On 10/16/07, William Pietri <william(a)scissor.com> wrote:
Matthew Brown wrote:
However, the best way of doing that seems to me
to be (a) to document
somewhere that site <whatever> is a known malicious and unreliable
source and things there should not be trusted, and (b) to close such
discussions down politely and inform people why we don't want such
issues brought up again.
I think this would be a great approach. If we have a superpower, it's
documenting things.
The remedy also fits in well with how we handle a lot of conversations
that are both perennial and annoying. Instead of deleting the comment,
somebody just says, "That's already been discussed thoroughly at WP:XYZ.
Consensus seems pretty established, but bring it up there if you want to
change things."
Perhaps something along the lines of having, at [[Wikipedia:ObnoxiousUVW]]:
"ObnoxiousUVW is a site that, while claiming to be a site for
objective criticism of Wikipedia, is a de facto gathering point for
banned users and others harboring grudges. The format of
ObnoxiousUVW, which allows users to self-publish content, has been
frequently abused to spread malicious gossip and personal attacks on
various Wikipedia users, and has been linked to one attempt to destroy
the real-world career of an admin as retaliation for actions in the
normal course of that admin's duties.
For these and other reasons, ObnoxiousUVW is considered blacklisted;
it may not be linked to from the article space except as a proper
source, and even then only when other reliable sources do not exist.
It should be noted that some of the criticisms raised at ObnoxiousUVW
have turned out to be valid, and we have attempted to fix serious
problems pointed out to us from there as expeditiously as any other.
Linking to a page at ObnoxiousUVW containing attacks or accusations
against Wikipedia editors is usually seen in the same light as
repeating said accusations on-wiki; specifically, as a violation of
WP:NPA. If you come across one of these which seems to have novel
information, be sure to check the timestamp; if it is any more than a
couple days old, Wikipedia editors are likely already familiar with
it, and have dealt with it if it needs dealing with.
Information on previous dealings is available at [public link 1] and
[public link 2]. Further information may be provided through
less-public channels in response to legitimate inquiries, but we
discourage idle curiosity or fishing expeditions, and may ignore
inquiries from users without reputations.
While we look for detente and reconciliation with each of the
individual participants of ObnoxiousUVW, we must, at least until the
behavioral ethos of ObnoxiousUVW changes, deny ObnoxiousUVW the
attention it tries to thrive on. Please restrict all on-wiki
discussion of ObnoxiousUVW to [[Wikipedia_talk:ObnoxiousUVW]].
Thank you,
the ArbCom"
Have one of these pages for each of the half-dozen or so potential
values of ObnoxiousUVW, of course changing the bill of indictment and
enforced remedies to reflect each individual case. (Also, copyedit my
crappy prose into something readable. :-) ) Indefinitely
full-protect the page itself, and have a few admins with oversight
watchlist the talk page to deal with the inevitable trolls it would
attract. (Sprotect the talk page? Seems antithetical to me.)
We would, of course have to exercise due caution over wordings; while
I would fully support seeing the phrase "the internet would be better
off if these wankers just went away, but free speech lets us know who
the assholes are" on the ED factsheet, we could not actually refer to
any individual as a sociopath, no matter how richly they may warrant
the label. :-p
Does this seem workable? It fights bad speech with good speech
instead of suppression, lays out clearly what the community's
expectations are, gives a statement of support to our attacked users,
and leverages our ability to create neutral, factual documentation of
contentious subjects (and our reputation for doing so competently.)
This seems to cover all of the concerns of both the supporters and
opponents of BADSITES-like policies, which makes me simultaneously
hopeful and dead certain that I'm missing something. Further input is
most certainly welcome.