Fred Bauder wrote: It IS a minor matter, but for the fact that a small gang of obsessives wants to flex its muscles by insisting on its right to impose discipline on anyone who links to a site they don't like, and then support their actions with the utterly spurious excuse that it somehow protects people. If you want these users to assume that you are trying your best, you must also assume that they are trying their best, and be willing to treat them as equals. If you choose to block someone solely for linking to such sites it's you, not them, that is making it a personal issue, smarmy consolings notwithstanding. You must know by now that very few of us will even think of linkig to such sites, not even those of us who see such hard-line attitudes as a form of bullying. Had you chosen a more pragmatic approach, the arguments would have ceased long ago. People with a legitimate reason for making such links would sleep peacefully; thoe who link with attitude would face the wrath of the whole community. Those who make such links out of bad faith are unlikely to confine thier activity to only one single act of bad faith. Ec

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 02:50:24 -0700, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote: So you say. I wouldn't know, because I've never seen a legitimate reason for linking to WR.

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 12:56:12 +0100, "James Farrar" <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote: And? This seems to be a very lengthy argument about nothing, if that's the limit of it. Actually, though, what has happened is that people have inserted links to a source which conspicuously fails any rational definition of reliability, and these links have been, quite rightly, removed. Wikilawyering over precisely /why/ is pretty silly. Sure, the wrong reason may have been cited, but it doesn't take much thought to realise that this is a crap source and linking to it is inappropriate on a number of levels. Wikilawyering over how we /must/ be able to link to this particular site because it's not mentioned by name in an ArbCom ruling, although that ruling contains three principles which unquestionably indicate that it should not be linked, is even sillier. We don't need a policy to say "don't link to sites that attack and try to out Wikipedia editors". It's covered by "don't be a dick". Nor do we need a specific finding that such-and-such a site that attacks and attempts to out Wikipedians is covered by a ruling on sites that attack and attempt to "out" Wikipedians, even if that ruling was delivered in response to a different site. The fact that we should not link to sites which make a habit of attacking and trying to "out" people who would rather remain anonymous should hardly need to be stated, it is so blindingly obvious. Compare and contrast the hysteria occasioned by revealing the mere fact of an editor using Tor, with the equal hysteria generated by those who would like to be able (should there ever turn out to be a decent reason, none such having yet been advanced) to link to a site which comprehensively destroys the anonymity of some people against whom, as it happens, some particularly vicious trolls harbour a grudge. I consider this perverse. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG _______________________________________________ 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

No, the reason can be that it engages in harassment and outing, and is therefore dangerous to know.

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 12:56:12 +0100, "James Farrar" wrote: And? This seems to be a very lengthy argument about nothing, if that's the limit of it. Actually, though, what has happened is that people have inserted links to a source which conspicuously fails any rational definition of reliability, and these links have been, quite rightly, removed. Wikilawyering over precisely /why/ is pretty silly. Sure, the wrong reason may have been cited, but it doesn't take much thought to realise that this is a crap source and linking to it is inappropriate on a number of levels.

Wikilawyering over how we /must/ be able to link to this particular site because it's not mentioned by name in an ArbCom ruling, although that ruling contains three principles which unquestionably indicate that it should not be linked, is even sillier.

We don't need a policy to say "don't link to sites that attack and try to out Wikipedia editors". It's covered by "don't be a dick". Nor do we need a specific finding that such-and-such a site that attacks and attempts to out Wikipedians is covered by a ruling on sites that attack and attempt to "out" Wikipedians, even if that ruling was delivered in response to a different site.

The fact that we should not link to sites which make a habit of attacking and trying to "out" people who would rather remain anonymous should hardly need to be stated, it is so blindingly obvious.

Compare and contrast the hysteria occasioned by revealing the mere fact of an editor using Tor, with the equal hysteria generated by those who would like to be able (should there ever turn out to be a decent reason, none such having yet been advanced) to link to a site which comprehensively destroys the anonymity of some people against whom, as it happens, some particularly vicious trolls harbour a grudge.

Not every thoughtful person arrives at the same view as you.

There is no absolute ban, and the removal does not depend on anyone's imagination, it depends on the excellent principles noted in the MONGO arbitration, to wit: don't link to sites which habitually attack, harass and violate privacy.

The distinction is a subtle one, I agree. If WR had static pages with an editorial process in addition to the forum, then a debate might well be appropriate in respect of one of those pages. As presently constituted, no chance. They could change policy, change moderation policy, lock old threads and purge them of crap, produce static editorial summaries or some other thing I have not thought of and we would then be in a position to discuss the merits of individual links, but as long as it is a forum and largely dominated by grudge-bearers then no amount of debate is likely to change the outcome, and perpetuating the demand for links risks crossing the line into troll country.

On 11/07/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote: > On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 13:26:06 -0700, Ray Saintonge > <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

> >The absolute banning of such links should not depend on somebody's > >failure of imagination.

> There is no absolute ban,

No, just effects indistinguishable from one. This is why the people who seem to be following WP:BADSITES seem particularly ludicrous when claiming that it was written by a troll - they're following just what it said in the version they claim to be repudiating!

If someone uses a link, your policy means that they cannot argue that the link is a valid one; all such links are banned regardless of their content

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 15:38:51 -0400, "David Goodman" <dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com> wrote: Ever heard the old saying "don't shit on your own doorstep"? That's the point. Let them whine to their hearts' content, but we are under no obligation to assist them and anyone who stirs up drama by insisting on doing so is not really helping.