The big wars over linking to so-called "attack sites" have moved to
yet another venue... and this time, instead of just chilling
discussion on various and sundry talk and project pages (but being
pretty much peripheral to anything to do with maintaining an
encyclopedia, other than diverting energy away from it), they're
actually having a direct and negative effect on our quality as an
encyclopedia. It seems that, regarding the [[Essjay controversy]],
one of the Wikipedia-related conflicts that is notable enough to have
a mainspace article, a key part of the history of the unfolding of
this story took place on one of the "attack sites". (Our favorite
enemy Daniel Brandt played a big role in that.) So, naturally, some
people wanting a well-referenced historical record wish to include
the relevant link. Others are fighting it, making the same tired
arguments about ArbCom rulings and pseudo-policy. I was trying to
mellow out about this whole issue so that I could get back to doing
something actually relevant to the encyclopedia, but it seems like
the damn thing keeps intruding no matter what, like the monster in a
bad horror movie.
--
== 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/
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Vee [mailto:vee.be.me@gmail.com]
>Sent: Monday, July 2, 2007 10:53 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattackkk site link policy
>
>On 02/07/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote:
>>
>> I recall no arbitration ruling which relates to Wikipedia Review.
>>
>> Fred
>sooo... why was the link to wikipedia review removed and why did you endorse
>the blocking of the editor who added it, and why did you claim that the
>ruling covered the adding of such a link.
>
>you are incredibly inconsistent.
No, I just read the link wrong. I made a mistake. Good thing I wasn't flying an airplane : I'm sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings. Or stirred them up unnecessarily.
Fred
So what happened to the attack sites proposal? (I was busy doing other things)
Fred
>-----Original Message-----
>From: The Mangoe [mailto:the.mangoe@gmail.com]
>Sent: Monday, July 2, 2007 11:02 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattackkk site link policy
>
>On 7/2/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote:
>> I recall no arbitration ruling which relates to Wikipedia Review.
>
>Perhaps you have forgotten then that the "attack sites" proposal was
>directed at it.
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: The Mangoe [mailto:the.mangoe@gmail.com]
>Sent: Monday, July 2, 2007 08:03 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattack site link policy
>
>On 7/2/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote:
>> I did originate it though and am not intimidated. I shudder to contemplate what
>> Mr. Goodman wants for Wikipedia. If a pack of dogs fall on someone after he and
>> his ilk are in control, I guess we will simply be obligated to stand by and do
>> nothing.
>
>The central problem in all of this is the hyperbole. At worst the
>WR-ites are a bunch of malcontents whose not always coherent ravings
>can be ignored by choosing not to visit their site. As a "pack of
>dogs", they rank right up there in threat with a litter of Pekinese
>pups.
>
I recall no arbitration ruling which relates to Wikipedia Review.
Fred
There was a hearing regarding the specific site and a determination was made to outlaw it. I think it is probably best to limit such a drastic remedy to sites which, after a hearing, have been determined to be destructive to Wikipedia.
Fred
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Daniel R. Tobias [mailto:dan@tobias.name]
>Sent: Sunday, July 1, 2007 07:40 AM
>To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fred Bauder "clarifies" on attack site link policy
>
>Recently, [[User:Kamryn Matika]] asked on the RfA page for
>clarification regarding the ban on linking to attack sites imposed in
>the MONGO arbitration; the specific situation she was involved in was
>the insertion of a link to source the [[Essjay controversy]] article.
>Fred Bauder has now responded:
>
>-- begin response --
>Arbitration rulings are not policy. They apply only to the specific
>situation considered, in this case, a link to dem attic. Inserting
>such a link into Wikipedia is a blockable offense, although, a
>warning is appropriate if it seems the user was unaware of the status
>of that site. In your case, the 24 hour block seems appropriate as
>you were apparently both aware and warned. Fred Bauder 21:31, 30 June
>2007 (UTC)
>
>Attempts to generalize the remedy in that case into more general
>policy have not been happy. I don't think it is good general policy.
>Such a remedy should only be applied in egregious circumstances,
>after a hearing which considers the particular site. Fred Bauder
>21:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
>-- end response --
>
>Unfortunately, this response is full of contradictions. Bauder is
>claiming that the ruling in question is "not policy", that it applies
>only to a "specific situation", and shouldn't be "generalized" and is
>not "good general policy"; furthermore, it should be applied only in
>"egregious circumstances" to particular sites that have been
>considered in a hearing. However, he is also saying that it's proper
>to block Kamryn because she was "warned"... regardless of the facts
>that:
>
>1) the link she inserted was not to a site that has been the subject
>of a specific hearing
>2) the link was arguably a relevant and proper reference for the
>article in which it was being inserted, and not an "egregious
>circumstance"
>3) a "warning" that is not backed by valid policy is not a valid
>basis for a block, or else anybody could "warn" anybody about
>anything based on their own pet peeves, and expect it to be enforced.
>Can I just order people not to use the letter "w" any more, if I
>don't like it?
>4) "Enforcing" this non-policy on relevant links to source an article
>seem to be precisely the sort of thing that's an 'attempt to
>generalize' the ruling in ways that are not 'good general policy'.
>
>Furthermore, Bauder followed up his response by editing Kamryn's
>original posting to remove the link to the particular instance she
>was discussing. This link was to a Wikipedia diff, not directly to a
>so-called "attack site", and was necessary for readers to understand
>exactly what is being discussed. In doing so, he also reworded
>Kamryn's comments, putting in a reference to "the outlawed site" that
>wasn't there before (and doesn't make sense, since the original link
>wasn't actually to the specific site that was "outlawed" in the
>original ruling). Of course, with the link to the diff removed, it's
>hard for anybody to actually check on this, and see that the link was
>to a different site than the one covered specifically in the ArbCom
>ruling, and what context the link was made in.
>
>Incidentally, today's New York Times Magazine article on Wikipedia
>includes a specific mention of Encyclopedia Dramatica and its attacks
>on Slim Virgin. I guess if anything that even refers to an attack
>site is itself an attack site, then The New York Times is now an
>attack site.
>
>--
>== 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/
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Daniel R. Tobias [mailto:dan@tobias.name]
>Sent: Sunday, July 1, 2007 06:59 PM
>To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattackkk site link policy
>
>On 1 Jul 2007 at 22:20:45 +0000, "Fred Bauder"
><fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote:
>
>> You may appeal the case if you wish, although I would not
>> guarantee we would accept the appeal. The decision is binding with
>> respect to links to the drama site. The principles which form the
>> basis for the case also remain, solidarity with other users and
>> reasonable efforts to protect our users from harassment.
>
>It's a weird judicial system that allows or encourages somebody to
>appeal a case to which he's not even a party.
You seem to think there is an issue with the outcome of the arbitration. If you want it changed you will have to appeal to us or Jimbo.
Fred
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Vee [mailto:vee.be.me@gmail.com]
>Sent: Sunday, July 1, 2007 07:32 PM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 48, Issue 3
>
>On 01/07/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote:
>>
>> The remedy in the MONGO case outlaws links to the site.
>>
>> Fred
>since when was arbcom allowed to decide content issues?
No links to the drama site may be made regardless of content.
Fred
White Cat wrote:
> On 7/2/07, Michael Snow <wikipedia(a)att.net> wrote:
>> White Cat wrote:
>> > I do not understand this overindulgence with the details.
>> If you don't understand the importance of getting details right, should
>> you be editing Wikipedia?
> This is a mailing list not an article. You are borderlining trolling
> and I
> suggest you stop
My question (and it was a *question*) was not about whether this is a
mailing list or an article. It was about your attitude, and attitude
matters whether it's on a mailing list, a wiki, in person, on IRC, or
wherever, because it seeps from any of these very quickly into the
others. The people who gripe about detrimental attitudes on IRC, or RfA,
or AfD, are complaining because they feel those attitudes end up
affecting articles.
What I intended was to highlight the very serious problem of taking a
cavalier attitude toward facts. Unfortunately, exactly the attitude you
expressed is too common among our contributors and is responsible for a
great deal of the damage Wikipedia's reputation has endured. Do you want
to contribute to that, or do you want to fix it?
--Michael Snow
The remedy in the MONGO case outlaws links to the site.
Fred
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Daniel R. Tobias [mailto:dan@tobias.name]
>Sent: Sunday, July 1, 2007 09:51 AM
>To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 48, Issue 3
>
>On 2 Jul 2007 at 01:09:59 +1000, "Stephen Bain"
><stephen.bain(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Bauder could have chosen his words more carefully, but there is not
>> really any contradiction. As he says, arbitration rulings are not
>> policy and should not be taken as such. What he leave out is the
>> implicit corollary that rulings are applications of policy to
>> particular situations, and similar situations ought to be approached
>> in similar
>
>And how, exactly, is what Kamryn did "similar" to anything that was
>addressed in the past rulings? She was providing a relevant
>reference to an article, not engaging in harrassment or attacks.
>
>> The crucial point is that attempts to take the rulings from the Mongo
>> case and turn them into *general* rules have not been constructive.
>> The ways in which some people have chosen to extrapolate from the
>> Mongo case have failed to take into account the nuances of the
>> rulings.
>
>...including, in my opinion, what Bauder did in the course of
>"clarifying" the ruling.
>
>
>--
>== 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/
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>