"David Gerard" wrote
>>* On 17/10/2007, charles.r.matthews at
ntlworld.com<http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>
*>* <charles.r.matthews at
ntlworld.com<http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>>
wrote:
*>*
*>>* > 15.1) Wikipedia should not link to websites set up for the purpose of
or
*>>* > substantially devoted to harassing its volunteers. Harassment in this
context
*>>* > refers to cyber-stalking, offline stalking, outing people without
their
*>>* > consent, humiliating them sexually, or threatening them with physical
*>>* > violence.
*
>>* Is naming a site the same as linking? Note that in the example that
*>>* caused the case, antisocialmedia.net (which is undoubtedly an attack
*>>* site) was named, not linked, and its name has been in reliable sources
*>>* (under the interpretations pushed by the most prominent advocates of
*>>* BADSITES-like policies).
*
>Naming a site, alluding to a site, hinting at a site's existence: these are
not linking to a site. If naming is gaming this principle, then we should
treat it like other gaming. Gaming >harassment policy is typical of bullying
and provocative behaviour - back to the playground. In other works there is
a pretty good reason to say WP:HARASS is not for gaming.
>Charles
Question: What recourse does a living person like I have? (1) I was
identified by real life identity on the Foundation list by an accuser. (2)
The accuser identified 4 attacks sites by name on the Evidence page, and a
fifth "a webpage run by [user name]." (3) The page I do maintain is copy
paste of WP discussion I did not participate in.
The sum total is, I become the target of attacks & retribution based upon
policy and consensus, not based upon anything I ever did, or any website I
am alleged to maintain.
Gwern Branwen wrote
>> This is not a novel technique: far from it. I'm not aware of it having a
name, a WikiProject, any stature on the site.
>How about [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles]]?
Well, OK. There are numerous examples of what I meant. I keep on finding lists in user space. But what I'm not talking about is just having one master list. I'm talking about manageable topic lists created by all those interested in this kind of thing. _There is no need to create a central listing_.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
RLS wrote
> On 10/17/07, charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com
> <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > Well, OK. There are numerous examples of what I meant. I keep on finding lists in user space. But what I'm not talking about is just having one master list. I'm talking about manageable topic lists created by all those interested in this kind of thing. _There is no need to create a central listing_.
> Excepting that a central listing makes it MUCH easier for those who
> say "I feel like writing an article" to find something to write it
> about;
I dispute that. For some lists I find that are in areas I understand quite well, I'm like a fox in a henhouse. Lists of requested articles, for example, tend to stagnate after a while.
>or for those who say "I want to do something to help today, but
> I'm not sure what" to find a project they can contribute to. Small
> lists spread throughout project space or user space won't appreciably
> help the speed at which the articles about these topics are actually
> written.
You need to justify that. The current position is that there are lists spread around, with people who don't in many cases realise what else there is. We could make that phenomenon of realisation more efficient, without having to centralize everything. Actually what works on Wikipedia is a measure of work being distributed around, and a measure of linking and communication.
So the point I was making is certainly not that we need more killer lists. (You'll find people who assume that the 1911 Britannica list was "finished", but I keep finding bits that were missed.) We probably need
- more recognition that at 2Ma the finding of new topics has become a bit more like skilled work
- more linking from list to list in a "see also" fashion
- a forum for people who like this kind of work.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Arromdee [mailto:arromdee@rahul.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 08:55 AM
To: 'English Wikipedia'
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case about to close
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, John Lee wrote:
> I'm at least happy that it limits the application of this principle to
> websites set up for the purpose (I would prefer sole/primary purpose,
> though) or substantially devoted to harassing Wikipedians. This should
> *hopefully* reduce the wikidrama that goes on.
But it still gives free reign to remove links to attack sites that are
used in discussing an attack sites policy. It also allows the situation where
a user is accused of posting on an attack site and is not allowed to give
links to show that what he posted was innocuous.
_______________________________________________
Please do not republish personal attacks.
Fred
On 16 Oct 2007 at 22:36:07 -0700, "George Herbert"
<george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/16/07, Steve Summit <scs(a)eskimo.com> wrote:
[some context snipped]
> > Hey, David, did you know that on [http://davidgerardisapervert.com/
> > perversions/sex_with_dead_goats.html this page] they're saying you
> > enjoy sex with dead goats?
>
> Fifty quatloos to the man who buys that domain and puts some salacious
> content there.
>
> One hundred, and a large alcoholic drink of your choice, if it's David himself.
If it's a noncommercial site, davidgerardisapervert.org, or perhaps
davidgerardisapervert.info, would be more appropriate.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
Ken Arromdee wrote
> So BADSITES should be subject to IAR?
BADSITES is not a rule. Nevertheless, ignoring the subject sounds like a good idea.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
Steve Summit wrote
> Dan Tobias wrote:
> > I think a lot of what is wrong in the world in general is the result
> > of people (including legislatures) constantly feeling like they need
> > to "do something about" whatever issue or problem people are getting
> > into a big fuss about at the moment... even doing something
> > completely ridiculous, or counterproductive, or actively harmful,
> > is seen as better than doing nothing.
>
> It's called Politician's Logic:
>
> 1. We must do something.
> 2. This is something.
> 3. Therefore, we must do this.
>
> [This formulation, or something very much like it, comes from
> [[Yes, Prime Minister]], written by Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn.]
TINA (and TINC).
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
The following is a re-ordered version of what was passing (five votes) when I moved to close "Attack sites" last might. The redaction, apart from order, is to remove some principles that are pretty much common ground. I have preferred later passing versions of decimalized points.
Charles
11) The selection of appropriate external links for an article is a matter of
sound editorial judgment.
4.2) Linking to external sites which contain information harmful to another
person so as to harass them is unacceptable.
15.1) Wikipedia should not link to websites set up for the purpose of or
substantially devoted to harassing its volunteers. Harassment in this context
refers to cyber-stalking, offline stalking, outing people without their
consent, humiliating them sexually, or threatening them with physical
violence.
22.1) Wikipedia users and administrators are expected to have made a realistic
appraisal of the risks involved in volunteering for Wikipedia, to take
appropriate precautions, and to deal with external pressures in a mature way.
For example, it is predictable that Wikipedia and its users will from time to
time be subjected to harsh, and occasionally unfair, criticism. This comes with
the territory, and it is unseemly, even ridiculous, to react harshly to
predictable phenomena.
7.2) Users have the right to expect harassment of themselves to be combated.
Users who are not directly involved are encouraged to achieve this through the
removal of personal attacks, removal of links to external harassment, and, in
extreme cases, removal of references to attack sites; these activities are not
subject to revert limits.
37) From time to time, Wikipedia users and administrators err, engaging in
inappropriate activities which may come to our notice through external
criticism.
38) Persons aggrieved by Wikipedia and its users, those banned, subjects who
don't like the content of their article, subjects, or notable people, who
attempt to edit and feel harassed, etc., sometimes attempt to fight back, and
in addition to legitimate criticism, engage in name calling, create critical
websites, attempt to determine the real identity of editors, create links to
edit a user's page, etc.
39) Once struggle is commenced with Wikipedia, or one of its users, on an
external site, Wikipedia users may attempt to respond with removal of links, or
criticism of its initiator. This can rapidly degenerate into a struggle between
aggrieved users and supporters of free expression or of the external site.
23) Satirical treatment of Wikipedia, its users, errors and policies is to be
expected.
32) If an editor believes that the content of a prohibited link reveals a
serious violation of Wikipedia policy, they may forward the link to the
Committee for investigation.
----
1) AntiSocialMedia.net, a creation of the banned user WordBomb is part of an
extended campaign of harassment directed at several users.
4) In a number of cases, editors attempting in good faith to protect themselves
and other Wikipedians from harassment have aggressively removed links and
references to external sites, as well as discussions associated with them.
6) In a number of instances inappropriate attempts have been made to extend the
principles of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO to sites merely critical
of Wikipedia and its users' behavior. Those principles and those applied in
this case apply only to malicious websites.
8) Except for obvious cases, such as ED, it is difficult to sort out sites
engaged in criticism of Wikipedia and its editors and administrators from sites
engaged in harassment. Likewise, when information is provided about the alleged
wrong-doings of Wikipedia users, it can be difficult to differentiate
legitimate complaints from bogus ones calculated to cast a user in a false
light.
----
3.2) The community is encouraged to develop a policy compliant with Wikipedia's
key policies regarding the circumstances, if any, under which "attack sites"
may be linked.
4) All editors are encouraged to show due consideration for the feelings of
other Wikipedians, and to refrain from idly or frivolously making references to
malicious sites.
5.1) This decision applies only to links to AntiSocialMedia.net and similar
sites which engage in malicious behavior toward Wikipedia users. Attempts to
extend this remedy to sites critical of Wikipedia and its users' behavior are
discouraged.
7) If you are dissatisfied with the article on you or your project, or
regarding how you are treated on Wikipedia, please communicate on our talk
pages, use our dispute resolution procedures, or contact the Wikimedia
Foundation itself.
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
Ken Arromdee <
> If this is so, why has the MONGO case been constantly referred to as if it
> is policy?
Passive construction. You'd get a more meaningful question otherwise.
> And how did Arbcom manage to create an exemption to the 3RR if the case is a
> one-off?
I don't think cancelling 3RR in cases of harassment is innovating.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam