On 10/15/07, fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info
<fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: George Herbert [mailto:george.herbert@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 03:34 PM
To: 'English Wikipedia'
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Harassment sites
On 10/15/07, fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info <fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: David Gerard [mailto:dgerard@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 03:04 PM
To: 'English Wikipedia'
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Harassment sites
On 15/10/2007, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 15/10/2007, fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info <fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote:
> > The encyclopedia is the work of the community, its creation.
Thus the
encyclopedia is dependent on the viability and integrity of
the community.
> Yes, but if it comes down to one or the other ... then what?
And let me say that I consider removing the
michaelmoore.com link from
[[Michael Moore]] to obviously constitute damage to the encyclopedia,
and if the community comes up with a rule that makes that a good idea
then the community is *wrong* and the rule needs removal. That's NPA
vs NPOV, i.e. the BADSITES arbitration.
- d.
_______________________________________________
There is threatening to remove the link, temporarily removing the
link, using
removal of the link as a negotiation point, negotiating,
etc. And saying that due to his high status (and the low status of
the editor who offended him) we should shine it on.
Is it possible to outright block any edit attempts with an external
HTTP referrer?
We could probably safely do that as a blanket policy. Someone could
still say "go here, and then click on edit" with the link to the page
to edit, but that requires more steps for the abuser hordes, which
cuts down on the number that will follow through.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com
_______________________________________________
That might be a bit of a coding problem as the link is not to a
discrete page, but it might be possible to redirect a user of the
link to a page which explains the inappropriateness of the request.
We could redirect the targeted user page to a policy page, for
example.
Fred
I was thinking more of a general, WIkipedia-wide rule.
Any inbound "edit" link (with a
referring URL) is
terminated in the page itself, or in an error page saying "We don't
let outsiders link directly to edit pages, we're redirecting you to
the page in question..."
So not even specific to attack sites, but general for everyone.
As far as I can tell, all the common cases, everything I have heard
of, for external links in to edit our pages, were vandalism or abuse
issues. What could be legit which would do that directly?...