On 28 May 2007 at 14:05:34 +0000, "Fred Bauder" fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Thanks for the heads-up. Bottom line, this guy doesn't get it. How hurtful external attacks can be to Wikipedia users. He has minimal commitment to taking effective action, maximum commitment to dissimulation.
I'm disappointed that you've joined the enraged mob with torches that's abusing Gracenotes' RfA because he insists on a thoughtful, nuanced approach to "bad site" linking instead of war-on-drugs-style zero tolerance. It's especially disappointing given that some of your own past writings on the topic have seemed to advocate the same sort of carefully considerate, non-knee-jerk approach that you're saying he "doesn't get it" for having himself.
But, then, I've also developed some doubts about your own judgment given your activity on this list last week, when you developed out of whole cloth an entirely bizarre interpretation of [[WP:BLP]] that held that this policy could be used as a Harry-Potter-esque magical incantation by any admin in order to take unilateral action that would not be permitted to be questioned, debated, reversed, or subjected to any sort of process or consensus save the unlikely possibility of a full-blown ArbCom case. The fact that nothing in the actual wording of the policy itself even hinted at this interpretation didn't faze you one bit, though you later backed down after a storm of controversy here.
I guess if you're willing to hand all admins such absolute, nearly unreviewable power, then it would indeed follow that you then should insist on imposing political litmus tests on admin candidates to make sure that this power is only given to the ones who are politically correct.
On 28/05/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
But, then, I've also developed some doubts about your own judgment given your activity on this list last week, when you developed out of whole cloth an entirely bizarre interpretation of [[WP:BLP]] that held that this policy could be used as a Harry-Potter-esque magical incantation by any admin in order to take unilateral action that would not be permitted to be questioned, debated, reversed, or subjected to any sort of process or consensus save the unlikely possibility of a full-blown ArbCom case. The fact that nothing in the actual wording of the policy itself even hinted at this interpretation didn't faze you one bit, though you later backed down after a storm of controversy here.
What on earth? It's been practice since WP:BLP was instituted.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
What on earth? It's been practice since WP:BLP was instituted.
I only dabbled in that particular discussion but regardless of what the practice may be it looked like Fred's interpretation of what BLP actually _said_ was quite easily demonstrated to be wildly inaccurate. He claimed that things were written on that page that simply weren't there in any form. I can see how this would result in some degree of concern.
On 5/29/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/05/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
But, then, I've also developed some doubts about your own judgment given your activity on this list last week, when you developed out of whole cloth an entirely bizarre interpretation of [[WP:BLP]] that held that this policy could be used as a Harry-Potter-esque magical incantation by any admin in order to take unilateral action that would not be permitted to be questioned, debated, reversed, or subjected to any sort of process or consensus save the unlikely possibility of a full-blown ArbCom case. The fact that nothing in the actual wording of the policy itself even hinted at this interpretation didn't faze you one bit, though you later backed down after a storm of controversy here.
What on earth? It's been practice since WP:BLP was instituted.
I think the issue is that to date most BLP actions have been benign; now admins are speedy closing AfDs and DRVs citing BLP - sometimes even when the article does not appear to have any immediate BLP issues.
I think if such is the case, we probably ought to rewrite BLP to reflect practice - you know, descriptivism and all.
Johnleemk
David Gerard wrote:
On 28/05/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
But, then, I've also developed some doubts about your own judgment given your activity on this list last week, when you developed out of whole cloth an entirely bizarre interpretation of [[WP:BLP]] that held that this policy could be used as a Harry-Potter-esque magical incantation by any admin in order to take unilateral action that would not be permitted to be questioned, debated, reversed, or subjected to any sort of process or consensus save the unlikely possibility of a full-blown ArbCom case. The fact that nothing in the actual wording of the policy itself even hinted at this interpretation didn't faze you one bit, though you later backed down after a storm of controversy here.
What on earth? It's been practice since WP:BLP was instituted.
Of course it hasn't been. WP:BLP allows admins to ignore certain usual rules, but it doesn't prohibit any sort of questioning or reversal of those actions if other editors feel they were incorrect. If I go and delete large sections of [[George W. Bush]] citing WP:BLP, then it does not require a full-blown ArbCom case to reverse me.
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
Of course it hasn't been. WP:BLP allows admins to ignore certain usual rules, but it doesn't prohibit any sort of questioning or reversal of those actions if other editors feel they were incorrect. If I go and delete large sections of [[George W. Bush]] citing WP:BLP, then it does not require a full-blown ArbCom case to reverse me.
-Mark
*Strawman alert*
No, do that and I'll block you for POINTy disruption.
*end of Stawman alert*
On 5/28/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 28 May 2007 at 14:05:34 +0000, "Fred Bauder" fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Thanks for the heads-up. Bottom line, this guy doesn't get it. How hurtful external attacks can be to Wikipedia users. He has minimal commitment to taking effective action, maximum commitment to dissimulation.
I'm disappointed that you've joined the enraged mob with torches that's abusing Gracenotes' RfA because he insists on a thoughtful, nuanced approach to "bad site" linking instead of war-on-drugs-style zero tolerance. It's especially disappointing given that some of your own past writings on the topic have seemed to advocate the same sort of carefully considerate, non-knee-jerk approach that you're saying he "doesn't get it" for having himself.
But, then, I've also developed some doubts about your own judgment given your activity on this list last week, when you developed out of whole cloth an entirely bizarre interpretation of [[WP:BLP]] that held that this policy could be used as a Harry-Potter-esque magical incantation by any admin in order to take unilateral action that would not be permitted to be questioned, debated, reversed, or subjected to any sort of process or consensus save the unlikely possibility of a full-blown ArbCom case. The fact that nothing in the actual wording of the policy itself even hinted at this interpretation didn't faze you one bit, though you later backed down after a storm of controversy here.
I guess if you're willing to hand all admins such absolute, nearly unreviewable power, then it would indeed follow that you then should insist on imposing political litmus tests on admin candidates to make sure that this power is only given to the ones who are politically correct.
-- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Are you talking about any particular article?
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Daniel R. Tobias Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 11:25 AM To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A BADSITES RfA piling-on
On 28 May 2007 at 14:05:34 +0000, "Fred Bauder" fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Thanks for the heads-up. Bottom line, this guy doesn't get it. How hurtful external attacks can be to Wikipedia users. He has minimal commitment to taking effective action, maximum commitment to dissimulation.
Daniel R. Tobias I'm disappointed that you've joined the enraged mob with torches that's
abusing Gracenotes' RfA because he insists on a
houghtful,nuanced approach to "bad site" linking instead of
war-on-drugs-style zero tolerance. It's especially disappointing
ven that some of your own past writings on the topic have seemed to
advocate the same sort of carefully considerate,
on-knee-jerk approach that you're saying he "doesn't get it" for having
himself.
You know, I've about had it with people dragging out the "mob with torches" line every time a substantial number of people disagree with them. The opposers are anything but an enraged mob. In fact as anyone reading that RFA can see, the only people that are enraged are Grace Notes supporters who can't seem to keep themselves from snarking every comment and generally raising the temperature to an unhealthy degree. Make a comment that they don't agree with and Gurch etc will be all over you like white on rice...they are doing a real disservice to that RFA and to consensual discussion as a whole.
Brian Haws wrote:
You know, I've about had it with people dragging out the "mob with torches" line every time a substantial number of people disagree with them. The opposers are anything but an enraged mob. In fact as anyone reading that RFA can see, the only people that are enraged are Grace Notes supporters who can't seem to keep themselves from snarking every comment and generally raising the temperature to an unhealthy degree. Make a comment that they don't agree with and Gurch etc will be all over you like white on rice...they are doing a real disservice to that RFA and to consensual discussion as a whole.
I've glanced at the RFA, and the RFA discussion, out of interest. I haven't exactly seen either side being "enraged", although such emotion doesn't generally transfer well over the internets.
What I have seen is a concerted effort to snipe an RFA because the user doesn't support an absolutist policy on removing links to alleged "attack sites", and another concerted effort to counterbalance the first. And, not at all coincidentally, SlimVirgin is there, leading the herd off the cliff.
*All* of the oppose "votes" (face it, it *is* a vote, unless the closing bureaucrat decides otherwise) are based on the fact that this user feels that there may be occasions where links to such sites are appropriate. This is basic common sense, people. There is no evidence that he intends to link to those sites himself, or that he agrees with the content of them. There are also, in a related sense, oppose votes with the commentary that admins have an obligation to "protect" other long-term editors. This is bad social policy, and ludicrous beyond measure. Admins have no obligation to protect other editors.
Blu Aardvark wrote:
There are also, in a related sense, oppose votes with the commentary that admins have an obligation to "protect" other long-term editors. This is bad social policy, and ludicrous beyond measure. Admins have no obligation to protect other editors.
I meant to add to this, but neglected to. Basic human sympathy indicates that users would work to do so when possible, but first of all, it's not always possible, and second of all, if one admin neglects to revert a link or ban an editor, there are more than seven hundred who can do that in his stead. Let's get with the program here.
On 5/28/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
Admins have no obligation to protect other editors.
That is where we fundamentally disagree. Admins are there to protect the encyclopedia and the people who create it. We can't offer much protection, it's true, but we *can* remove links to websites set up for the sole purpose of making those people feel miserable.
On May 28, 2007, at 5:34 PM, Slim Virgin wrote:
On 5/28/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
Admins have no obligation to protect other editors.
That is where we fundamentally disagree. Admins are there to protect the encyclopedia and the people who create it. We can't offer much protection, it's true, but we *can* remove links to websites set up for the sole purpose of making those people feel miserable.
And Gracenotes, in my reading of his RFA, does not disagree with this. But in the face of such blinding idiocy as Will Beback's removing citations to reliable sources, is it any wonder that he's a little suspicious of the merits of a bright line distinction here?
-Phil
On 5/28/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On May 28, 2007, at 5:34 PM, Slim Virgin wrote:
That is where we fundamentally disagree. Admins are there to protect the encyclopedia and the people who create it. We can't offer much protection, it's true, but we *can* remove links to websites set up for the sole purpose of making those people feel miserable.
And Gracenotes, in my reading of his RFA, does not disagree with this. But in the face of such blinding idiocy as Will Beback's removing citations to reliable sources, is it any wonder that he's a little suspicious of the merits of a bright line distinction here?
I wholly agree.
I note that Gracenotes appears to have said that what he is uncomfortable with is a blanket ban with no room for judgment or common sense.
The BADSITES proposal in its current form does not appear to have consensus among either Wikpedians as a whole or admins in particular.
Are those who oppose Gracenotes going to now try and get admins who disagree with BADSITES desysopped as well?
For that matter, I disagree with the wholly absolutist BADSITES proposal as it currently stands. Are they going to try and get me removed from the arbcom because of that?
I believe there IS reasonable consensus for a saner policy in this area, but not this.
-Matt
On 5/28/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On May 28, 2007, at 5:34 PM, Slim Virgin wrote:
On 5/28/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
Admins have no obligation to protect other editors.
That is where we fundamentally disagree. Admins are there to protect the encyclopedia and the people who create it. We can't offer much protection, it's true, but we *can* remove links to websites set up for the sole purpose of making those people feel miserable.
And Gracenotes, in my reading of his RFA, does not disagree with this. But in the face of such blinding idiocy as Will Beback's removing citations to reliable sources, is it any wonder that he's a little suspicious of the merits of a bright line distinction here?
It's unfair to keep on mentioning that RfA because the candidate's not here to defend himself, but on the other hand, I'm reluctant to let some of these comments stand. Gracenotes's replies about this and other issues worried me because they seemed evasive. For example: "I suppose you mean attack sites as those in which personal attacks are made against Wikipedians, without the intent of improving Wikipedia." That set off alarm bells for me, because *all* these attack sites claim to have the intent of improving WP.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Slim Virgin" slimvirgin@gmail.com To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 11:04 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A BADSITES RfA piling-on
It's unfair to keep on mentioning that RfA because the candidate's not here to defend himself, but on the other hand, I'm reluctant to let some of these comments stand. Gracenotes's replies about this and other issues worried me because they seemed evasive. For example: "I suppose you mean attack sites as those in which personal attacks are made against Wikipedians, without the intent of improving Wikipedia." That set off alarm bells for me, because *all* these attack sites claim to have the intent of improving WP.
Well, no. In the ongoing Making Light dispute, the site does not claim to intend improving WP - the single thread in question (see my recent posting of all the other threads on that site which have NOTHING to do with Wikipedia, and which should thoroughly trash any characterisation of the site as an "attack site") is simply the poster's explanation of why she has given up on Wikipedia (and if you actually read the thread you would conclude that she's not entirely unjustified in her view).
"*all* these attack sites claim to have the intent of improving WP."
Sorry... that's not what I said. I was only talking about external sites wherein one can locate, either by browsing or by searching, personal attacks made against Wikipedians without the intent of improving Wikipedia (and intentions have to be discerned, not hand-fed), by any patron of that site. What the sites claim is a red herring that has little bearing on my response.
To assume that I support linking to "attack sites" from an illogical loophole in my wording seems odd to me. In a sense, DennyColt changed the issue from "attack links" to "attack sites". I wish we could change it back again.
--Gracenotes
On 5/28/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/28/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner@gmail.com > wrote:
On May 28, 2007, at 5:34 PM, Slim Virgin wrote:
On 5/28/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
Admins have no obligation to protect other editors.
That is where we fundamentally disagree. Admins are there to protect the encyclopedia and the people who create it. We can't offer much protection, it's true, but we *can* remove links to websites set up for the sole purpose of making those people feel miserable.
And Gracenotes, in my reading of his RFA, does not disagree with this. But in the face of such blinding idiocy as Will Beback's removing citations to reliable sources, is it any wonder that he's a little suspicious of the merits of a bright line distinction here?
It's unfair to keep on mentioning that RfA because the candidate's not here to defend himself, but on the other hand, I'm reluctant to let some of these comments stand. Gracenotes's replies about this and other issues worried me because they seemed evasive. For example: "I suppose you mean attack sites as those in which personal attacks are made against Wikipedians, without the intent of improving Wikipedia." That set off alarm bells for me, because *all* these attack sites claim to have the intent of improving WP.
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 5/28/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
It's unfair to keep on mentioning that RfA because the candidate's not here to defend himself, but on the other hand, I'm reluctant to let some of these comments stand. Gracenotes's replies about this and other issues worried me because they seemed evasive. For example: "I suppose you mean attack sites as those in which personal attacks are made against Wikipedians, without the intent of improving Wikipedia." That set off alarm bells for me, because *all* these attack sites claim to have the intent of improving WP.
On 5/28/07, Gracenotes wikigracenotes@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry... that's not what I said. I was only talking about external sites wherein one can locate, either by browsing or by searching, personal attacks made against Wikipedians without the intent of improving Wikipedia (and intentions have to be discerned, not hand-fed), by any patron of that site. What the sites claim is a red herring that has little bearing on my response.
To assume that I support linking to "attack sites" from an illogical loophole in my wording seems odd to me. In a sense, DennyColt changed the issue from "attack links" to "attack sites". I wish we could change it back again.
There are some sites where practically every link will quickly lead to a serious personal attack. The idea is not to increase the readership of the site. And no one has given a single example of where one of these dedicated attack sites would ever *need* to be linked to, rather than the contents described, or the link e-mailed to someone.
Slim Virgin wrote:
To assume that I support linking to "attack sites" from an illogical loophole in my wording seems odd to me. [...]
There are some sites where practically every link will quickly lead to a serious personal attack. The idea is not to increase the readership of the site. And no one has given a single example of where one of these dedicated attack sites would ever *need* to be linked to, rather than the contents described, or the link e-mailed to someone.
I seriously am not seeing what the difference in positions is here, despite a lot of head-scratching.
SV, I understand you to be saying that you don't support an absolute ban on particular sites, but rather the use of good judgment, keeping in mind that any link to a site that is sufficiently filled with personal attacks is probably a net negative.
I understand Gracenotes to be saying that he also doesn't support an absolute ban on particular sites, but rather the use of good judgment, based on the context of the post and the content of the link.
If I were to make either one of those a policy that I tried to enforce myself, I am having trouble imagining what I'd do differently between the two. Could somebody clear this up for me?
Thanks,
William
On 5/28/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
I seriously am not seeing what the difference in positions is here, despite a lot of head-scratching.
Myself neither.
So what is the disagreement about, in practice? Is it that one side wants a hard-line rule that can be imposed selectively?
-Matt
On Mon, 28 May 2007, Matthew Brown wrote:
I seriously am not seeing what the difference in positions is here, despite a lot of head-scratching.
Myself neither.
So what is the disagreement about, in practice? Is it that one side wants a hard-line rule that can be imposed selectively?
I'll tell you what I've seen, since I've been arguing this for a while. One side thinks that attack site links may be removed 100% of the time, a zero tolerance policy. Another site thinks that attack site links are usually bad, but there may be rare circumstances where they are needed, and that they should be decided case by case.
The first side, however, has now moderated their rhetoric and sounds exactly like the second.
My impression is that the zero-tolerance side actually wants zero tolerance for certain particular web sites, and the Teresa Nielsen Hayden situation caught them by surprise. Thus, they now claim "we don't support zero tolerance" when the truth is that they don't care about TNH but still want zero tolerance for WR and ED.
On 5/29/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Mon, 28 May 2007, Matthew Brown wrote:
I seriously am not seeing what the difference in positions is here, despite a lot of head-scratching.
Myself neither.
So what is the disagreement about, in practice? Is it that one side wants a hard-line rule that can be imposed selectively?
I'll tell you what I've seen, since I've been arguing this for a while. One side thinks that attack site links may be removed 100% of the time, a zero tolerance policy. Another site thinks that attack site links are usually bad, but there may be rare circumstances where they are needed, and that they should be decided case by case.
The first side, however, has now moderated their rhetoric and sounds exactly like the second.
My impression is that the zero-tolerance side actually wants zero tolerance for certain particular web sites, and the Teresa Nielsen Hayden situation caught them by surprise. Thus, they now claim "we don't support zero tolerance" when the truth is that they don't care about TNH but still want zero tolerance for WR and ED.
If such is the case, then there's a very tangible difference between the two sides. The first side would still support the removal of relevant links to Daniel Brandt's site from a SIGNPOST article (this really happened not too long ago, and is what first drew my attention to this silly season), while the second side would not.
Johnleemk
On Mon, 28 May 2007 18:49:48 -0700, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
SV, I understand you to be saying that you don't support an absolute ban on particular sites, but rather the use of good judgment, keeping in mind that any link to a site that is sufficiently filled with personal attacks is probably a net negative.
I understand Gracenotes to be saying that he also doesn't support an absolute ban on particular sites, but rather the use of good judgment, based on the context of the post and the content of the link.
Indeed. A difference that makes no difference - but allows us to apply Clue, as we always should. The benefit of the doubt, as always with eternal links, should go to removal, but we should not absolutely rule out the possibility that a site which contains attacks may contain good content. Not that I've seen it happen yet, you understand.
However, we should resist absolutely any link to sites which "out" Wikipedians. Privacy violation is different from trolling and has a far more insidious effect.
Guy (JzG)
On 5/29/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Mon, 28 May 2007 18:49:48 -0700, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
SV, I understand you to be saying that you don't support an absolute ban on particular sites, but rather the use of good judgment, keeping in mind that any link to a site that is sufficiently filled with personal attacks is probably a net negative.
I understand Gracenotes to be saying that he also doesn't support an absolute ban on particular sites, but rather the use of good judgment, based on the context of the post and the content of the link.
Indeed. A difference that makes no difference - but allows us to apply Clue, as we always should. The benefit of the doubt, as always with eternal links, should go to removal, but we should not absolutely rule out the possibility that a site which contains attacks may contain good content. Not that I've seen it happen yet, you understand.
However, we should resist absolutely any link to sites which "out" Wikipedians. Privacy violation is different from trolling and has a far more insidious effect.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
This is an absolutist policy I agree with--there are limits to most things.
I also agree with the user who characterizes the exhange on the RfA thus:
I've glanced at the RFA, and the RFA discussion, out of interest. I
haven't exactly seen either side being "enraged", although such emotion doesn't generally transfer well over the internets.
I don't see either side enraged. I would vote against Grace Notes based on his stance on the attack sites with outings, but remain neutral because he isn't responding in an enraged manner after being maliciously bated with a purely hypothetical situation designed solely to corner him.
KP
You do bring up a considerable facet, although the point of my post was to explain how the wording in A4 was not evasive or meant to be evasive.
--Gracenotes On 5/28/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
There are some sites where practically every link will quickly lead to a serious personal attack. The idea is not to increase the readership of the site. And no one has given a single example of where one of these dedicated attack sites would ever *need* to be linked to, rather than the contents described, or the link e-mailed to someone.
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 5/29/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
There are some sites where practically every link will quickly lead to a serious personal attack. The idea is not to increase the readership of the site.
Name one such site other than Wikipedia Review.
And no one has given a single example of where one of
these dedicated attack sites would ever *need* to be linked to, rather than the contents described, or the link e-mailed to someone.
There's no examples of why attack sites should not be linked. Suppose you're discussing a forum post from Wikipedia Review in some Wikipedia-relevant discussion. How can you reasonably do that without linking to it?
Mgm
On 5/29/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/29/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
There are some sites where practically every link will quickly lead to a serious personal attack. The idea is not to increase the readership of the site.
Name one such site other than Wikipedia Review.
And no one has given a single example of where one of
these dedicated attack sites would ever *need* to be linked to, rather than the contents described, or the link e-mailed to someone.
There's no examples of why attack sites should not be linked. Suppose you're discussing a forum post from Wikipedia Review in some Wikipedia-relevant discussion. How can you reasonably do that without linking to it?
Mgm
At least part of that site can be considered attack site (I have no idea if the Brandt's Hivemind page is still gone), but there's plenty of simple crititcs there whose posts are worth discussing. I don't see why we should ban an entire site just for part of its content.
Mgm
On 28/05/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
There are some sites where practically every link will quickly lead to a serious personal attack. The idea is not to increase the readership of the site. And no one has given a single example of where one of these dedicated attack sites would ever *need* to be linked to, rather than the contents described, or the link e-mailed to someone.
The problem with the proposal is that it does not confine itself to "dedicated attack sites" Hivemind, etc; that would be sensible and defensible, and most of those who disagree on grounds of principle could support it on grounds of pragmatism.
It just says, well, no links to "attack sites". And so we get crazy things like systematically purging the links to Making Light, one editor having decreed it an "attack site"...
The current wording is interesting. We start by saying to remove "Links or references to off-site personal *attacks*", and then move straight into "no attack sites", implying that any site hosting the former is thereby the latter. That sort of ambiguity leads to a multitude of sins.
Slim Virgin wrote:
On 5/28/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
Admins have no obligation to protect other editors.
That is where we fundamentally disagree. Admins are there to protect the encyclopedia and the people who create it. We can't offer much protection, it's true, but we *can* remove links to websites set up for the sole purpose of making those people feel miserable.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Well, not exactly. Admins are there to protect the encyclopedia. Protecting the people who create it doesn't come out of any admin responsibility, but rather out of basic human dignity. Yes, admins should, whenever possible, remove links to such websites. (Except that "such websites" don't really exist. They may have /pages/ that serve to harass Wikipedia editors, but there are no sites explicitly dedicated to doing so.) However, if they fail to do so, what's the problem? There are, as I said, over 700 other admins who can do the job for them. I mean, heck, you've got your own personal army dedicated to that cause.
On 5/28/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
That is where we fundamentally disagree. Admins are there to protect the encyclopedia and the people who create it. We can't offer much protection, it's true, but we *can* remove links to websites set up for the sole purpose of making those people feel miserable.
Putting the issue of "links to attack sites" aside, I would love to see the admins of these "attack sites" institute a "no meatspacing" rule. That is, say anything you want about Wikipedia or an editor/admin's behavior on wiki but there will be no attempt to reveal or talk about the real life identity of any editor unless it has already been revealed by the editor himself or a news source. (ie Essjay)
This would do 2 things. It would give the "detractor sites" a chance to demonstrate that they are simply critics of Wikipedia and not out to "get" the people involved with it and Wikipedians a chance to demonstrate that they don't suppress honest criticism.
Slim Virgin wrote:
On 5/28/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
Admins have no obligation to protect other editors.
That is where we fundamentally disagree. Admins are there to protect the encyclopedia and the people who create it. We can't offer much protection, it's true, but we *can* remove links to websites set up for the sole purpose of making those people feel miserable.
And I'd be interested to know which of the admin tools has one bit to do with this point.
An admin's job is to use the extra tools to improve the encyclopedia. End of story. Not using the extra tools is *not a crime* and has *absolutely nothing* to do with removing text (fully-protected pages aside, and then consensus is needed for a change anyway).
This notion that admins must agree with everyone and know policy like the back of their hand is bullshit of the highest order. Those things would certainly help an admin, particularly in the trust area, but take my case. I don't agree with quite a few people. I probably know less than one quarter of Wikipedia policy. Why was I given adminship? Because I was dedicated to the one quarter of policy that I do know, I stated that I would only use the tools in areas I was extremely familiar with, and the community trusted that I would do so.
In short, I was given sysop because people trusted me to not abuse the extra tools, and to my knowledge I haven't ever.
Will Gracenotes abuse the tools? I don't think so.
That's enough for me, and if it isn't enough for you then I suggest you read [[WP:ADMIN]], specifically the sentence: "Wikipedia practice is to grant administrator status to anyone who has been an active and regular Wikipedia contributor for at least a few months, is familiar with and respects Wikipedia policy, and who has gained the trust of the community."
(Note "familiar with," not "has memorized." I am familiar with a lot of Wikipedia policy, but only deal with the areas that I feel familiar enough with to not err when enforcing.)
Of course if you think he'll abuse the tools, feel free to oppose. But if he disagrees with you on something that has nothing to do with the tools, and you have no reason to believe those tools will be abused, you are simply causing disruption.
(I do understand and sympathize with those of you who have been through a great deal regarding attack pages, but realize that blocking an RfA is not the right way to get attack links off the 'pedia. Form a policy draft and try to reach consensus.)
On 30/05/07, Chris Howie cdhowie@nerdshack.com wrote:
Will Gracenotes abuse the tools? I don't think so. That's enough for me, and if it isn't enough for you then I suggest you read [[WP:ADMIN]], specifically the sentence: "Wikipedia practice is to grant administrator status to anyone who has been an active and regular Wikipedia contributor for at least a few months, is familiar with and respects Wikipedia policy, and who has gained the trust of the community." (Note "familiar with," not "has memorized." I am familiar with a lot of Wikipedia policy, but only deal with the areas that I feel familiar enough with to not err when enforcing.) Of course if you think he'll abuse the tools, feel free to oppose. But if he disagrees with you on something that has nothing to do with the tools, and you have no reason to believe those tools will be abused, you are simply causing disruption. (I do understand and sympathize with those of you who have been through a great deal regarding attack pages, but realize that blocking an RfA is not the right way to get attack links off the 'pedia. Form a policy draft and try to reach consensus.)
Yes, precisely. That's why the abuse of this RFA to push this agenda is so shameful.
- d.