Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/ExternalSites

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

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)


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


 * 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)


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


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * AGK's actions were inappropriate, in my opinion, but this is excessive.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 23:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  23:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I thought the link issue was linking to outing (not a particular site per se). Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Desysop him, block him, then execute him by his choice of lethal injection or firing squad. &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I assume you're aware that your !vote to desysop has as much effect as your !vote to execute? — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  00:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 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. &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)

Proposal to reduce MZ's block length
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  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  23:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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. &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * unblock totally excessive. The Banner talk 00:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 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 &#124;  My Talk  00:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * Well, Ignore All Rules is a rule here... &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Unblock.  — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 02:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Keep indef block per Beyond My Ken.-- В и к и  T  19:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep indef until he agrees to cease the pointy disruption. Unblock immediately if and when he does. Resolute 19:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 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'! &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 12:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Unblock Talk about petty  TUXLIE 16:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to restore the Status Que Ex Ante
This may be doomed to failure but I think it's really the only way to resolve this whole mess. There's been a lot of screw ups along the way. And the screw ups piled one on top of each other so it's very hard to unwind the situation. It looks like the time to cut the Gordian Knot. Specifically, I propose that the community agree to the following:

Volunteer Marek 02:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) User:Cla68 is unblocked.
 * 2) User:MZMcBride is unblocked. (Note: Occurred 23:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC))
 * 3) Kevin has his sysop privileges restored (which has already been passed by the AbrCom motion)
 * 4) AGK or whoever else refrains from trying to blacklist Wikipediocracy for the time being. Whether this is at the Spam-blacklist or through implementing some kind of edit filter. Just let it drop.
 * 5) For the next two weeks - until March 26 - it's just generally agreed that linking to Wikipediocracy is a blockable offense (indef block being the standard). In other words, currently, there's no policy which prohibits it but we really really really should not block users for linking to it first, and then try to change policy, or list it in SPAM-list, afterwards as a way of justifying these blocks. But it's really really important that this is not a permanent ban on Wikipediocracy - which would be ridiculous. It's just a temporary injunction meant to stop the DRAMA VOLCANO that the ArbCom have unleashed.
 * 6) In the meantime we can have a real discussion about how to deal with this issue. I'm two minds of it myself.
 * 7) As a personal comment, I've disagreed with the post that initiated all of this, I've disagreed with the over reaction by the ArbCom, well... I've probably disagreed with almost anyone involved in this mess. So clean the slate, start over. A lot of blame to go around. Stop it.

And this is an old school WP:IAR proposal so PLEASE don't wiki lawyer the useless subtleties. Just let it be. Volunteer Marek 02:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree. While I don't like all parts of this, I'm not supposed to; compromises aren't supposed to be a total win for one side or the other. It seems like a good way to bring an end to the silliness for now. &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 02:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Marek for proposing this, and full support (except for MZM's block, being discussed above) as long as the "real discussion" is through a complete community RfC, with preparation time between one and two weeks, and to include users involved in this mess who wish to seek a solution, namely User:Kevin, me, User:Demiurge1000, User:Volunteer Marek, and others. During the prep time, the RfC style would be formatted in an easy to !vote way, and someone or a group of someones will be decided upon to close the RfC at it's conclusion. I'd at this time apologize to Marek again for anything I may have said to upset them, and the rest of you, and I strongly support this as the mature way to move forward. gwickwire  talk editing 02:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, absolutely not - People getting off scott free when they're fucking with the system for ... actually, I don't know why they're fucking with the system, but it's got to stop. We need to put the breaks on all this Wiki-political bullshit and get back to editing the encyclopedia.  Let MZM stay blocked - it's what he wanted, and he's got it, let him live with it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd ask BMK to rethink his comment here. Marek specifically made a point that this wouldn't be getting off scott free, that there would be a RfC or other discussion on the matter. As part of that discussion, sanctions against those who are "fucking with the system" can be consensified (word?), and we can get back to editing. :) gwickwire  talk editing 02:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no need for re-thinking. MZM's behavior was clearly meant to stir the pot, and stir it he did. Let him stew in it until he's willing to pledge to the community that he won't do that shit anymore. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My real issue was that you made this section solely about his block. His block has it's own section above. Leave the block to that section, and just deal with the other stuff here. gwickwire  talk editing 02:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The pot-stirring is hardly limited to him or others on his side. (Is your Barbie beyond your Ken?) &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 02:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment More time-wasting disruption on this noticeboard. Cla68, Kevin, MZMcBride, Hex and others knew very well what they were doing. It has nothing at all to do with building an encyclopedia. Mathsci (talk) 02:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It is/was an attempt to diffuse. You want the drama, you're gonna get it (and not from me either). It's pretty clear that what you've got here is a whole bunch of people running around looking for ways to cut of their noses just to spite their faces. And they get confused about which noses are supposed to be cut and which faces' are whose. This is an attempt to just reset it to the (yes, imperfect) situation that existed before all this began. Let's leave personal grudges out of it -- as MasCollel said, the encyclopedia building is over that way --> Volunteer  Marek 02:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Suggesting that AGK be desysopped, as you did above, is hardly "an attempt to defuse matters". Mathsci (talk) 02:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That was User:Hex.. Not Marek...... gwickwire  talk editing 03:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No that's not true: "I think tools should be removed until ArbCom passes a motion.Volunteer Marek 23:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)". You made assurances to Worm That Turned about reforming your conduct: that does not seem to have happened. Mathsci (talk) 03:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oy, I realize we're well into the double and triple sarcasm twilight zone here, but yes, that comment was meant ... sardonically. It was a comment on BOTH the pointlessness of the original proposal as well as the stupidity and the (maybe willful) slowish-ness of the ArbCom to do anything about it. Honestly, let me say it right here - through out all this mess, some members of the ArbCom have been vary vary quick to ignite DRAMA fires while the ArbCom as a whole has been it's usual sluggish self in trying to put them out. You can't have it both ways. You can't have individual members of the ArbCom running around causing mucho drama, then shit going all wack and then having a "motion" to try and undo the drama caused by an ArbCom member or two take... weeks... days? Normal situation is that the insanity is caused by outside parties and so dum dee dum, the ArbCom takes its time to deliberate. But here we have ArbCom members CAUSING this shit. Volunteer Marek 04:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Within this chaos, Worm That Turned has done something which hopefully will restore calm and reason. That seems to be the way forward. Mathsci (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose as this includes a clause which would unblock Cla68. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  02:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - Time for somebody to step down at ArbCom, at a minimum. Carrite (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * one already has. When the drama-monster gets fed this much nourishment, grows this large, and people start "dick-measuring contests"; then there's going to be collateral damage. — Ched :  ?  03:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The wrong one already has. The one who engaged in unilateral BADSITES blacklisting against consensus is what I have in mind... Carrite (talk) 03:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

At this count, it's at least, *at least*, two long time serious contributors indef blocked, at least one admin desysopped, one arb com member resigning, the rest of them loosing all respect, and a whole bunch of insanity basically people hating each other. The above is a way to short circuit the vicious cycle that's been started. I'm sure folks will show up and bring up "oh but this one thing right here was wrong!" and "oh but she said he said this!" etc. And most of these comments will be factually correct. But this has gone well past that point. I'm going to sleep now. I'm pretty sure though that when I wake up there'll be another layer of stupid to wade through tomorrow. Idiots. Petty idiots. Volunteer Marek 05:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm still at a loss to define the difference between mentioning Wikipediocracy and actually linking to it, given that the difference is only a five second Google search. Because we'd surely be blocking a lot of people, including Arbs, if they were equivalent.  ArbCom, the genie is out of the bottle because you smashed the bottle with a hammer that you made unnecessarily big (and to labour a bad analogy, you didn't even tell the community about the hammer).  You aren't going to stuff it back in now. And Arbs going rogue on us is definitely not what we want at this point. Black Kite (talk) 07:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This isn't going to happen. People aren't unblocked just to reduce drama. If they promise to change the behaviour that led to the block then fair enough, but unrepentant troublemakers shouldn't expect a free pass just because of drama-mongering by their off-wiki friends. Prioryman (talk) 08:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The "behavior" is linking to a website critical of Wikipedia. It's not something anyone should be blocked for one minute for, much less indef. &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 11:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. But in this case, the website happened to be outing another editor on its frontpage when he linked it. The fact that the link may or may not be a violation of WP:OUTING - and may or may not remain so - is the crux of the problem. If WPO changes its homepage, and the site is no longer an OUTING site, does he get unblocked? I dunno. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Getting ourselves in the business of policing other websites for criticizing us simply invites the observation that we have something to hide, or that we are afflicted with political problems which we cannot manage ourselves—in other words, it endorses these sites in their conviction that we can't be trusted, and especially not with anonymity. Mangoe (talk) 13:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Who cares about criticism? But the WP:OUTING concern is a serious one, based on an actual approved policy (WP:OUTING), as opposed to BADSITES which is merely a rejected policy. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:POINT is an excellent reason to block someone, however. And given he did it again, right after coming off a block for same, indef seems appropriate until the editor agrees to cease their disruptive trolling. Resolute 14:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * One can easily argue that it's the admins/arbs who insist on enforcing a ban against linking to a critic site are the ones disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of arguments that can be made with varying levels of accuracy. But I really do not believe that a reasonable and objective person can claim that MZMcBride re-posted the link for any purpose other than to stir the pot.  He knew what he was doing, and suffered the appropriate consequences.  Whether others should also face consequences is a separate question. Resolute 14:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Who cares what website the outing is on. If you think its about being on a critics website you've missed the point. It's outing people so people shouldn't link to it from here. It is that simple. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. That seems like a pretty reasonable compromise. Everyking (talk) 13:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Partial endorse I have no comment on undoing the various blocks, but AGK should get a tuna, not a trout, for unilaterally WP:BADSITEing Wikipediocracy given that all discussion of this notion, over years and years, has always been rife with controversy at best, and has never come to any consensus to block out these critical sites. Mangoe (talk) 13:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose I don't see how this would help with anything, and no credible explanation has been offered as to why it would help. MZM, Cla have been causing much of the drama, and Hex and Marek appear to be here to stoke it further as Mathsci has highlighted, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. with Mareks motion. One thing... what happens after March 26 ?  TUXLIE 16:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   17:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This seems like a reasonable compromise that would be conducive to rational discussion of the issue. ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  18:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Increasing drama
I hereby submit the following question: do you support or oppose more drama?
 * Support We clearly have not had enough drama yet. The drama gods demand more.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 03:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Sub-page. Isn't this just a rehash of the WP:BADSITES melodrama that started how many years ago?  It's like a blast from the past with all the old friends, a reunion!  Let's move this to a padded sub-page where those who don't care won't have to see it, and those who want to continue can do so as long as they like. Jehochman Talk 03:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree with Jehochman. It is unlikely any administrator will act on any of these suggestions. Mathsci (talk) 03:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not me. When the big guns come out, I've adopted my own policy - Duck and cover — Ched :  ?  03:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Damn. And here I thought Wikipedia had finally cast off the shackles of petty political drama. This comes to mind. Kurtis (talk) 05:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support: Next let's give 4chan free reign. Only way we can top this drama. Or we could unblock Stephen Colbert... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose, but support increasing llamas on Wikipedia. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Especially if one of them is the Dalai Lama. &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 14:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. Each of the principals in this dispute should be forced to improve an article listed here to at least GA status before they are allowed to do anything else. Resolute 16:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Seconded -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  05:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

See no reason to continue the block
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)
 * He said 'Jehovah'! Stone him! &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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) 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)
 * 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.
 * 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)
 * See Linking_to_external_harassment. 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)
 * 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)
 * Per Linking_to_external_harassment an unblock condition that the editor not link to outing seems appropriate. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)