On 30 May 2007 at 12:30:18 -0400, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, I can't think of any occasion where such a link would be beneficial to the project. What exactly did you have in mind?
Then you're not thinking hard enough. Plenty of reasons have been discussed here, in other places where this debate has proceeded, and in my essay on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dtobias/Why_BADSITES_is_bad_policy
On 5/30/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 30 May 2007 at 12:30:18 -0400, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, I can't think of any occasion where such a link would be beneficial to the project. What exactly did you have in mind?
Then you're not thinking hard enough. Plenty of reasons have been discussed here, in other places where this debate has proceeded, and in my essay on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dtobias/Why_BADSITES_is_bad_policy
That looks like a long essay about BADSITES, a strawman policy. I'm not sure how it relates to my questions, though.
jayjg wrote:
That looks like a long essay about BADSITES, a strawman policy.
Could you please point me to the actual proposed policy, then? Or if there is no convenient pointer, then could you tell me what policy change you are backing?
Thanks,
William
On 5/30/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
jayjg wrote:
That looks like a long essay about BADSITES, a strawman policy.
Could you please point me to the actual proposed policy, then? Or if there is no convenient pointer, then could you tell me what policy change you are backing?
I'm having a discussion here, not backing a policy change. There is no policy on the table.
jayjg wrote:
On 5/30/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
jayjg wrote:
That looks like a long essay about BADSITES, a strawman policy.
Could you please point me to the actual proposed policy, then? Or if there is no convenient pointer, then could you tell me what policy change you are backing?
I'm having a discussion here, not backing a policy change. There is no policy on the table.
Sorry, I thought some people were advocating that we not link to particular sites, and I thought you were one of those people. You're saying that's wrong, and that your purpose was just to have an interesting discussion? And further, that you can't point me at the proposed policy change that those other people, whomever they are, are advocating?
If so, I'm sorry for the confusion, and if anybody else can tell me what the policy proposal is, that'd be great, as all that I've been able to figure out for sure is that it involves Wikipedia Review and that it is absolutely not BADSITES, but still appears to be about the same things.
Thanks,
William
On 5/30/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
jayjg wrote:
On 5/30/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
jayjg wrote:
That looks like a long essay about BADSITES, a strawman policy.
Could you please point me to the actual proposed policy, then? Or if there is no convenient pointer, then could you tell me what policy change you are backing?
I'm having a discussion here, not backing a policy change. There is no policy on the table.
Sorry, I thought some people were advocating that we not link to particular sites, and I thought you were one of those people. You're saying that's wrong, and that your purpose was just to have an interesting discussion?
Somebody asserted that it could be beneficial to Wikipedia to link to sites like WR. I challenged that person to provide concrete examples of how. Soon afterwards hysterical rhetoric ensued, policies and insults flying left and right, impassioned cries of "censorship", babies being murdered, death stars being blown up, heat death of the universe, etc. The usual.
And further, that you can't point me at the proposed policy change that those other people, whomever they are, are advocating?
You'll have to leave that to the people defending to the death your civil rights, which are right now in peril of being so damaged that you may never recover. Perhaps they can point out the names of the people proposing a policy, where they have supported it, etc. I've heard the term BADSITES bandied about a lot, but, as I've said again and again, that was a strawman policy so I'm not sure of its relevance.
jayjg wrote:
Somebody asserted that it could be beneficial to Wikipedia to link to sites like WR. I challenged that person to provide concrete examples of how. Soon afterwards hysterical rhetoric ensued[...]
Ok. I listed four classes of activity, and tried to do it calmly. I hope you find that informative.
I've also trimmed the parts of your post here that seemed inflammatory to me. If you are trying to decrease the hysteria, you might consider doing something similar when replying more in this thread.
And further, that you can't point me at the proposed policy change that those other people, whomever they are, are advocating?
You'll have to leave that to the people defending to the death your civil rights, [...]
I've asked them. They've made some polite and reasonable guesses. I was hoping to have it from the advocates, though.
Since you were just trying to have a discussion and apparently aren't advocating anything, are you done now? It seems like there has been plenty of discussion on this topic, and if you aren't enjoying it, perhaps letting it go until people are less worked up would be better.
Thanks,
William
On 5/30/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
jayjg wrote:
Somebody asserted that it could be beneficial to Wikipedia to link to sites like WR. I challenged that person to provide concrete examples of how. Soon afterwards hysterical rhetoric ensued[...]
Ok. I listed four classes of activity, and tried to do it calmly. I hope you find that informative.
Yes, thanks. It was mostly a recap of some of the responses that had been given previously.
I've also trimmed the parts of your post here that seemed inflammatory to me. If you are trying to decrease the hysteria, you might consider doing something similar when replying more in this thread.
I was more marveling at it than trying to decrease it. But if you'd like to try to decrease it, feel free.
Since you were just trying to have a discussion and apparently aren't advocating anything, are you done now? It seems like there has been plenty of discussion on this topic, and if you aren't enjoying it, perhaps letting it go until people are less worked up would be better.
Why would you think I wasn't enjoying it? The personal attacks, insults, and hysterical rhetoric that suddenly appeared in the discussion took me a bit by surprise, but they provide an amusement of sorts.
jayjg wrote:
I've also trimmed the parts of your post here that seemed inflammatory to me. If you are trying to decrease the hysteria, you might consider doing something similar when replying more in this thread.
I was more marveling at it than trying to decrease it. But if you'd like to try to decrease it, feel free.
Sure. Let me begin by asking you to do what you can to decrease it. Would you please do that?
Since you were just trying to have a discussion and apparently aren't advocating anything, are you done now? It seems like there has been plenty of discussion on this topic, and if you aren't enjoying it, perhaps letting it go until people are less worked up would be better.
Why would you think I wasn't enjoying it? The personal attacks, insults, and hysterical rhetoric that suddenly appeared in the discussion took me a bit by surprise, but they provide an amusement of sorts.
Ok. If you find disruption fun, that's great. If you are looking to have more discussions just for fun that may lead to similar disruption, would you please create a separate list for it? I'm sure you will find plenty of willing participants.
I took several hours to catch up on this discussion because I think the topic is important to Wikipedia's future, and both the volume and tone made my experience much worse than it needed to be. That you seem cavalier about contributing to that is very frustrating to me. I would rather have spent the time pruning CAT:CSD.
Thanks,
William
On 5/31/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
jayjg wrote:
I've also trimmed the parts of your post here that seemed inflammatory to me. If you are trying to decrease the hysteria, you might consider doing something similar when replying more in this thread.
I was more marveling at it than trying to decrease it. But if you'd like to try to decrease it, feel free.
Sure. Let me begin by asking you to do what you can to decrease it. Would you please do that?
Sure.
Since you were just trying to have a discussion and apparently aren't advocating anything, are you done now? It seems like there has been plenty of discussion on this topic, and if you aren't enjoying it, perhaps letting it go until people are less worked up would be better.
Why would you think I wasn't enjoying it? The personal attacks, insults, and hysterical rhetoric that suddenly appeared in the discussion took me a bit by surprise, but they provide an amusement of sorts.
Ok. If you find disruption fun, that's great. If you are looking to have more discussions just for fun that may lead to similar disruption, would you please create a separate list for it? I'm sure you will find plenty of willing participants.
I took several hours to catch up on this discussion because I think the topic is important to Wikipedia's future, and both the volume and tone made my experience much worse than it needed to be. That you seem cavalier about contributing to that is very frustrating to me. I would rather have spent the time pruning CAT:CSD.
Look, you didn't step in when the rhetoric and insults started flying, so I'm having a difficult time taking it seriously when you suddenly want me to stop *my* responses. Deal with Joe and Sheldon, then come to me when you've calmed them down.
jayjg wrote:
Look, you didn't step in when the rhetoric and insults started flying, so I'm having a difficult time taking it seriously when you suddenly want me to stop *my* responses. Deal with Joe and Sheldon, then come to me when you've calmed them down.
Well, I started with you because that's who I was trying to talk to about a potential policy. Had I been discussing things with them and noticed similar issues, I'm sure I would have spoken up. I often do.
However, I confess to having skimmed more of their stuff, because I already understand their position. It's the other position, the not-BADSITES-but-superficially-similar position that I'm trying to get a handle on.
Further, I believe they're in this because they seriously believe that their position is important to Wikipedia's future, and are spending time on this because the outcome matters to them. You, on the other hand, say you're just having a discussion, and so I'd expect you to be more willing to de-escalate things, if for no other reason than consideration to the rest of us.
But if there are particular things that you feel Joe or Sheldon are doing that are inappropriate, feel free to drop me a line off list, hopefully with some links to the archive or some text snippets so that I can search my copies, and I'll be glad to try to mediate where I think I can help.
Thanks,
William
On 5/31/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
jayjg wrote:
Look, you didn't step in when the rhetoric and insults started flying, so I'm having a difficult time taking it seriously when you suddenly want me to stop *my* responses. Deal with Joe and Sheldon, then come to me when you've calmed them down.
Well, I started with you because that's who I was trying to talk to about a potential policy. Had I been discussing things with them and noticed similar issues, I'm sure I would have spoken up. I often do.
However, I confess to having skimmed more of their stuff, because I already understand their position. It's the other position, the not-BADSITES-but-superficially-similar position that I'm trying to get a handle on.
Further, I believe they're in this because they seriously believe that their position is important to Wikipedia's future, and are spending time on this because the outcome matters to them.
Joe was a multiple sockpuppeteer who was indefinitely banned long ago by the Arbcom for linking to attack sites. I happened to be one of the Arbcom members involved in that decision. I'm sure his current level of vitriol has nothing whatsoever to do with those facts, and everything to do with his love for Wikipedia.
As for Sheldon? I would imagine his interests lie with SourceWatch.
On 01/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
As for Sheldon? I would imagine his interests lie with SourceWatch.
Sheldon's been in and around Wikimedia since it was Wikipedia.com. Possibly you might learn something if you listen.
- d.
On 5/31/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
As for Sheldon? I would imagine his interests lie with SourceWatch.
Sheldon's been in and around Wikimedia since it was Wikipedia.com.
Yes, David, but he works for prwatch, which runs SourceWatch.
On 01/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/31/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
As for Sheldon? I would imagine his interests lie with SourceWatch.
Sheldon's been in and around Wikimedia since it was Wikipedia.com.
Yes, David, but he works for prwatch, which runs SourceWatch.
So why the comparison with Joe?
And why the reluctance to respond to anyone else engaging you on the subject here?
- d.
On 6/1/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/31/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
As for Sheldon? I would imagine his interests lie with SourceWatch.
Sheldon's been in and around Wikimedia since it was Wikipedia.com.
Yes, David, but he works for prwatch, which runs SourceWatch.
So why the comparison with Joe?
I didn't compare the two; I mentioned them both because they were the two people who suddenly ratcheted up the rhetoric and made it personal, including claims of "Conflict of Interest".
And why the reluctance to respond to anyone else engaging you on the subject here?
I have already engaged them; I prefer not to debate you on this because your own posts have also become quite hostile, which distresses me.
jayjg wrote:
Joe was a multiple sockpuppeteer who was indefinitely banned long ago by the Arbcom for linking to attack sites. I happened to be one of the Arbcom members involved in that decision. I'm sure his current level of vitriol has nothing whatsoever to do with those facts, and everything to do with his love for Wikipedia.
As for Sheldon? I would imagine his interests lie with SourceWatch.
Ok.
Presuming for the moment that they are bad people who want to hurt Wikipedia, I now understand even less why you wanted to have a long on-list discussion with them, especially given the way you said you aren't advocating any particular position on the topic.
The storm has apparently passed, and thanks for aiding that. But next time you suspect people are participating in bad faith, perhaps you should just let their posts flow on by. If they are trolling, then there's no reason to feed them. And if they aren't, then mutual suspicion can easily cause things to escalate out of control. Either way, I don't think it helps you or the bystanders much.
Thanks,
On 5/31/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
jayjg wrote:
Joe was a multiple sockpuppeteer who was indefinitely banned long ago by the Arbcom for linking to attack sites. I happened to be one of the Arbcom members involved in that decision. I'm sure his current level of vitriol has nothing whatsoever to do with those facts, and everything to do with his love for Wikipedia.
As for Sheldon? I would imagine his interests lie with SourceWatch.
Ok.
Presuming for the moment that they are bad people who want to hurt Wikipedia,
I haven't accused either of them of being "bad people who want to hurt Wikipedia". You're engaging in the kind of heightened rhetoric that you've been asking me not to engage in. Let's both stop.
jayjg wrote:
That looks like a long essay about BADSITES, a strawman policy. I'm not sure how it relates to my questions, though.
Calling BADSITES a strawman policy is in and of itself a strawman argument. By doing so, people are trying to divert attention away from the fact that the spirit of the rejected BADSITES proposal is identical, or nearly identical, to the policy they support.
On 5/31/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
jayjg wrote:
That looks like a long essay about BADSITES, a strawman policy. I'm not sure how it relates to my questions, though.
Calling BADSITES a strawman policy is in and of itself a strawman argument. By doing so, people are trying to divert attention away from the fact that the spirit of the rejected BADSITES proposal is identical, or nearly identical, to the policy they support.
The purpose of BADSITES was, in general, to ensure that any policy like BADSITES would never be passed, and in particular to insure that links to WR would not be removed from Wikipedia. In this it succeeded admirably; now when people get the idea in their heads that something even remotely like BADSITES might possibly be proposed, or discussed, or even mentioned, they man the battlestations, full steam ahead, with the banner of "No censorship" flying from the main-mast, and cries of "if someone says something bad about you, you must have done something to deserve it" on their lips.
Now, regarding this new policy you are talking about, can you direct me to the proposal page, so I can see who is proposing it, and what exactly they are proposing? Thanks in advance.
jayjg wrote:
The purpose of BADSITES was, in general, to ensure that any policy like BADSITES would never be passed, and in particular to insure that links to WR would not be removed from Wikipedia. In this it succeeded admirably; now when people get the idea in their heads that something even remotely like BADSITES might possibly be proposed, or discussed, or even mentioned, they man the battlestations, full steam ahead, with the banner of "No censorship" flying from the main-mast, and cries of "if someone says something bad about you, you must have done something to deserve it" on their lips.
This is an interesting argument, which, although repeated numerous times, has absolutely zero evidence to back it up. The argument seems to go, "BADSITES didn't go the way we wanted it to, so it *must* have been launched by a disruptive user with the intent to invoke the opposite reaction." The problem is that nothing has been produced to support this claim. It appears to me to be an attempt to divert the discussion away from the core issue - namely, there isn't large community support for global bans to these "attack sites".
There is, however, large community support for the basic common sense policy of, "if it's harassment or a personal attack, delete it." I'm not advocating linking to Wikipedia Review, or to Encyclopedia Dramatica, or to any other alleged "attack site" unless to do so would be beneficial to the project. There are, despite claims to the contrary, rare occasions where such links are beneficial, and several examples have been given. There are, no doubt, other situations that may (or may not) arise that *could* potentially warrant links to such sites. Global bans, therefore, are harmful to the project.
Now, regarding this new policy you are talking about, can you direct me to the proposal page, so I can see who is proposing it, and what exactly they are proposing? Thanks in advance.
I'm not talking about any new policy, or proposed policy. I'm referring solely to the general attitude regarding alleged "attack sites", which has been reiterated by you, SlimVirgin, and several others on this list, on the recent RFA hijack attempt, and other locations on Wikipedia. Or are you trying to tell me that you don't support an absolutist ban on alleged "attack sites"?
On 5/31/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
jayjg wrote:
The purpose of BADSITES was, in general, to ensure that any policy like BADSITES would never be passed, and in particular to insure that links to WR would not be removed from Wikipedia. In this it succeeded admirably; now when people get the idea in their heads that something even remotely like BADSITES might possibly be proposed, or discussed, or even mentioned, they man the battlestations, full steam ahead, with the banner of "No censorship" flying from the main-mast, and cries of "if someone says something bad about you, you must have done something to deserve it" on their lips.
This is an interesting argument, which, although repeated numerous times, has absolutely zero evidence to back it up. The argument seems to go, "BADSITES didn't go the way we wanted it to, so it *must* have been launched by a disruptive user with the intent to invoke the opposite reaction."
No that's the straw man version of the argument. You know the difference, so please stop doing that.
The problem is that nothing has been produced to support this claim.
Actually, a number of arguments have been put forward supporting this claim.
Now, regarding this new policy you are talking about, can you direct me to the proposal page, so I can see who is proposing it, and what exactly they are proposing? Thanks in advance.
I'm not talking about any new policy, or proposed policy.
You specifically talked about a "policy they support", which was not BADSITES, but was very similar to it. Please explain where I can find that policy.
jayjg wrote:
Actually, a number of arguments have been put forward supporting this claim.
A number of arguments, but none based on hard evidence. It has been argued that DennyColt was a single purpose account, and that certainly supports the claim, except that the argument has no evidence to back it up, and indeed, a close examination indicates that the evidence points a different direction. What other arguments have been put forward supporting the claim? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't they *all* based on the insinuation that DennyColt proposed the policy in an attempt to disrupt the policymaking process?
You specifically talked about a "policy they support", which was not BADSITES, but was very similar to it. Please explain where I can find that policy.
As I said, I'm not referring to an actual policy, or proposed policy, but a practical policy or concept. I told you exactly what I was referring to. Please don't get into word game manipulation.
On 5/31/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
jayjg wrote:
Actually, a number of arguments have been put forward supporting this claim.
A number of arguments, but none based on hard evidence. It has been argued that DennyColt was a single purpose account, and that certainly supports the claim, except that the argument has no evidence to back it up, and indeed, a close examination indicates that the evidence points a different direction. What other arguments have been put forward supporting the claim? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't they *all* based on the insinuation that DennyColt proposed the policy in an attempt to disrupt the policymaking process?
No, they're mostly based on other tells, including over-familiarity with a number of aspects of Wikipedia.
You specifically talked about a "policy they support", which was not BADSITES, but was very similar to it. Please explain where I can find that policy.
As I said, I'm not referring to an actual policy, or proposed policy, but a practical policy or concept. I told you exactly what I was referring to. Please don't get into word game manipulation.
I just called you bluff, that's all. You were hoping we would all just agree the discussion is about a new policy, which is the way you (and a few others) are trying to frame this. I reject your framing.
jayjg wrote:
I just called you bluff, that's all. You were hoping we would all just agree the discussion is about a new policy, which is the way you (and a few others) are trying to frame this. I reject your framing.
Bullshit. You're playing games over wording. You are correct in that there isn't a specific policy proposal, but there doesn't have to be - it is quite clear that this particular concept is being pushed and supported as if it were policy.
On 5/31/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
jayjg wrote:
I just called you bluff, that's all. You were hoping we would all just agree the discussion is about a new policy, which is the way you (and a few others) are trying to frame this. I reject your framing.
Bullshit. You're playing games over wording. You are correct in that there isn't a specific policy proposal, but there doesn't have to be - it is quite clear that this particular concept is being pushed and supported as if it were policy.
No, I'm just rejecting all attempts to frame this as something it isn't. It's been a veritable straw man army today, but I will not let even one pass. The second someone even starts to question what possible benefits accrue to Wikipedia from WR links, the BADSITES boogeyman is trotted out to scare everyone into quiet submission, as it was intended. A lot of mileage has been gotten from that straw man. Oh, and don't bother with the "but that's just a recent convenient argument" ploy either. Been there, done that, and I have the e-mails.
So tell me jayjg, in your opinion, should we just revert WP:NPA to its April 17th version, where this whole issue spilled over, and remove the BADSITES link to WP:NPA, leave it marked as "rejected," and call it a day?
Risker
On 5/31/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/31/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
jayjg wrote:
I just called you bluff, that's all. You were hoping we would all just agree the discussion is about a new policy, which is the way you (and a few others) are trying to frame this. I reject your framing.
Bullshit. You're playing games over wording. You are correct in that there isn't a specific policy proposal, but there doesn't have to be - it is quite clear that this particular concept is being pushed and supported as if it were policy.
No, I'm just rejecting all attempts to frame this as something it isn't. It's been a veritable straw man army today, but I will not let even one pass. The second someone even starts to question what possible benefits accrue to Wikipedia from WR links, the BADSITES boogeyman is trotted out to scare everyone into quiet submission, as it was intended. A lot of mileage has been gotten from that straw man. Oh, and don't bother with the "but that's just a recent convenient argument" ploy either. Been there, done that, and I have the e-mails.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Correcting myself...BADSITES is *redirected* to WP:NPA, not linked to it
On 5/31/07, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
So tell me jayjg, in your opinion, should we just revert WP:NPA to its April 17th version, where this whole issue spilled over, and remove the BADSITES link to WP:NPA, leave it marked as "rejected," and call it a day?
Risker
On 5/31/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/31/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
jayjg wrote:
I just called you bluff, that's all. You were hoping we would all
just
agree the discussion is about a new policy, which is the way you
(and
a few others) are trying to frame this. I reject your framing.
Bullshit. You're playing games over wording. You are correct in that there isn't a specific policy proposal, but there doesn't have to be - it is quite clear that this particular concept is being pushed and supported as if it were policy.
No, I'm just rejecting all attempts to frame this as something it isn't. It's been a veritable straw man army today, but I will not let even one pass. The second someone even starts to question what possible benefits accrue to Wikipedia from WR links, the BADSITES boogeyman is trotted out to scare everyone into quiet submission, as it was intended. A lot of mileage has been gotten from that straw man. Oh, and don't bother with the "but that's just a recent convenient argument" ploy either. Been there, done that, and I have the e-mails.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
jayjg wrote:
No, I'm just rejecting all attempts to frame this as something it isn't. It's been a veritable straw man army today, but I will not let even one pass.
Except for your own, that is. I, too, am rejecting all attempts to frame my arguments as something they aren't. You are deliberately trying to avoid the core issue of the debate, being that, while there is certainly consensus for common-sense removal of links to actual personal *attacks* (and related content such as the personal identity of users), the consensus for outright bans to entire websites just isn't there, and for good reason.
On 31/05/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
No, I'm just rejecting all attempts to frame this as something it isn't. It's been a veritable straw man army today, but I will not let even one pass. The second someone even starts to question what possible benefits accrue to Wikipedia from WR links, the BADSITES boogeyman is trotted out to scare everyone into quiet submission, as it was intended. A lot of mileage has been gotten from that straw man. Oh, and don't bother with the "but that's just a recent convenient argument" ploy either. Been there, done that, and I have the e-mails.
No, that's precisely backwards of how the thread went.
On Gracenotes' RFA, Slim raised "attack sites", Gracenotes responded concerning "BADSITES" and that he wouldn't favour a policy of mindless removal of links to any site, Slim said she would oppose based on that, suddenly it was the issue of the RFA.
Will Beback blindly reverted encyclopedic links, claiming they were to an "attack site." This was entirely spurious, but closely matches the behaviour demanded by BADSITES: remove all links to an attack *site*.
Since the behaviour demanded was identical to the "strawman" BADSITES policy, and Will's behaviour was identical to the "strawman" BADSITES policy, I am going *so far* as to call this thing that looks, walks and quacks like BADSITES ... BADSITES.
Clear enough?
- d.
jayjg wrote:
No, they're mostly based on other tells, including over-familiarity with a number of aspects of Wikipedia.
Hmm, I suppose there does seem to be a good deal of familiarity, even from the oldest edits from that account. Nonetheless, that isn't necessarily a "tell". Some users edit as an IP for quite some time before creating an account. Others observe for an extended period of time, and only join in the "fun" when they are sure they know what they are doing.
I mean, this is a bit odd for a single-day account, and there is some other weirdness:
10:14, 28 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Tim Kirk (←Created page with '{{WPBiography |living=yes |class= |priority= }}')
Still, despite these curious contributions, it seems odd to accuse an editor of being a sockpuppet account without identifying who he is suspected of being a sockpuppet of.
On 5/31/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/31/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
jayjg wrote:
The purpose of BADSITES was, in general, to ensure that any policy like BADSITES would never be passed, and in particular to insure that links to WR would not be removed from Wikipedia.
This is an interesting argument, which, although repeated numerous times, has absolutely zero evidence to back it up. The argument seems to go, "BADSITES didn't go the way we wanted it to, so it *must* have been launched by a disruptive user with the intent to invoke the opposite reaction."
No that's the straw man version of the argument. You know the difference, so please stop doing that.
Well, it fits the history very well. At the time, the supporters of bans to those links took the proposal seriously and defended it. When it became clear that it wasn't going to reach consensus, the action moved to NPA when someone suggested that a cut down version more properly belonged there. Then SlimVirgin started asking about it in RfAs. I don't see any real difference in what was proposed at each of the steps along the way; the terms of the argument have remained about the same.
The allegations about DennyColt, however, are an innovation. I'm willing to believe that he was not a willing tool/puppet of SlimVirgin et al., but nobody has presented anything more than weak supposition that he might have created his essay/policy/proposal to be provocative. It seems to me more likely that he was an independent agent.
At any rate, the terms of the discussion in the large have also remained essentially constant. Every argument that has been advanced here against WR was advanced earlier in the discussion about the failed proposal.
On Wed, 30 May 2007, Blu Aardvark wrote:
I'm not talking about any new policy, or proposed policy. I'm referring solely to the general attitude regarding alleged "attack sites", which has been reiterated by you, SlimVirgin, and several others on this list, on the recent RFA hijack attempt, and other locations on Wikipedia. Or are you trying to tell me that you don't support an absolutist ban on alleged "attack sites"?
Be careful about that wording. Many such people support an absolutist ban on some sites but not others.
On 5/30/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
The purpose of BADSITES was, in general, to ensure that any policy like BADSITES would never be passed, and in particular to insure that links to WR would not be removed from Wikipedia.
It seems to me that this argument has only been recently put forward and yet the whole controversy about the proposal is much older than this. I'm having trouble reconciling the two.
-Matt
As am I. Granted that the original author of the essay/rejected policy was a relative newbie (a very knowledgeable one, who had attracted enough attention to rate his own Wikipedia Review thread), the earliest editors to the page included several longtime editors with considerable experience recognizing trolls and disingenuous editing. I have a hard time imagining that neither Slim Virgin nor MONGO would have sussed him out; both of them seem to have a genuine talent for identifying problem editors, often well in advance of others.
Risker
On 5/30/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
The purpose of BADSITES was, in general, to ensure that any policy like BADSITES would never be passed, and in particular to insure that links to WR would not be removed from Wikipedia.
It seems to me that this argument has only been recently put forward and yet the whole controversy about the proposal is much older than this. I'm having trouble reconciling the two.
-Matt
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 5/31/07, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
As am I. Granted that the original author of the essay/rejected policy was a relative newbie (a very knowledgeable one, who had attracted enough attention to rate his own Wikipedia Review thread), the earliest editors to the page included several longtime editors with considerable experience recognizing trolls and disingenuous editing. I have a hard time imagining that neither Slim Virgin nor MONGO would have sussed him out; both of them seem to have a genuine talent for identifying problem editors, often well in advance of others.
I did to begin with. My first thought was that he was a strawman sockpuppet and I e-mailed someone to that effect. I stayed away from the [[Wikipedia:Attack sites]] proposal to begin with for that very reason. He created it on April 6 and asked me for advice about it on April 7; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASlimVirgin&diff=12... and I didn't respond because I was suspicious. Then I told myself I was being silly and he was probably legit, so I made a few edits to the page for one day on April 10-11. A few days later I found out the shortcut was BADSITES, a provocative title that reeks of censorship and omits the crucial word "attack." And that's when I began to wonder again about the creator.
Thanks for saying that Slim - it is reassuring that at least I was right about your instincts. I agree about the shortcut; unfortunately, WP:ATTACK was already in use at WP:NPA, so I suspect that is why more people didn't pick up on it right away.
Risker
On 5/31/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/31/07, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
As am I. Granted that the original author of the essay/rejected policy
was
a relative newbie (a very knowledgeable one, who had attracted enough attention to rate his own Wikipedia Review thread), the earliest editors
to
the page included several longtime editors with considerable experience recognizing trolls and disingenuous editing. I have a hard time
imagining
that neither Slim Virgin nor MONGO would have sussed him out; both of
them
seem to have a genuine talent for identifying problem editors, often
well in
advance of others.
I did to begin with. My first thought was that he was a strawman sockpuppet and I e-mailed someone to that effect. I stayed away from the [[Wikipedia:Attack sites]] proposal to begin with for that very reason. He created it on April 6 and asked me for advice about it on April 7; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASlimVirgin&diff=12... and I didn't respond because I was suspicious. Then I told myself I was being silly and he was probably legit, so I made a few edits to the page for one day on April 10-11. A few days later I found out the shortcut was BADSITES, a provocative title that reeks of censorship and omits the crucial word "attack." And that's when I began to wonder again about the creator.
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 5/31/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
The purpose of BADSITES was, in general, to ensure that any policy like BADSITES would never be passed, and in particular to insure that links to WR would not be removed from Wikipedia.
It seems to me that this argument has only been recently put forward and yet the whole controversy about the proposal is much older than this. I'm having trouble reconciling the two.
The first version of BADSITES was started on April 6th. Within a week I had already privately e-mailed people regarding my suspicions that it was a strawman. On April 27 there were several public statements to that effect on this maillist, including one by me. That was over a month ago.
Within a week, DennyColt disappeared, after having escalated his language with respect to BADSITES to calling Wikipedia Review a hate site, becoming verbally aggressive on a Request for Clarification from Arbcom, and being named in an RfC. By that stage, a lot of people were wondering about him. But the BADSITES proposal closely parallels earlier writings by other editors, and interestingly a much-watered-down kernel of the proposal in BADSITES is nearing consensus on the WP:NPA policy.
Risker
On 5/31/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/31/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
The purpose of BADSITES was, in general, to ensure that any policy like BADSITES would never be passed, and in particular to insure that links to WR would not be removed from Wikipedia.
It seems to me that this argument has only been recently put forward and yet the whole controversy about the proposal is much older than this. I'm having trouble reconciling the two.
The first version of BADSITES was started on April 6th. Within a week I had already privately e-mailed people regarding my suspicions that it was a strawman. On April 27 there were several public statements to that effect on this maillist, including one by me. That was over a month ago.
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 5/31/07, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Within a week, DennyColt disappeared, after having escalated his language with respect to BADSITES to calling Wikipedia Review a hate site, becoming verbally aggressive on a Request for Clarification from Arbcom, and being named in an RfC. By that stage, a lot of people were wondering about him. But the BADSITES proposal closely parallels earlier writings by other editors, and interestingly a much-watered-down kernel of the proposal in BADSITES is nearing consensus on the WP:NPA policy.
Risker, the situation was that a bunch of admins had been removing links to attack sites for about 18 months. Not in any kind of systematic way (i.e. not hunting them down so far as I know), but just removing them if they noticed one. That was the de facto policy. That's how policy develops, by admins doing things. It just wasn't written down anywhere.
It also wasn't an organized group of admins, just self-selecting individuals who had different criteria. Some removed links that I wouldn't have removed, for example. There was no communication between us about it (that I know of), no planning, no intention of creating a written policy.
Then DennyColt turned up with the proposal. It was worded a little hysterically, but it basically described what the de facto policy was. But then a bunch of people who post to these sites (WR and Encyclopedia Dramatica) turned up -- led by Squeakbox and Mangoe, judging by the top posters on talk http://vs.aka-online.de/cgi-bin/wppagehiststat.pl -- who didn't want it to be written policy, and they started kicking up a fuss.
Well, at that point, you're in a quandry. You don't particularly want it to be written policy, because there's no need and the fuss about it is tiresome. But you also don't want anyone to be able to claim it was rejected, because then what? Would that mean links could no longer be removed? So for that reason people felt they had to defend it -- even though I don't think anyone particularly wanted it!
If he was a strawman sock, he was very clever. Rigorously enforce and spell out a practise you want to get rid of in order to make it look extremist; give it a shortcut that makes sure everyone's first thought about it is "censorship!"; get people who don't really want it to feel they have to defend it just to make sure the idea of it doesn't fail entirely; then bugger off and leave them holding the baby. On top of all that, factor in the unforeseen blog situation, where the definition of "attack site" is extended beyond what anyone ever intended (and why not? we're talking BADSITES after all, not "attack sites"), and hey presto -- chaos, and otherwise sensible people falling out with each other all over the place.
We'll probably never know whether he was a strawman sock or just so clueless politically that he ended up looking smart and Machiavellian.
Sarah
I think I would go with the "clueless politically" explanation - he did have it in his mind that [[Essjay controversy]] could get promoted to Featured Article status...
Risker
On 5/31/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/31/07, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Within a week, DennyColt disappeared, after having escalated his
language
with respect to BADSITES to calling Wikipedia Review a hate site,
becoming
verbally aggressive on a Request for Clarification from Arbcom, and
being
named in an RfC. By that stage, a lot of people were wondering about
him.
But the BADSITES proposal closely parallels earlier writings by other editors, and interestingly a much-watered-down kernel of the proposal in BADSITES is nearing consensus on the WP:NPA policy.
Risker, the situation was that a bunch of admins had been removing links to attack sites for about 18 months. Not in any kind of systematic way (i.e. not hunting them down so far as I know), but just removing them if they noticed one. That was the de facto policy. That's how policy develops, by admins doing things. It just wasn't written down anywhere.
It also wasn't an organized group of admins, just self-selecting individuals who had different criteria. Some removed links that I wouldn't have removed, for example. There was no communication between us about it (that I know of), no planning, no intention of creating a written policy.
Then DennyColt turned up with the proposal. It was worded a little hysterically, but it basically described what the de facto policy was. But then a bunch of people who post to these sites (WR and Encyclopedia Dramatica) turned up -- led by Squeakbox and Mangoe, judging by the top posters on talk http://vs.aka-online.de/cgi-bin/wppagehiststat.pl -- who didn't want it to be written policy, and they started kicking up a fuss.
Well, at that point, you're in a quandry. You don't particularly want it to be written policy, because there's no need and the fuss about it is tiresome. But you also don't want anyone to be able to claim it was rejected, because then what? Would that mean links could no longer be removed? So for that reason people felt they had to defend it -- even though I don't think anyone particularly wanted it!
If he was a strawman sock, he was very clever. Rigorously enforce and spell out a practise you want to get rid of in order to make it look extremist; give it a shortcut that makes sure everyone's first thought about it is "censorship!"; get people who don't really want it to feel they have to defend it just to make sure the idea of it doesn't fail entirely; then bugger off and leave them holding the baby. On top of all that, factor in the unforeseen blog situation, where the definition of "attack site" is extended beyond what anyone ever intended (and why not? we're talking BADSITES after all, not "attack sites"), and hey presto -- chaos, and otherwise sensible people falling out with each other all over the place.
We'll probably never know whether he was a strawman sock or just so clueless politically that he ended up looking smart and Machiavellian.
Sarah
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Slim Virgin wrote:
Risker, the situation was that a bunch of admins had been removing links to attack sites for about 18 months. Not in any kind of systematic way (i.e. not hunting them down so far as I know), but just removing them if they noticed one. That was the de facto policy. That's how policy develops, by admins doing things. It just wasn't written down anywhere.
I asked this before, but was largely ignored. Isn't "just removing them if they noticed one" a "systematic way"? If we aren't even looking at the nature and content of the link, but just unthinkingly removing it, isn't that a rather problematic way of doing things?
The de facto policy appears to be to remove links to *content* that meets the criteria of personal attacks against Wikipedia contributors. This "policy" /is/ supported by consensus. The difficulty appears to be that a select few editors want to (or have the appearance of wanting to) use an Arbcom ruling to justify removing any and all links (as they see them, not necessarily via Special:Sitesearch) to a selected handful of sites, regardless of the content or context of the link.
On 5/31/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Then DennyColt turned up with the proposal. It was worded a little hysterically, but it basically described what the de facto policy was. But then a bunch of people who post to these sites (WR and Encyclopedia Dramatica) turned up -- led by Squeakbox and Mangoe, judging by the top posters on talk http://vs.aka-online.de/cgi-bin/wppagehiststat.pl -- who didn't want it to be written policy, and they started kicking up a fuss.
Just so we have this straight: I didn't join WR until 9 April, 3 days after this flap started. The only reason why I even noticed it was that I keep Expert retention on my watchlist.
We'll probably never know whether he was a strawman sock or just so clueless politically that he ended up looking smart and Machiavellian.
I'm voting for "clueless enough". And the paranoia level behind the Machiavellian interpretation is a strain on the nerves. I mean, let's see, here's another theory: that someone in The Cabal did it on the theory that if it worked, it worked, and if it failed, it could be blamed on the Nasty WR-ites. Come on: the whole thing is just too paranoid. It's a lot easier to explain DennyColt's actions as those of someone who thought he knew more about what was going on than he actually knew.
These theories of what newbies would or would not do are worthless. Looking back at my first efforts, I see that I split an article, merged an article, and put something up for AfD in my first 50 edits. I suppose that shows that I am a sockpuppet. Feh.
The Mangoe wrote:
These theories of what newbies would or would not do are worthless. Looking back at my first efforts, I see that I split an article, merged an article, and put something up for AfD in my first 50 edits. I suppose that shows that I am a sockpuppet. Feh.
I don't think they are definitive, but neither are they worthless. RC patrol has given me a lot of familiarity with what they typical newbie looks like. Not all atypical newbies are sock puppets, but it's not unreasonable to ask disruptive and unusually skilled new editors if they might have some previous experience.
Not that I've looked at Denny Colt's pattern here, so I'm not trying to imply anything about that.
William
On 5/31/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
I don't think they are definitive, but neither are they worthless. RC patrol has given me a lot of familiarity with what they typical newbie looks like.
Ah, but there's that word, "typical". If newbies are like other realms of human behavior, the differences among newbies are likely to be much greater than the difference between newbies and those with some experience. Perhaps "worthless" was too strong a word,however.
Slim Virgin wrote:
Risker, the situation was that a bunch of admins had been removing links to attack sites for about 18 months. Not in any kind of systematic way (i.e. not hunting them down so far as I know), but just removing them if they noticed one. That was the de facto policy. That's how policy develops, by admins doing things. It just wasn't written down anywhere.
I think that's generally how policy develops. But I think this policy is fundamentally different, because it makes itself nearly invisible. How can the rest of us fairly judge or properly adopt an unwritten policy that we can't see the effects of?
Thanks,
William
On 31/05/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 30 May 2007 at 12:30:18 -0400, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, I can't think of any occasion where such a link would be beneficial to the project. What exactly did you have in mind?
Then you're not thinking hard enough. Plenty of reasons have been discussed here, in other places where this debate has proceeded, and in my essay on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dtobias/Why_BADSITES_is_bad_policy
That looks like a long essay about BADSITES, a strawman policy. I'm not sure how it relates to my questions, though.
Then you are reading selectively. People are talking sweet reason then removing links like rabid weasels in a manner that looks, walks and quacks like BADSITES. And that's the problem.
You're using Gmail. Please click "Expand all" and actually read the thread before offering your valuable thoughts, so as not to waste others' time.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 31/05/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 30 May 2007 at 12:30:18 -0400, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, I can't think of any occasion where such a link would be beneficial to the project. What exactly did you have in mind?
Then you're not thinking hard enough. Plenty of reasons have been discussed here, in other places where this debate has proceeded, and in my essay on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dtobias/Why_BADSITES_is_bad_policy
That looks like a long essay about BADSITES, a strawman policy. I'm not sure how it relates to my questions, though.
Then you are reading selectively. People are talking sweet reason then removing links like rabid weasels in a manner that looks, walks and quacks like BADSITES. And that's the problem.
This seems like a valiant attempt to define "reasonable weasel".
You're using Gmail. Please click "Expand all" and actually read the thread before offering your valuable thoughts, so as not to waste others' time.
Time spent reading long threads and considering their implications detracts from the time needed for making responses. ;-)
Ec