proposals I left for several days before implementing them and they were not reversed. My fourth proposal to reduce the sheer number of people "influenced" made a provisional grouping to allow decisions to be made. A quick glance at the discussion that follows shows Wolfer and Kjaer immediately attacking my motivations and everything else followed.
3. Having got no where on that issue and several others (everything deemed negative about Rand had to be "explained" or dismissed) I and others supported mediation but it was rejected. Attempts to avoid conflict were tried and that is no mentioned in the findings of fact.
4. I originally came to this article (in which I have no particular interest) as a result of an attempt by one pro-Rand editor to sabotage consensus on the lede of Philosophy (my degree by the way) and subsequently was one a group of editors who objected to "objectivism" as a philosophy being defined by Rand's thoughts. My own academic work involves a natural sciences approach to creating an objectivist approach to ethics and other areas which has nothing whatsoever to do with Rand or her followers. The article having once been a good one had lost its status thanks to a small group of single subject editors promoting a particular ideology this was a major factor in what followed and I think needs more reference in facts and remedies.
5. Now I have been involved in other controversial articles (I am one of the editors in the Irish naming dispute which is under Arbcom at the moment) and while those have got heated they have never seen the level of abuse that I have seen on this page. If you want to take an opinion which is contrary to those who are advocates you have to have a robust attitude and a very thick skin. I freely admit that I was at times robust in my language but never personally abusive. If I look back over the last three months there are things I might have been better not to say but to be honest in a couple of years of editing I have never seen anything like the level of invective that was thrown here.
6. I do object to the ruling that I edit warred. As far as I can see there is not a 3RR there, but a couple of 2RRs (one made when all editors had agreed to keep the article stable pending arbcom) and a 1RR. With a little research I could find far worse including some from senior administrators. In the context of several months of painful exchanges it would take a saint to be perfect and I make no claim to sainthood.
7. In my day job I do a lot of conflict resolution work and part of that involves asking people to withdraw from some areas for a period. I accept that I have become a lightning rod for some editors here (see the stevewunder accusations) and my withdrawal would make sense and I freely offer that. I do however find an arbcom ruling of edit warring and a topic ban hard to swallow and demotivating. The wording could also be implied to prevent me engaging in articles such as Philosophy if anyone with a Rand perspective engages and that would be a complete nonsense.

So that is my position. I protest the edit warring accusation but offer my voluntary withdrawal as a remedy if it will help things move forward. I don't think the context of the debate on this article, my attempts to engage on the talk page or the evidence presented justifies the finding of fact or the proposed remedy both of which I find demotivating.

I also think this whole debate raises serious issues for wikipedia. They are in part addressed in the rulings but not completely. These are:

1. Issues of WP:Weight remain unresolved in particular the question of negative evidence. Articles that have strong advocacy groups (like this one, Intelligent Design and others) present particular issues or problems in respect of negative evidence and I am disappointed that this has not been addressed.
2. During the process one admin briefly got involved and sensibly froze the page for a period. I know he appealed to other admins to help out/get involved and received a stony silence in response which is dissapointing. There needs to be a better mechanism here. We recently had a editor (now banned) sabotaging one theology, one philosophy and one political article. Clearing out the vandalism and getting an admin involved proved very difficult (I can link if you want) but there are many other examples. If you are prepared to take on this type of vandalism you are constantly in danger of accusations of edit warring. There was one last night on Socialism with one editor and an IP inserting political opinion about the US where I went to 3RR to clear out what seemed vandalism. Editors prepared to take on single subject editors and borderline vandalism (I do a lot of this) need support and its not often forthcoming (see my sign off on de-motivation above)
3. No one has addressed the issues at Schools of Philosophy where we have a similar problem to those reported on lists of great philosophers etc. The question of the use of wikipedia being used by advocacy groups remains substantive and has not been addressed here.
4. The fact the mediation can be rejected by one person means that there are no intermediary stages before we get to Arbcom intervention. One of the things we asked for hereis the injection of a small committee of experienced editors to make judgements on evidence in particular weight. Having a process for that would provide something between mediation (too easy rejected) and Armcom (a sledge hammer to crack a nut).

One final point. I came to WIkipedia some years ago with a view to do field research into a complex adaptive system at work. I was one of four keynotes at a government conference in Singapore along with Jimbo and conversations there interested me. I intended to edit for a year, gather data and then write a paper on constraints and coherence (which are now to be book chapters). I have ended up staying and must spend a couple of hours a day when I am not travelling monitoring sites. I think in terms of critical mass/age etc Wikipedia is at a turning point in terms of academic acceptance (although those of us who defend it do not always have a good time) but the issue of advocacy groups is growing. I had hoped that with a new Arbcom engaging with this article some of the more substantive issues (other than editor behaviour) would be addressed. I still hope that this will be the case. --Snowded (talk) 06:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to make you aware this was noted. I will take a bit to digest this and think it over before actually replying. Thank you for raising your concerns. --Vassyana (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I am fine with my topic ban on editing the article, however I'm not sure why it's six months as opposed to three like for Snowded, Idag, et. al. I'd note that at least one of the reverts cited there was a revert of a major deletion by CABlankenship that was clearly against consensus, and another was a good faith attempt to maintain the compromise about the philosopher issue. I would also like to state for the record that I do not believe 3RR counts as an entitlement (I'm sorry if I gave that impression). Finally, I'd like to second some of the concerns raised by Snowded. The issue of negative evidence is very serious, and so is the issue of insufficient administrative oversight, and the treatment that DDStretch received when he attempted to bring some order to the article. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

For the record, i do believe that all of my opposition here: Snowded, TallNapolean. et all, have all acted in good faith. But i think Snowded deludes himself in believing the Rand article is not a single topic issue for him. He makes a point to mention his background is philosophy, and with that seems to take a view that his interpretation of evidence is higher and more insightful than others. His insight may, in fact, be more insightful than others. But this very fact has made him all the more recalcitrant on the single issue of "philosopher". I have no problem debating the issue with him -- and he in fact may win the debate -- but instead of debating he prefers reporting editors HE finds troublesome, so that they may disappear completely. I don't think I would come off looking so bad here if others merely engaged in debate with me. As they haven't, i flipped my lid and yes, vandalized, the much edit-warred over page. i think it is completely reasonable that i and others are topic banned here, but i don't think it reasonable that i be completely Wiki banned. After all, this is a difficult article, and not necessarily representative of how any one editor might act on other articles that are less heated. Stevewunder (talk) 06:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Steve I reported you once here for this, to quote "you are a pretentious fuck". Other than that I have reported no one at any stage. My contribution history shows that I am not a single topic editor. --Snowded (talk) 07:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I haven't reported anyone. Maybe that's my problem. You are a pretentious fuck, by the way. Does the pole up your ass have a pole up its ass? Go be a rat and report things. Is philosophy really your business? I respect the shit out of philosophers -- because above all they teach you to think for yourself. Why don't you go and suck on the Cambridge chair's thumb? Maybe this whole debate is about whether American philosophers are taken seriously -- by YOU. What do you think of Emerson or Thoreau? They aren't rigid philosophers, which is what you seem to have a problem with. Your contribution history shows that you believe whatever is popular in America doesn't count. Stevewunder (talk) 09:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, once again, instead of making a point about the edit topic, you made a point about reporting people. Go be a cry baby, cry baby. Don't go out on a limb and debate the topic. Stevewunder (talk) 10:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal with regard to Stevewunder

I have agreed to mentor Stevewunder (assuming that he's not permanently banned),[1] and would like to propose the following remedy concerning him in place of the one currently being proposed:

1. A topic ban on the Ayn Rand article for 1 year

2. Stevewunder may not edit any article that is being actively edited by Snowded - lots of antagonism between these guys

3. Probation for 6 months

I know that these seem somewhat light, but I would emphasize that this is a new editor whose first exposure to Wikipedia has been through the Ayn Rand quagmire. I would also propose an enforcement provision that if Stevewunder vandalizes any more pages, then he will become indefinitely banned. This will address concerns about possible future disruption while at the same time giving Steve an opportunity to rehabilitate himself and learn more about the project and its policies. As his mentor, I will try to work with him so that he understands how he could contribute constructively to the project. Idag (talk) 10:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I much appreciate your proposal, Idag. Stevewunder (talk) 10:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Vassyana re 'meatpuppets'

It's possible that whoever first used the term "meatpuppet" didn't intend it to be taken as derogatory and insulting. Possible, but not very likely, and if true then that person badly need to work on their communication skills.

Try this scenario on a non-wikipedian friend or relative:

Somene mentions to you that there's a discussion going on on Wikipedia in an area they're interested in. You follow the provided link and add your informed opinion. Someone responds by calling you a 'meatpuppet'. Is your first reaction 'Oh, what a nice polite person, I bet that's a constructive attempt to converse with me and in no way meant as an insult'?

Is there realy any need for arbcom to encourage the use of such epithets? 87.254.80.49 (talk) 13:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)