Yes, it was appropriate. The MONGO case was quite clear when we voted on it, and the vote was unanimous: "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."

On 7/2/07, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote: I wish people would stop these hyperbolic slippery slopes. The NYT has not "outed" any Wikipedia editor.

On 7/2/07, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote: I wish people would stop these hyperbolic slippery slopes. The NYT has not "outed" any Wikipedia editor.

Information you have approved for publication in the New York Times is not "private information".

All our policies and practices are blunt instruments in the wrong hands. They need to be applied with common sense.

On 7/2/07, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> If you're referring to the linking of real names to account names > without authorisation by the person in question, this mailing list has > been guilty of that at times. This would then make wikimedia.org > unlinkable. > The Mongo ruling is a blunt instrument. It's not surprising it's > hurting the encyclopedia.

All our policies and practices are blunt instruments in the wrong hands. They need to be applied with common sense.

The NYT case is excessive; but it only sticks out because IAR steps in and says that nobody can take erasing all links to the NYT seriously. It's OK to erase links to any crticial site because people can say these sites are bad and get away with it. In the case of TNH the story that her blog was an attack site couldn't be seriously sustained-- but it didn't stop someone from trying.

On 7/3/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote: What we are talking about is not at all simple. It takes place in a context of considerable conflict of interest and in the realities of interpersonal and group dynamics that no amount of good faith can cover. You and MONGO and Jayjg spend a lot of time attacking WR, to the point where it seems to me that you don't care about the side effects of your campaign against them.

On 7/2/07, The Mangoe <the.mangoe(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> The NYT case is excessive; but it only sticks out because IAR steps in > and says that nobody can take erasing all links to the NYT seriously. > It's OK to erase links to any crticial site because people can say > these sites are bad and get away with it. In the case of TNH the story > that her blog was an attack site couldn't be seriously sustained-- but > it didn't stop someone from trying.

The person who did that got upset because he was outed, and he reacted badly, which he later admitted. It was a very human response, and it's unfair to keep on using it as a weapon.

What we're talking about is very simple. We have a bunch of people who volunteer their time because Wikipedia's a cause they believe in. That's not a bad thing to do. Therefore, don't make their time here an abject misery. Criticize them by all means. But recognize the line between fair comment and hurtful attacks that humiliate them. And don't do anything on Wikipedia that could put them in harm's way in real life.

For me, it's a no brainer that that includes not linking to websites that *make a habit* of humiliating their targets. It's very sad that a simple attempt to be decent triggered so much baiting and an unkind breaching experiment.

On 7/4/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> Um, no. I keep mentioning it as an example of the idiocy your proposed > attitude leads to. In the best of faith. As such, it is relevant and > I'll keep mentioning it because it is relevant. That it counts against > your position is not a reason to suppress all mention of it.

The reason to stop mentioning it is that the person who did it regrets it and has apologized, so we should move on from that example. If it's really such a big problem, there will be other examples you can use instead.

On 02/07/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote: Define "private information".

If you're referring to the linking of real names to account names without authorisation by the person in question, this mailing list has been guilty of that at times. This would then make wikimedia.org unlinkable.

The Mongo ruling is a blunt instrument. It's not surprising it's hurting the encyclopedia.

On 03/07/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote: If I'm being silly, it's only because such a blanket ban is silly.

Have you been reading the mailing list recently?

On 03/07/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/2/07, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On 03/07/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 7/2/07, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > If you're referring to the linking of real names to account names > > > > without authorisation by the person in question, this mailing list has > > > > been guilty of that at times. This would then make wikimedia.org > > > > unlinkable. > > > > > > I think the issues with your slippery slope arguments have already > > > been pointed out. > > > > If I'm being silly, it's only because such a blanket ban is silly. > > Define "blanket ban".

On 03/07/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote: NPOV, please.

On 03/07/07, Sean Barrett <sean(a)epoptic.com> wrote: Whoosh.

jayjg wrote: Several of the people involved in the debate over WP:NPA -- specifically its "attack sites" section -- appear to be in favor of banning all links from Wikipedia to those "attack sites". They make no distinction between links from article space versus project or talk space, nor between links which are intended to serve as attacks and links which are merely involved in commentary, or for reference. They insist on the retention of wording which has this interpretation; they continue to cite Arbcom's "MONGO decision" as if they wish to enshrine and more broadly apply that principle. They resist the introduction of more moderate wording such as "links to abusive external material which are placed with intent to offend or abuse are disallowed." If the "attack sites" portion of WP:NPA merely banned links which serve as attacks (an interpretation utterly consistent with the rest of NPA), if it did not try to resurrect BADSITES by punitively banning all links to an unnamed (and unnamable) list of shunned sites, I don't think anyone would have a problem with it.

jayjg wrote: I am not making that argument.

But those turns of events are not, in fact, so bizarre or unforeseen.

You claim that the blanket ban is acceptable because reasonable people can decide to make exceptions if necessary. But why go that route? Why not say that links -- to any site, anywhere -- which serve as attacks, are attacks, and are banned under NPA? Why not let reasonable people realize that this is a sufficient policy, that will disallow all the troublesome links just as effectively as the blanket ban would? What additional protective power is gained by proactively applying the blanket ban?

Is it worth its cost?

jayjg wrote: I'm not talking about wiki-drama, I'm talking about hypertext. Wikipedia is a website. Websites link to each other. It turns out it's an incredibly powerful and useful concept. If whenever we're talking about something said on site X -- whether this is in an RFC or Arbitration case, or a topicality debate in project space, or wherever -- and if site X happens to be on a secret list of Sites One Must Not Link To, such that instead we're supposed to use circumlocutions like describing the site in words, or emailing a URL, instead of just making a hyperlink like Time Berners-Lee intended -- if we insist on going through this cutting-off-our-nose-to-spite-our-face exercise, just so we can feel good about not "endorsing" a site that has (perhaps egregiously) wronged one of our editors, that's just an incredibly frustrating and pointless waste of time.

So what? I wish you'd answer the question. Why do we need a blanket ban? How does it prevent Personal Attacks (in ways that WP:NPA can't)? How does it help us build an encyclopedia?

An illogical, censorious policy exacts a significant (albeit intangible) cost in that observers are left with the impression that our policies are driven by emotion, not logic. One begins to trust and respect our policymaking process less.

Furthermore, one illogical policy can easily beget another, and another.

On 7/3/07, Steve Summit <scs(a)eskimo.com> wrote: It's only useful to link to sites that have useful content. Wikipedia has all sorts of rules about not linking to useless sites.

That has been explained at length.

Wikipedians volunteer their time to help in this project; as a result of that volunteer work, they are exposed to often vicious harassment by a small number of banned editors on websites. We should not in any way bring attention to those websites. It's common sense, good policy, and basic decency.

I'm talking about real costs, not radical philosophy.

What I'm saying is, intentions are good, but by their fruits ye shall know them. The consistent implementation of this principle you, SlimVirgin and to a lesser extent Fred Bauder have been advocating has consistently resulted in abuses.

Now, if this was the only way to achieve the result we all want - banning links made for the purpose of personal attacks or to otherwise harm an editor - then I'd be okay with it. But as many of us have pointed out before, there's no reason a looser-worded policy or one based on the existing NPA policy would not achieve the same end.

But when people have consistently exhibited a lack of the common sense required to apply this, and there is an alternative proposal which can achieve virtually the same results without relying on people having the common sense to know what is banned by this blanket and what is not, why should we not go for the alternative?

On 7/4/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote: One example? I can think of a lot more than just the Teresa Nielsen Hayden case. Links to "attack sites" have been removed from the Signpost in the past, and people like Dan Tobias have been aggressively highlighting them on the list.

On 05/07/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote: Just because jayjg doesn't like something, doesn't mean it's a bad thing.

On 7/4/07, John Lee <johnleemk(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> One example? I can think of a lot more than just the Teresa Nielsen Hayden > case. Links to "attack sites" have been removed from the Signpost in the > past, and people like Dan Tobias have been aggressively highlighting them on > the list.

The link removal from the Signpost was a bad idea?

Just because Dan Tobias doesn't like something, it doesn't mean it's a bad thing.

On 7/4/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> You may care to, I don't know, address the issues? Just an idea.

You have it backwards; the assertion was made that all sorts of negative things were happening because Dan Tobias said they were. That's not a proof of anything.

If someone links to WR maliciously, we deal with it as a personal attack ... and get all the benefits we would get from I Can't Believe It's Not BADSITES[0] and similar products. If someone finds one of those legitimate reasons to link to WR that Guy has been so scornful of, a links accordingly, we don't have a problem.

This is the recurring theme throughout the debate. Anyone who comes along and exhibits a flexible approach is welcomed as a friend right up to the point where the specific link is discussed and rejected, at which point we have to go round the whole loop again because suddenly they are one of the evil BADSITES people.

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 19:11:02 +0100, "David Gerard" <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>Um, no - it's because they pull shit like trashing an RFA because the >candidate fails to support their failed policy.

The 'crats should set an example by explicitly ignoring such idiocy. Unless of course the links were actually harassment, in which case it doesn't matter what words we use, they still have to go.

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 20:48:31 +0100, "David Gerard" <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>I mean SlimVirgin asked Gracenotes if he supported the policy, he >said "case by case is best" and she went to town on the RFA. This has >been discussed at length on this list already. I'm sure I recall you >participating in the thread at the time.

SV has been the target of egregious harassment from WR, so it's not a surprise, but we should have reined her in.

On 7/14/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: Note that Gracenotes *during his RfA* restored a post from a WR anon saying I had never asked them to remove the attacks against me. It was nonsense and it was removed by two admins, but Gracenotes restored it. That is the kind of thing people opposed him over. Speaking only for myself, I do not think it was a good idea to try to legislate for admins' judgment about links via BADSITES, which is why I got only briefly involved, then withdrew when I realized what was happening. What happened there is we were trolled and we fell for it. I also don't go around removing links, and in fact can't recall when I last did it. I don't support the incident where a link to a blog was removed, but the person who did that admitted he over-reacted, and his apology should be accepted, which means we should stop harping on about it. There's another side to your view of evil admins stomping around removing links added by innocent sweeties who're only trying to be helpful. During one of the discussions about this issue, one of the people on this mailing list who argues in favor of linking found some attacks on me from WR, including an attempt to out me, that had been posted to another website. Delighted, he started asking whether X was now an attack site, and of course he said he didn't dare link to it (heaven forfend!) but another editor was kind enough to tell people that the attacks were on website X, page Y, section Z -- only in the interests of informing the discussion, mind you. It probably broke his heart to do it. I can't remove that discussion, because if I do, I open myself up to more personal attacks on this list, and I open the list up to another 50 e-mails from Dan Tobias. I don't want to ask anyone else to remove it, because then I expose them to the vitriol. So I have to pretend I haven't seen it, and just leave it for any passing person to read, knowing it was posted by someone who postures as a fellow editor. BLP doesn't apply to me, it seems. Please try to imagine how hurtful that is. This is what Fred Bauder has been arguing. We need to create an environment where regular editors feel supported when they're attacked from outside, not one in which they get attacked even more for trying to defend themselves. That means not kicking up a giant fuss when links are removed, even if you don't wholeheartedly agree with the removal. It means not mocking someone over and over in public because he reacted badly to being outed and asked for a link to an otherwise decent blog to be removed. It means not taking up the cause of the attackers just because you think a policy proposal went too far. If you think a bunch of admins are overegging it, e-mail them; don't take them to task on a mailing list. Remember that they're trying to be decent (no matter how misguided you think they are), as opposed to trying to hurt people, which is what the linkers are doing. That distinction is actually the only thing that matters in the end. Sarah

On 14/07/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote: Taking an argument to its logical conclusion is "trolling"?

On 7/14/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/14/07, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On 14/07/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:

But we do publish them prominently.

On 7/15/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On 7/14/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 7/14/07, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 14/07/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/14/07, David Goodman <dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Speaking only for myself, I do not think it was a good idea to try to > > > > > legislate for admins' judgment about links via BADSITES, which is why > > > > > I got only briefly involved, then withdrew when I realized what was > > > > > happening. What happened there is we were trolled and we fell for it. > > > > > > > > Taking an argument to its logical conclusion is "trolling"? > > > > > > > It can be, yes. The logical conclusion of NPOV is that we publish > > > prominently the views of the vast majority of the world (including the > > > published world) on women and gays, for example, views that are > > > largely vile. So we understand that NPOV, like every other policy and > > > process, is to be applied with common sense. Wilfully ignoring the > > > common sense factor leads only to trouble, wikilawyering and, yes, > > > trolling. > > > > > But we do publish them prominently. > > No, we don't. If we were fairly to represent the majority of the > world's published sources on [[Gay]], we'd have to include in the lead > that people think homosexuality is a sin, and at [[Woman]], that most > people around the world think women are inferior to men. > > We pay lip service to NPOV, and to BIAS, while quietly applying both > with common sense, which is how all the policies and processed need to > be applied. >

We publish them fairly, which does not mean proportional to the numbers who believe in them. It means fully enough to explain them objectively in their own terms, and this goes for literally everything--and I would say without any exception. You are confusing voting for legislation with making an encyclopedia. The number of people who hold a view is irrelevant.

Slim Virgin wrote: Sorry if I'm getting mixed up about who said what. Fairly and neutrally representing minority views is not a question of equal proportion of words, or of number of words in the ratio of an idea's popularity. If some people think that homosexuality is a sin, that can be said in one sentence. Maybe one paragraph will be enough for them to explain their theory, and provide sources to show that the theory came from somewhere. If a theory fails because there is a logical flaw in the premises to that theory, it is an utter waste of time to show how every detail that follows from that premise is also wrong. Ec _______________________________________________ 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 7/2/07, John Lee <johnleemk(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> But when people have consistently exhibited a lack of the common sense > required to apply this, and there is an alternative proposal which can > achieve virtually the same results without relying on people having the > common sense to know what is banned by this blanket and what is not, why > should we not go for the alternative?

What consistent exhibitions of a "lack of common sense" have you seen?

On the other hand, the number of sites like them are fairly small, and people are generally sensible about these things: no-one is going to extrapolate from that to saying "we can't link to the New York Times", and no-one is going to insist on a banning if there is some incredibly important reason why one must be linked to under some bizarre and unforeseen turn of events.

Regardless of whether WR is covered by the MONGO ruling (it's not explicitly named, and we've sort of waffled back and forth on the issue for some time now): why exactly do we need to link to it? For our purposes, it's not a reliable source; we don't add links to random websites -- even *interesting* random websites -- in the same way we don't add links to tabloids. If we just enforce the existing policy on external links, the problem essentially goes away.

(The occasional convenience of having such links in dispute resolution proceedings are one of the reasons I argued against the total ban proposed by BADSITES, incidentally; but such proceedings aren't covered by sourcing policy in any case.)

On 7/3/07, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> (The occasional convenience of having such links in dispute resolution > proceedings are one of the reasons I argued against the total ban > proposed by BADSITES, incidentally; but such proceedings aren't > covered by sourcing policy in any case.)

But they have been always considered covered by the BADSITES/MONGO psuedo-policy, which is why the sourcing discussion is and is not a red herring. It is a red herring in that nobody has ever talked aobut this in terms of article space; it is not a red herring because charges about the content of sites need citation.

On 02/07/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote: Sorry, what he *meant* to say was that we can no longer link to Making Light. That's a site that was blocked after sliding all the way down the "slippery slope", in the best of faith.

BADSITES is an odious, stupid and damaging policy. Please stop pushing it.

jayjg wrote It's about trying to get BADSITES resurrected, under the guise of the "attack sites" section within WP:NPA, using MONGO as a precedent.

Jayjg wrote to me: and to James Farrar: Jay, you don't win an argument by attempting to dismiss your opponents' good-faith arguments as "not sensible" or "hysteria". If I weren't such an equanimous sort I might be offended.

On 7/2/07, Steve Summit <scs(a)eskimo.com> wrote: No, Steve, we're not doing "A WITCH, A WITCH" commentary any more. We're moving on to sensible discussion.

On 03/07/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote: The problem is that it was in the best of faith, and was nevertheless stupid and damaging.

This is about the policy bearing an unmistakable resemblance to BADSITES, where editors are *actually being blocked* for edits which the arbitrator who wrote the original wording in the case says aren't covered by it. How is this not a problem? How is arbitrary blocking under guise of a woefully misinterpreted arbitration decision not a problem?

Yes, it was appropriate. The MONGO case was quite clear when we voted on it, and the vote was unanimous: "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."

On 02/07/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote: OK, so we not cannot link to the New York Times, after its recent magazine article.

On 7/2/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote: Heh, okay... everyone makes mistakes. See [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Essjay_controversy&diff=prev&…] this edit I made, and my talk page [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KamrynMatika&oldid=…] following it. It seems that (in this case) ElinorD and Crum375 believe that it is OK to block an editor for adding a link to Wikipedia Review. In this case, the link pertained to the article as it linked to a thread on Wikipedia Review where Essjay's deception was first brought to light, and (in my opinion) it's quite relevant. I was warned for adding the link, based on the MONGO ruling, and then blocked when I ignored the warning (my bad there I guess). Is this or is this not appropriate? Thanks.