-----Original Message----- From: George Herbert [mailto:george.herbert@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 03:34 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Harassment sites
On 10/15/07, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: David Gerard [mailto:dgerard@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 03:04 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Harassment sites
On 15/10/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/10/2007, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
The encyclopedia is the work of the community, its creation. Thus the encyclopedia is dependent on the viability and integrity of the community.
Yes, but if it comes down to one or the other ... then what?
And let me say that I consider removing the michaelmoore.com link from [[Michael Moore]] to obviously constitute damage to the encyclopedia, and if the community comes up with a rule that makes that a good idea then the community is *wrong* and the rule needs removal. That's NPA vs NPOV, i.e. the BADSITES arbitration.
- d.
There is threatening to remove the link, temporarily removing the link, using removal of the link as a negotiation point, negotiating, etc. And saying that due to his high status (and the low status of the editor who offended him) we should shine it on.
Is it possible to outright block any edit attempts with an external HTTP referrer?
We could probably safely do that as a blanket policy. Someone could still say "go here, and then click on edit" with the link to the page to edit, but that requires more steps for the abuser hordes, which cuts down on the number that will follow through.