There has been extensive discussion, although not in a public forum. We have had enough of Judd Bagley and his site.
Fred
-----Original Message----- From: Adrian [mailto:aldebaer@googlemail.com] Sent: Sunday, September 9, 2007 03:15 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Spam blacklist and BADSITES
fredbaud@waterwiki.info schrieb:
I think there is a consensus.
Fred
Although I personally agree to blacklisting that site, looking at the current, related request for arbitration gives the impression that sufficient consensus does not really exist.
At the very least the *timing* of both the Afd for [[Judd Bagley]] and this blacklisting are rather questionable.
-----Original Message----- From: Daniel R. Tobias [mailto:dan@tobias.name] Sent: Sunday, September 9, 2007 02:21 PM To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Spam blacklist and BADSITES
User:JzG has just, without any discussion whatsoever, added antisocialmedia.net to the English Wikipedia spam blacklist, although usual practice is to discuss all entries in the talk page beforehand. Since this is a site that has been termed a so-called "attack site" because it reveals information about certain prominent Wikipedians that they want to suppress, adding it to the spam blacklist serves as yet another backdoor to sneak in a spawn of the failed BADSITES policy to censor discussion. The spam blacklist is intended for the specific purpose of stopping spammed links to irrelevant sites, and I know of no consensus for any policy to (ab)use it in other manners.
-- == Dan ==
In my opinion, this site should have been blacklisted ages ago, and I asked related question a while back.
Adrian
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 09/09/2007, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
There has been extensive discussion, although not in a public forum. We have had enough of Judd Bagley and his site.
'We' == ArbCom?
On 09/09/07, Vee vee.be.me@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/09/2007, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
There has been extensive discussion, although not in a public forum. We have had enough of Judd Bagley and his site.
'We' == ArbCom?
Mostly around the arbcom list. Bagley isn't your regular corporate spammer, he's actually notable in Reliable Sources(tm) for his odious stalking behaviour. Read the sources on [[Judd Bagley]]. As I noted in the AFD, he's about as provably unpleasant as you're going to get without an indictment. Is there any conceivable bad use for a link to the site? Hell yes. Is there any conceivable good use for a link? Not that I can think of.
- d.
fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
There has been extensive discussion, although not in a public forum. We have had enough of Judd Bagley and his site.
Fred
-----Original Message----- From: Adrian [mailto:aldebaer@googlemail.com] Sent: Sunday, September 9, 2007 03:15 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Spam blacklist and BADSITES
fredbaud@waterwiki.info schrieb:
I think there is a consensus.
Fred
Although I personally agree to blacklisting that site, looking at the current, related request for arbitration gives the impression that sufficient consensus does not really exist.
At the very least the *timing* of both the Afd for [[Judd Bagley]] and this blacklisting are rather questionable.
-----Original Message----- From: Daniel R. Tobias [mailto:dan@tobias.name] Sent: Sunday, September 9, 2007 02:21 PM To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Spam blacklist and BADSITES
User:JzG has just, without any discussion whatsoever, added antisocialmedia.net to the English Wikipedia spam blacklist, although usual practice is to discuss all entries in the talk page beforehand. Since this is a site that has been termed a so-called "attack site" because it reveals information about certain prominent Wikipedians that they want to suppress, adding it to the spam blacklist serves as yet another backdoor to sneak in a spawn of the failed BADSITES policy to censor discussion. The spam blacklist is intended for the specific purpose of stopping spammed links to irrelevant sites, and I know of no consensus for any policy to (ab)use it in other manners.
-- == Dan ==
In my opinion, this site should have been blacklisted ages ago, and I asked related question a while back.
Adrian
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
"Not in a public forum" is the antithesis of widespread consensus. At the very most, a consensus may exist among whoever was privy to that discussion, but I have a sneaking suspicion that is less than one percent of those who have commented on the BADSITES issue, let alone of Wikipedians in general.
On 10/09/2007, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
There has been extensive discussion, although not in a public forum. We have had enough of Judd Bagley and his site.
Fred
"Not in a public forum" is the antithesis of widespread consensus. At the very most, a consensus may exist among whoever was privy to that discussion, but I have a sneaking suspicion that is less than one percent of those who have commented on the BADSITES issue, let alone of Wikipedians in general.
Public discussion of specific cases would further victimise those hurt by things like this.
fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
There has been extensive discussion, although not in a public forum. We have had enough of Judd Bagley and his site.
Despite having read through this thread, I'm not very clear on what went on. Perhaps when some private group makes a judgment on behalf of Wikipedia they could produce a short on-wiki document? I'm thinking it would contain
* a list of participants, * the decision or recommendation, and * the findings of fact on which they base their decision.
Part of the trouble for me -- and others, I'm sure -- is that the easiest source for me to find is often the one under dispute. Having something to balance that would be helpful.
Thanks,
William