John, I don't think anyone is arguing that extreme position. It's a strawman. The whole BADSITES policy proposal was a strawman started by a sockpocket. All that's being argued is that sites *devoted* to outing and defamation -- the purpose-built attackers, where it's all or most of what they do -- shouldn't be linked to.

On 5/29/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote: Then that's eminently reasonable (with the caveat, of course, if that such a site ever makes the headlines worldwide, our article shouldn't be excused from linking to it just because it attacks Wikipedians). The problem is, many people I've seen enforcing this idea - Will Beback just being the most recent example - don't take such a reasonable stance. It's not even based on the rejected BADSITES proposal; I've seen people basing their ridiculous claims solely on the arbcom decision's wording.

On 5/29/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote: by all is, ridiculous All well and good, except for the problem that a lot of our opponents *are* nuts. Johnleemk _______________________________________________ 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

On 5/28/07, Brock Weller <brock.weller(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> For the record, calling them opponents just seems dumb. We're writing an > encyclopedia, not engaged in a giant good vs evil war for the future of > humanity. As soon as we start framing things in this way means we have > started taking things to seriously and need to step back and breathe for a > minute.

The problem is that not everyone is engaged in writing an encyclopedia. An increasingly large number of people hang around Wikipedia project space to stir up conflict, and they tend to be the ones who want to link to these sites. And before you jump down my throat, I'm not saying that everyone who supports the pro-linking position is just a troublemaker, but a fair number of them are.

On 5/28/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> The supporters of BADSITES talk sweet reason, but every time they > *act* upon the idea they act like rabid killbots on crack. Surely you > can see this introduces scepticism, and is also why many of us have > profound scepticism of the idea. > The attempt to abuse an RFA to try to backdoor in an utterly failed > bad policy proposal is disgraceful.

That isn't even remotely what's happening, David. First, I haven't seen anyone who supports the removal of these links going around removing them in any systematic way, never mind like "rabid killbots on crack."

Please don't keep raising the issue of BADSITES. It was started by a strawman sock for the purpose of stirring it. Please don't do his job for him.

On 5/28/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: you testing. BADSITES had existed in spirit for about 18 months and had been practised without fuss for the most part. Then a troll turned up and decided to write it down, and cleverly chose a shortcut that in itself would make most people cringe. The troll's concept was that the best way to get rid of a law you don't like is to enforce it rigorously. Any rule applied without common sense is going to get a bad name -- but as you say, it's the application that's at fault, not the basic idea. I'm arguing here against throwing the baby out with the bathwater. _______________________________________________ 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

The policy should describe what admins actually do. Most admins that I'm aware of remove these links when they see them, not in a systematic way, but if they happen to find one. There are very few situations where they're added legitimately.

The way to defeat the troll is probably to stop talking about the issue, because that's what he wanted. We have an ArbCom ruling, and we have admins who can implement it sensibly. If anyone sees a silly implementation of it, please e-mail that admin and put them straight. End of story.

On 5/28/07, Blu Aardvark <jeffrey.latham(a)gmail.com> wrote: Yes, I think it would work, because most admins are sensible, and even when they're not initally, they tend to be once quietly shown the arguments. And if they disagree, maybe they'll persuade the other guy. That's how reasoned debate works, and when it's about an area that some people are deliberately stirring up, it's best to discuss it off-wiki. _______________________________________________ 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

On 5/28/07, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote: not with The problem with marking that proposal as rejected (as you were saying earlier) is it makes it appear that what it ought not to be happening, but it *is* happening. The problem with this whole discussion is that lots of people are taking part in it in bad faith. One of the most vocal opponents of no-links-to-attack-sites is simultaneously posting to WR that he's been doing Google research on me to see how easy it is to identify me. It's impossible to assume good faith with that going on, and I have to question why someone like that is allowed to interfere with our policies. But they are, because we allow anyone to edit anything. Opposing a policy or practise because of dodgy implementation is like Jeff opposing BLP because of the way he sees it panning out. The answer is not to ditch BLP, but to have a quiet word with people who are being too heavy-handed. A *quiet* word, because the person having the word might be wrong and the heavy-handed ones might be right. Policies often need tweaking back and forth as we watch how real people really apply them. The tweaking only works when everyone's acting in good faith. When you have an issue that trolls have an especially keen interest in, the good-faith system collapses, and every tweak creates a new platform for further drama. No one that I know is seriously suggesting that -- as you wrote earlier -- "sites where there is negative content about one or more editors" are ipso facto attack sites. What we are saying is that *purpose-built* attack sites shouldn't be linked to, and that is what the ArbCom said too. We can deal with exceptions when we come to them. That's how I would like to leave it, at least for now until the excitement has died down. Fundamentally, this is a BLP issue. Our editors are living persons. They don't want to be outed and defamed, and they don't want the readership of sites *dedicated* to these attacks to be increased. That's all this boils down to. _______________________________________________ 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

On 5/28/07, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote: links in As I said earlier, the problem with the worst of the sites is that practically every link will lead to a page containing a serious personal attack, even if that's not the comment being linked to. It's the site we want to prevent links to, not just particular pages. The other problem with your proposal is if we equate on- and off-wiki attacks, it would mean we could ban people for off-wiki attacks, something the community has not previously supported. Similarly, the systematic removal of on-wiki attacks is not fully supported.

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

On 5/28/07, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote: The problem is that "the rest of us" includes good--faith editors, but it also includes people who post to these sites and who are trying to stir things up. It's therefore impossible to measure consensus in any meaningful way except by the actions of admins and experienced editors. If most continue to remove links to these sites, we have consensus to do it; and if not, not. Only time will tell, and I suggest we leave it there.

BADSITES had existed in spirit for about 18 months and had been practised without fuss for the most part. [...] Any rule applied without common sense is going to get a bad name -- but as you say, it's the application that's at fault, not the basic idea. I'm arguing here against throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

On 5/28/07, John Lee <johnleemk(a)gmail.com> wrote: The ArbCom's decision is good as a rule of thumb. Note that it says: "[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 ..." (emphasis added). That doesn't include an otherwise decent website that happens to repeat a Wikipedian's name without that person's consent. It's not a good thing that someone has been named, but that one act doesn't tranform it into an attack site. People who want to be able to link to the dedicated attack sites are exaggerating the arguments to make their opponents look nuts. Common sense has to be applied, as always.

People who want to be able to link to the dedicated attack sites are exaggerating the arguments to make their opponents look nuts. Common sense has to be applied, as always.

John Lee wrote: sites" is also Not at all!! Judges do not revisit their past decisions unless there is a clear error. Any case is decided on the basis of specific facts. To go back now to change the ruling would only strenghthen the notion that Arbcom rulings form legal precedents. I don't know if we are ready for that. Ec