On 10/16/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Matthew Brown wrote:
However, the best way of doing that seems to me to be (a) to document somewhere that site <whatever> is a known malicious and unreliable source and things there should not be trusted, and (b) to close such discussions down politely and inform people why we don't want such issues brought up again.
I think this would be a great approach. If we have a superpower, it's documenting things.
The remedy also fits in well with how we handle a lot of conversations that are both perennial and annoying. Instead of deleting the comment, somebody just says, "That's already been discussed thoroughly at WP:XYZ. Consensus seems pretty established, but bring it up there if you want to change things."
Perhaps something along the lines of having, at [[Wikipedia:ObnoxiousUVW]]:
"ObnoxiousUVW is a site that, while claiming to be a site for objective criticism of Wikipedia, is a de facto gathering point for banned users and others harboring grudges. The format of ObnoxiousUVW, which allows users to self-publish content, has been frequently abused to spread malicious gossip and personal attacks on various Wikipedia users, and has been linked to one attempt to destroy the real-world career of an admin as retaliation for actions in the normal course of that admin's duties.
For these and other reasons, ObnoxiousUVW is considered blacklisted; it may not be linked to from the article space except as a proper source, and even then only when other reliable sources do not exist.
It should be noted that some of the criticisms raised at ObnoxiousUVW have turned out to be valid, and we have attempted to fix serious problems pointed out to us from there as expeditiously as any other.
Linking to a page at ObnoxiousUVW containing attacks or accusations against Wikipedia editors is usually seen in the same light as repeating said accusations on-wiki; specifically, as a violation of WP:NPA. If you come across one of these which seems to have novel information, be sure to check the timestamp; if it is any more than a couple days old, Wikipedia editors are likely already familiar with it, and have dealt with it if it needs dealing with.
Information on previous dealings is available at [public link 1] and [public link 2]. Further information may be provided through less-public channels in response to legitimate inquiries, but we discourage idle curiosity or fishing expeditions, and may ignore inquiries from users without reputations.
While we look for detente and reconciliation with each of the individual participants of ObnoxiousUVW, we must, at least until the behavioral ethos of ObnoxiousUVW changes, deny ObnoxiousUVW the attention it tries to thrive on. Please restrict all on-wiki discussion of ObnoxiousUVW to [[Wikipedia_talk:ObnoxiousUVW]].
Thank you, the ArbCom"
Have one of these pages for each of the half-dozen or so potential values of ObnoxiousUVW, of course changing the bill of indictment and enforced remedies to reflect each individual case. (Also, copyedit my crappy prose into something readable. :-) ) Indefinitely full-protect the page itself, and have a few admins with oversight watchlist the talk page to deal with the inevitable trolls it would attract. (Sprotect the talk page? Seems antithetical to me.)
We would, of course have to exercise due caution over wordings; while I would fully support seeing the phrase "the internet would be better off if these wankers just went away, but free speech lets us know who the assholes are" on the ED factsheet, we could not actually refer to any individual as a sociopath, no matter how richly they may warrant the label. :-p
Does this seem workable? It fights bad speech with good speech instead of suppression, lays out clearly what the community's expectations are, gives a statement of support to our attacked users, and leverages our ability to create neutral, factual documentation of contentious subjects (and our reputation for doing so competently.) This seems to cover all of the concerns of both the supporters and opponents of BADSITES-like policies, which makes me simultaneously hopeful and dead certain that I'm missing something. Further input is most certainly welcome.