On 5/29/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: I think the issue is that to date most BLP actions have been benign; now admins are speedy closing AfDs and DRVs citing BLP - sometimes even when the article does not appear to have any immediate BLP issues. I think if such is the case, we probably ought to rewrite BLP to reflect practice - you know, descriptivism and all. Johnleemk

Delirium wrote: *Strawman alert* No, do that and I'll block you for POINTy disruption. *end of Stawman alert*

Blu Aardvark wrote: I meant to add to this, but neglected to. Basic human sympathy indicates that users would work to do so when possible, but first of all, it's not always possible, and second of all, if one admin neglects to revert a link or ban an editor, there are more than seven hundred who can do that in his stead. Let's get with the program here.

On May 28, 2007, at 5:34 PM, Slim Virgin wrote: And Gracenotes, in my reading of his RFA, does not disagree with this. But in the face of such blinding idiocy as Will Beback's removing citations to reliable sources, is it any wonder that he's a little suspicious of the merits of a bright line distinction here? -Phil

On 5/28/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner(a)gmail.com> wrote: It's unfair to keep on mentioning that RfA because the candidate's not here to defend himself, but on the other hand, I'm reluctant to let some of these comments stand. Gracenotes's replies about this and other issues worried me because they seemed evasive. For example: "I suppose you mean attack sites as those in which personal attacks are made against Wikipedians, without the intent of improving Wikipedia." That set off alarm bells for me, because *all* these attack sites claim to have the intent of improving WP.

"*all* these attack sites claim to have the intent of improving WP." Sorry... that's not what I said. I was only talking about external sites wherein one can locate, either by browsing or by searching, personal attacks made against Wikipedians without the intent of improving Wikipedia (and intentions have to be discerned, not hand-fed), by any patron of that site. What the sites claim is a red herring that has little bearing on my response. To assume that I support linking to "attack sites" from an illogical loophole in my wording seems odd to me. In a sense, DennyColt changed the issue from "attack links" to "attack sites". I wish we could change it back again. --Gracenotes On 5/28/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Slim Virgin wrote: I seriously am not seeing what the difference in positions is here, despite a lot of head-scratching. SV, I understand you to be saying that you don't support an absolute ban on particular sites, but rather the use of good judgment, keeping in mind that any link to a site that is sufficiently filled with personal attacks is probably a net negative. I understand Gracenotes to be saying that he also doesn't support an absolute ban on particular sites, but rather the use of good judgment, based on the context of the post and the content of the link. If I were to make either one of those a policy that I tried to enforce myself, I am having trouble imagining what I'd do differently between the two. Could somebody clear this up for me? Thanks, William

On Mon, 28 May 2007, Matthew Brown wrote: I'll tell you what I've seen, since I've been arguing this for a while. One side thinks that attack site links may be removed 100% of the time, a zero tolerance policy. Another site thinks that attack site links are usually bad, but there may be rare circumstances where they are needed, and that they should be decided case by case. The first side, however, has now moderated their rhetoric and sounds exactly like the second. My impression is that the zero-tolerance side actually wants zero tolerance for certain particular web sites, and the Teresa Nielsen Hayden situation caught them by surprise. Thus, they now claim "we don't support zero tolerance" when the truth is that they don't care about TNH but still want zero tolerance for WR and ED.

On Mon, 28 May 2007 18:49:48 -0700, William Pietri <william(a)scissor.com> wrote: Indeed. A difference that makes no difference - but allows us to apply Clue, as we always should. The benefit of the doubt, as always with eternal links, should go to removal, but we should not absolutely rule out the possibility that a site which contains attacks may contain good content. Not that I've seen it happen yet, you understand. However, we should resist absolutely any link to sites which "out" Wikipedians. Privacy violation is different from trolling and has a far more insidious effect. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

You do bring up a considerable facet, although the point of my post was to explain how the wording in A4 was not evasive or meant to be evasive. --Gracenotes On 5/28/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 5/29/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote: At least part of that site can be considered attack site (I have no idea if the Brandt's Hivemind page is still gone), but there's plenty of simple crititcs there whose posts are worth discussing. I don't see why we should ban an entire site just for part of its content. Mgm

Slim Virgin wrote: Well, not exactly. Admins are there to protect the encyclopedia. Protecting the people who create it doesn't come out of any admin responsibility, but rather out of basic human dignity. Yes, admins should, whenever possible, remove links to such websites. (Except that "such websites" don't really exist. They may have /pages/ that serve to harass Wikipedia editors, but there are no sites explicitly dedicated to doing so.) However, if they fail to do so, what's the problem? There are, as I said, over 700 other admins who can do the job for them. I mean, heck, you've got your own personal army dedicated to that cause.

Slim Virgin wrote: And I'd be interested to know which of the admin tools has one bit to do with this point. An admin's job is to use the extra tools to improve the encyclopedia. End of story. Not using the extra tools is *not a crime* and has *absolutely nothing* to do with removing text (fully-protected pages aside, and then consensus is needed for a change anyway). This notion that admins must agree with everyone and know policy like the back of their hand is bullshit of the highest order. Those things would certainly help an admin, particularly in the trust area, but take my case. I don't agree with quite a few people. I probably know less than one quarter of Wikipedia policy. Why was I given adminship? Because I was dedicated to the one quarter of policy that I do know, I stated that I would only use the tools in areas I was extremely familiar with, and the community trusted that I would do so. In short, I was given sysop because people trusted me to not abuse the extra tools, and to my knowledge I haven't ever. Will Gracenotes abuse the tools? I don't think so. That's enough for me, and if it isn't enough for you then I suggest you read [[WP:ADMIN]], specifically the sentence: "Wikipedia practice is to grant administrator status to anyone who has been an active and regular Wikipedia contributor for at least a few months, is familiar with and respects Wikipedia policy, and who has gained the trust of the community." (Note "familiar with," not "has memorized." I am familiar with a lot of Wikipedia policy, but only deal with the areas that I feel familiar enough with to not err when enforcing.) Of course if you think he'll abuse the tools, feel free to oppose. But if he disagrees with you on something that has nothing to do with the tools, and you have no reason to believe those tools will be abused, you are simply causing disruption. (I do understand and sympathize with those of you who have been through a great deal regarding attack pages, but realize that blocking an RfA is not the right way to get attack links off the 'pedia. Form a policy draft and try to reach consensus.) -- Chris Howie http://www.chrishowie.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crazycomputers -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GCS/IT d-(--) s:- a-->? C++(+++)$> UL++++ P++++$ L+++>++++ E--- W++ N o++ K? w--$ O M- V- PS--(---) PE++ Y+ PGP++ t+ 5? X- R(+)>- tv-(--) b- DI+> D++ G>+++ e>++ h(--)>--- !r>+++ y->+++ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------