-----Original Message----- From: David Gerard [mailto:dgerard@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2007 02:09 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattack site link policy
On 05/07/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Unless I am mistake, hasn't it been stated above that the ruling only applied to ED, but yet KM was apparently blocked for linking to WR. KM's edit summary n inserting the links was "vague ArbCom statements from 8 months ago aren't policy. that ArbCom case pertained to ED and the links were being used for harassment. this link is genuinely informative." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Essjay_controversy&diff=next&a... and on examining what was inserted, no confidential or abusive material was linked to.
I predict you will see no substantive answer to this - the edit has been retrospectively declared a "breaching experiment", much as the person who edited WP:BADSITES to read *as it is now being applied* has been retrospectively declared to have been trolling to sabotage it.
- d.
The telling clue is the comment, "vague ArbCom statements from 8 months ago aren'tpolicy. tat ArbCom case pertained to ED and the links were being usedfor harassment. this link is genuinely informative." That in the fact of a direct warning not to do it. ~~~~
Referring to an active remedy as "vague statements" is essentially a declaration that she was free to ignore them. A mistake as they remain valid, although there is some doubt they apply to this particular edit.
Fred
On 05/07/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Referring to an active remedy as "vague statements" is essentially a declaration that she was free to ignore them. A mistake as they remain valid, although there is some doubt they apply to this particular edit.
The active remedy from MONGO applies only to ED, not to WR or any other site that someone decides is an "attack site".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Enforc...
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 22:30:08 +0100, "James Farrar" james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
The active remedy from MONGO applies only to ED, not to WR or any other site that someone decides is an "attack site".
Wikilawyering, I'm afraid. The active remedy is based on the following principles:
Links to attack site 3) Links to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking.
Support of harassment 7) Users who link to webpages which attack or harass other users or to sites which regularly engage in such activity are responsible for their actions Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Off-wiki_personal_attacks.
Outing sites as attack sites 11) A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances.
Tell me how WR does not fit these criteria.
Guy (JzG)
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
The active remedy from MONGO applies only to ED, not to WR or any other site that someone decides is an "attack site".
Wikilawyering, I'm afraid. The active remedy is based on the following principles:
Arbcom principles only apply to the specific case and are not principles in the sense of being rules or policies.
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 17:28:29 -0700 (PDT), Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Arbcom principles only apply to the specific case and are not principles in the sense of being rules or policies.
Ah, right, so once we find that actually the MONGO arbitration /does/ cover this site, then arbitration rulings are no longer a precedent.
Sorry, I don't buy that. ArbCom clarifies the application of policy. In this case they clarified that sites which harass and out Wikipedians are attack sites, that linking to attack sites is harassment, and that editors are responsible for their actions when doing so.
It seems to me that some people have ideological reasons for wanting to link to Wikipedia Review. I have no idea why they would want to do that, as a source it is not reliable, as a site which outs and harasses Wikipedians it is not acceptable. I can't imagine any circumstances which would justify a link, and that specifically includes the circumstances as discussed here. Every thread on WR is an unexploded bomb. Even if we link to a thread which seems innocuous at the time, subsequent posts may well add gross privacy violations, and we will have no control over that.
Are you really blind to the problems with WR? Or do you simply not think it matters that they engage in harassment and stalking?
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 17:28:29 -0700 (PDT), Ken Arromdee wrote:
Arbcom principles only apply to the specific case and are not principles in the sense of being rules or policies.
Ah, right, so once we find that actually the MONGO arbitration /does/ cover this site, then arbitration rulings are no longer a precedent.
Precedents are rulings that apply to subsequent cases, but their inapplicability may also be argued by those about to have them applied against them. They certainly do not justify a refusal to hear cases where the ruling could be raised in argument. The new accused may have completely different reasons for acting as he did, and those may not have been raised in the so-called precedent case.
Sorry, I don't buy that. ArbCom clarifies the application of policy. In this case they clarified that sites which harass and out Wikipedians are attack sites, that linking to attack sites is harassment, and that editors are responsible for their actions when doing so.
There's a big difference between clarifying policy and expanding policy.
It seems to me that some people have ideological reasons for wanting to link to Wikipedia Review.
I have no desire to link to it at all; to me this is a civil liberties issue.
I have no idea why they would want to do that, as a source it is not reliable, as a site which outs and harasses Wikipedians it is not acceptable.
I have no idea why they want to link there either, but consequent to that I would avoid imputing motives to others.
I can't imagine any circumstances which would justify a link, and that specifically includes the circumstances as discussed here.
It's not necessary to imagine those circumstances. It is enough to avoid prejudging any that might present themselves.
Every thread on WR is an unexploded bomb.
In the real world there are people who see everyone with an Arabic name as a potential unexploded terrorist.
Even if we link to a thread which seems innocuous at the time, subsequent posts may well add gross privacy violations, and we will have no control over that.
This adds presumptions about material that is not even on the offending site yet. It's a bit arrogant to suggest that we should have any control over someone else's website.
Are you really blind to the problems with WR? Or do you simply not think it matters that they engage in harassment and stalking?
There are other alternatives.
Ec
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 11:50:16 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
< snip a lot, but in particular: >
There's a big difference between clarifying policy and expanding policy.
Yes. And in this case they *clarified* policy. Policy is: no privacy violations, no attacks, no stalking, no harassment. Clarification is: not even by writing it elsewhere and then linking to it.
Guy (JzG)
On 10/07/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 11:50:16 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
< snip a lot, but in particular: >
There's a big difference between clarifying policy and expanding policy.
Yes. And in this case they *clarified* policy. Policy is: no privacy violations, no attacks, no stalking, no harassment. Clarification is: not even by writing it elsewhere and then linking to it.
I don't see any arguments against the banning of linking to web *pages* that contain personal attacks, etc., on Wikipedia users.
What I see are arguments against the banning of links to entire web *sites* that happen to contain some such pages. I also haven't seen any justification for such a ban.
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 23:03:24 +0100, "James Farrar" james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see any arguments against the banning of linking to web *pages* that contain personal attacks, etc., on Wikipedia users. What I see are arguments against the banning of links to entire web *sites* that happen to contain some such pages. I also haven't seen any justification for such a ban.
And indeed we have no such ban. But Wikipedia Review contains virtually nothing *but* such attacks, and incidentally is a forum so any innocuous thread can rapidly be hijacked. Linking to WR is inappropriate in every circumstance raised thus far.
Simple enough, really.
If Wikiabuse contained a thoughtful critique of a notable event in Wikipedia's history, it might well be justifiable as a link, because there is at least some effort to keep it sane and resist "outing".
But not WR. No thanks.
Guy (JzG)
On 10/07/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 23:03:24 +0100, "James Farrar" james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see any arguments against the banning of linking to web *pages* that contain personal attacks, etc., on Wikipedia users. What I see are arguments against the banning of links to entire web *sites* that happen to contain some such pages. I also haven't seen any justification for such a ban.
And indeed we have no such ban.
Could've fooled me.
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
And indeed we have no such ban. But Wikipedia Review contains virtually nothing *but* such attacks, and incidentally is a forum so any innocuous thread can rapidly be hijacked. Linking to WR is inappropriate in every circumstance raised thus far.
Simple enough, really.
If Wikiabuse contained a thoughtful critique of a notable event in Wikipedia's history, it might well be justifiable as a link, because there is at least some effort to keep it sane and resist "outing".
But not WR. No thanks.
Guy (JzG)
I have, in the past, given quite a few examples of when a link to WR would be appropriate. My person viewpoint is that, in general, links to it should be avoided. It isn't a reliable source, and due to the nature of much of the content hosted there, can be problematic to link to under most circumstances.
However, let's look at a few scenarios where it might be appropriate.
1. "Editor X" is up for adminship. "Editor X" is also the given username of a person posting virulent attacks to WR. A good-faith contributor adds a question along the lines of "Are you the same user as [link] on Wikipedia Review? If so, how do you justify [linked remark]" Now, it could be argued that a link is not necessary in this case, but it could be considered helpful, and removing such a link added in good faith, under the banner of "zomg attack site", would likely inflame the situation - especially if the good-faith user in question was threatened or "warned" for adding the link.
2. "Editor Y" is involved in an arbcom dispute. "Editor Y" has posted to Wikipedia Review, and this can be verified. A good-faith user adds links to some of his more virulent attacks to provide evidence of bad faith on the part of "Editor Y". (This situation is not hypothetical, btw. See: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu Aardvark]]).
3. Wikipedia Review has a thread outlining a number of significant problems in an article on Wikipedia. A good-faith user, attempting to call this to the attention of fellow editors on Wikipedia, links to this thread on the talk page of the associated article or in a community location. (Note that this type of situation is unlikely; while I initially set up the "Articles" forum for this purpose, it has rarely been used for this purpose, and certainly not recently)
4. A user has been personally attacked by Wikipedia Review, and is attempting to diffuse the situation by linking to said attacks, thereby making them entirely ineffective.
There may be a few other circumstances I haven't thought of where a link to Wikipedia Review would be appropriate, or could be added in good faith. There are very few such circumstances, but they do exist.
can you suggest any similar scenarios in article space?
On 7/11/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
And indeed we have no such ban. But Wikipedia Review contains virtually nothing *but* such attacks, and incidentally is a forum so any innocuous thread can rapidly be hijacked. Linking to WR is inappropriate in every circumstance raised thus far.
Simple enough, really.
If Wikiabuse contained a thoughtful critique of a notable event in Wikipedia's history, it might well be justifiable as a link, because there is at least some effort to keep it sane and resist "outing".
But not WR. No thanks.
Guy (JzG)
I have, in the past, given quite a few examples of when a link to WR would be appropriate. My person viewpoint is that, in general, links to it should be avoided. It isn't a reliable source, and due to the nature of much of the content hosted there, can be problematic to link to under most circumstances.
However, let's look at a few scenarios where it might be appropriate.
- "Editor X" is up for adminship. "Editor X" is also the given username
of a person posting virulent attacks to WR. A good-faith contributor adds a question along the lines of "Are you the same user as [link] on Wikipedia Review? If so, how do you justify [linked remark]" Now, it could be argued that a link is not necessary in this case, but it could be considered helpful, and removing such a link added in good faith, under the banner of "zomg attack site", would likely inflame the situation - especially if the good-faith user in question was threatened or "warned" for adding the link.
- "Editor Y" is involved in an arbcom dispute. "Editor Y" has posted to
Wikipedia Review, and this can be verified. A good-faith user adds links to some of his more virulent attacks to provide evidence of bad faith on the part of "Editor Y". (This situation is not hypothetical, btw. See: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu Aardvark]]).
- Wikipedia Review has a thread outlining a number of significant
problems in an article on Wikipedia. A good-faith user, attempting to call this to the attention of fellow editors on Wikipedia, links to this thread on the talk page of the associated article or in a community location. (Note that this type of situation is unlikely; while I initially set up the "Articles" forum for this purpose, it has rarely been used for this purpose, and certainly not recently)
- A user has been personally attacked by Wikipedia Review, and is
attempting to diffuse the situation by linking to said attacks, thereby making them entirely ineffective.
There may be a few other circumstances I haven't thought of where a link to Wikipedia Review would be appropriate, or could be added in good faith. There are very few such circumstances, but they do exist.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The only scenario I can see in article space would be if Wikipedia Review became notable enough for its own entry - an incredibly unlikely occurrence.
David Goodman wrote:
can you suggest any similar scenarios in article space?
On 7/11/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
And indeed we have no such ban. But Wikipedia Review contains virtually nothing *but* such attacks, and incidentally is a forum so any innocuous thread can rapidly be hijacked. Linking to WR is inappropriate in every circumstance raised thus far.
Simple enough, really.
If Wikiabuse contained a thoughtful critique of a notable event in Wikipedia's history, it might well be justifiable as a link, because there is at least some effort to keep it sane and resist "outing".
But not WR. No thanks.
Guy (JzG)
I have, in the past, given quite a few examples of when a link to WR would be appropriate. My person viewpoint is that, in general, links to it should be avoided. It isn't a reliable source, and due to the nature of much of the content hosted there, can be problematic to link to under most circumstances.
However, let's look at a few scenarios where it might be appropriate.
- "Editor X" is up for adminship. "Editor X" is also the given username
of a person posting virulent attacks to WR. A good-faith contributor adds a question along the lines of "Are you the same user as [link] on Wikipedia Review? If so, how do you justify [linked remark]" Now, it could be argued that a link is not necessary in this case, but it could be considered helpful, and removing such a link added in good faith, under the banner of "zomg attack site", would likely inflame the situation - especially if the good-faith user in question was threatened or "warned" for adding the link.
- "Editor Y" is involved in an arbcom dispute. "Editor Y" has posted to
Wikipedia Review, and this can be verified. A good-faith user adds links to some of his more virulent attacks to provide evidence of bad faith on the part of "Editor Y". (This situation is not hypothetical, btw. See: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu Aardvark]]).
- Wikipedia Review has a thread outlining a number of significant
problems in an article on Wikipedia. A good-faith user, attempting to call this to the attention of fellow editors on Wikipedia, links to this thread on the talk page of the associated article or in a community location. (Note that this type of situation is unlikely; while I initially set up the "Articles" forum for this purpose, it has rarely been used for this purpose, and certainly not recently)
- A user has been personally attacked by Wikipedia Review, and is
attempting to diffuse the situation by linking to said attacks, thereby making them entirely ineffective.
There may be a few other circumstances I haven't thought of where a link to Wikipedia Review would be appropriate, or could be added in good faith. There are very few such circumstances, but they do exist.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/07/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see any arguments against the banning of linking to web *pages* that contain personal attacks, etc., on Wikipedia users. What I see are arguments against the banning of links to entire web *sites* that happen to contain some such pages. I also haven't seen any justification for such a ban.
And it seems to be being forgotten by the proponents of banning entire sites:
The problem is not linking to the odious trolls of Wikipedia Review. The problem is when admins arbitrarily decide a site is an "attack site" and remove all links to it, sensible or not. This has, let me remind you, (a) already happened (b) not been sensibly defended by anyone involved or supporting site bans and (c) there's been no reassurance whatsoever it can't happen again, which is why I have to keep bringing it up.
- d.