ARBCOM Badsites, This is what they're saying about us ... Options Rating

JzG is still upset about being called sexist (maybe you'll shut your mouth the next time, Guy?), but they also have quite a lot to about WR : Here's our entry!

So, whatcha think???

I'm not seeing the point.

I also disagree with the use of "properly banned" which is a value judgement and lacks supporting evidence on the evidence page.

These days, JzG seems motivated mainly by his hatred of JB196.

The proposal is this:

The website Wikipedia Review is primarily a blog forum that has postings that attempt to identify the real life identities of Wikipedia contributors. Many of those who post to Wikipedia Review are editors that have been properly banned from Wikipedia.

I thought this forum had a poll, which determined that less than half of WR's posters had been banned. Anyway, that old coyote JzG wants to amend it to this:

Actually we could say justly or properly banned

I think the phrase "properly/justly banned" is nonsense, but you don't need me to say it.
That implies "We are always right and everyone has been blocked fairly because we are always fair" or something.

The proposal is this:

The website Wikipedia Review is primarily a blog forum that has postings that attempt to identify the real life identities of Wikipedia contributors. Many of those who post to Wikipedia Review are editors that have been properly banned from Wikipedia.

I thought this forum had a poll, which determined that less than half of WR's posters had been banned. Anyway, that old coyote JzG wants to amend it to this:

Actually we could say justly or properly banned

I added that "There are lots of not banned regular editors here who are also members of WR", Squeak Box

I added that "There are lots of not banned regular editors here who are also members of WR", Squeak Box

Well, thank you! Of course, Fred Bauder and a few other prominent "Cabal" have posted here (whether they've admitted it or not).

I added that "There are lots of not banned regular editors here who are also members of WR", Squeak Box

Here's what you wrote Squeak.

As a blog it is no good for RS but there is simply no justification for banning it because it contains a tiny number of attacks, and it makes us look completely paranoid and trying to stifle any criticism of wikipedia which is far more damaging to the project.

Damn it, Squeaky. Keep dat bloodclaat mout' shut. That's why BADSITES serves such a useful purpose for the Review.

Here Moreschi critiques the critics and equates ED with WR.

AFAIK we are supposed to link only to reliable sources (or, at least, I only link to RS), which should preclude Encyclopedia Dramatica and Wikipedia Review. These hives of scum and villainy are hardly reliable sources in any sense of the word: it's hard to think of a valid reason for linking to them in the first place. Even in cases of "Wikipedia Review proves that X really did say Y", if Wikipedia Review is your only source for this, chances are that nobody cares anyway.

We read all these books in high school.

The logic is utterly all she rote:

1. NE1 who says Wikipedia is censored will be censored.
2. NE2 who says that NE1 was censored will be censored.
3. NE3 who says that NE2 was censored will be censored.
4. Read My Ellipsis …
5. ¬∃ NEx who can say that NEy was censored.
6. Wikipedia operates by Con¢s®us.
7. ∴ Wikipedia is not censored.

BTDT …

Jonny

I find it odd that the ONLY TWO attack sites mentioned explicitly are ED and WR. What about Wikitruth? Is that not considered to be an attack site? I am sorry, but some of the most vicious attacks on ED are carbon copies of what was written on Wikitruth, and Wikitruth does out editors. They were the first ones to out the various transsexual administrators (Kelly Martin, Ambi, etc). I just find it hypocritical that they don't mention Wikitruth.

Furthermore, they pre-suppose what the purpose of the sites are.

ED - the purpose of ED is primarily to make fun of Live Journal, then later MySpace, Blogger, and other blogs. This has been extended to include Furry places, 4chan and Wikipedia. Wikipedia represents a tiny portion of what they do. Furthermore, ED has a policy not to use people's real names unless they are common knowledge or they gave their real names themselves. Whilst I do agree that ED is an attack site, by any sensible definition, it is not an outing site, and if any outing happens there, that is not the primary purpose of the site.

WR - the purpose of WR is to criticise aspects of Wikipedia, both macro and micro. WR criticises the major problems with Wikipedia's structure as well as individual examples of this. In analysing the individual examples, on occasion real world information must be given in order to properly prove it. Whilst WR does tolerate individuals moaning about their bans, that is far from the point of it, and it is far from a requirement of WR that someone must first be banned from Wikipedia (nor even that they must have ever used Wikipedia as an editor).

Wikitruth - the purpose of Wikitruth is primarily to uncensor deleted articles, and secondly to analyse controversial administrators and policies. Wikitruth IS an outing site (the two above are not). I just find it amazing that Wikitruth is not mentioned in this lot.

Wikipedia Watch - this is fundamentally an outing site, designed to out the real life identities of Wikipedia administrators and abusive users, and secondly to state individual criticisms.

Antisocialmedia - whilst it does include Wikipedia, it is not limited to it. I don't know a lot about it so can't comment too much more on it.

etc.

Now, as far as I know, the top 4 listed there are the 4 main sites with regards to discussion of Wikipedia. Now, I think that it is quite accurate to label Wikitruth and Wikipedia Watch as outing sites. It is not accurate to label WR or ED as outing sites. It is accurate to describe ED as an attack site. However, it is not accurate to describe the others as attack sites, at least not in the context of trying to do real world harm.

I find it a little odd that firstly they attribute the wrong definitions, and secondly that they fail to mention the only site that they consider to be prominent enough to be worth its own article - Wikitruth.

The very best "proposed remedy" in an Arb-com case, ever.

No mention of the word 'Rutabaga' is to be permitted anywhere on Wikipedia under any circumstances

2) I've heard of somebody who had a freak farming accident as a child, and just barely escaped being crushed to death by an avalanche of rutabagas, and as a result is traumatized by any mention of the offending vegetable. Or maybe I just made it up, but you've got to Assume Good Faith about it. Anyway, this alleged person feels personally attacked and emotionally injured every time he or she encounters the word "rutabaga", so we should err on the side of protecting the feelings of our potential editors (since this alleged person might possibly decide to become a Wikipedia editor at some indeterminate time in the future) by proactively removing anything that might cause such emotional harm. Thus, the word "rutabaga" should be banned from Wikipedia. It's possible that the application of other policies might compel the word to be used to a limited degree, like on the Rutabaga article itself (though it might be desirable to recast it using some synonym, if a suitable other word can be found), but certainly its use can be flatly banned on unrelated article pages and in user, talk, and project space. It's the least we can do to promote human decency in a common sense way.

JzG shows his usual humor-impaired attitude :

If this proposal genuinely reflects how Dan feels about attack site links, I think we had better ban him. Seriously. This is an appalling dismissal of the very real distress - and real-world problems - that attack sites have brought to Wikipedia editors. This seeks to repudiate the entire MONGO arbitration, not just clarify the meaning and intent of not linking to attack sites. Are we expected to take anything Dan has said in this case seriously now? Is he genuinely unable to see the difference between harassment and this stupid invented illustration? I hope Dan is not serious in this, because if he is then there is pretty much no chance whatsoever that we will ever come to an agreement. Guy (Help!) 08:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This post has been edited by the fieryangel: Mon 17th September 2007, 9:14am

Guy (Help!)

Indeed.

I find it a little odd that firstly they attribute the wrong definitions, and secondly that they fail to mention the only site that they consider to be prominent enough to be worth its own article - Wikitruth.

MONGO did go on a tear at one point deleting links to Wikitruth, after he apparently felt goaded into it by people (including me) pointing out this very same inconsistency a few months ago. However, at the moment, there's an article on Wikitruth complete with a link, and the same for Brandt's Wikipedia Watch. But for some reason ED and WR are a higher class of evil for those people, and these days Antisocialmedia is the absolute arch-enemy.

I find it a little odd that firstly they attribute the wrong definitions, and secondly that they fail to mention the only site that they consider to be prominent enough to be worth its own article - Wikitruth.

MONGO did go on a tear at one point deleting links to Wikitruth, after he apparently felt goaded into it by people (including me) pointing out this very same inconsistency a few months ago. However, at the moment, there's an article on Wikitruth complete with a link, and the same for Brandt's Wikipedia Watch. But for some reason ED and WR are a higher class of evil for those people, and these days Antisocialmedia is the absolute arch-enemy.

Well, Dan, your "rutabaga" post was pure genius....but I'm afraid you might end up getting banned for that, since it was an affront to the "Holy of Holies" which is Arb-com. Nobody can take a joke over there, can they?....Maybe Fred Bauder might laugh, but I'm afraid that he's going to have to ban you anyway....

So Wikipedia Watch, whose entire point of existing is to out Wikipedia administrators, is not considered to be an attack site, or even an outing site.

Wikitruth, whose entire point of existing was to undelete deleted articles and to expose hidden secrets within Wikipedia, is not considered to be an attack site, or even an outing site.

Yet Wikipedia Review, who is trying to criticise Wikipedia, does not out people, and is not aiming to be an attack site, is suddenly considered to be one.

There is something wrong there. They are probably describing ED fairly (aside from suggesting that its whole point of existing is to talk about Wikipedia, when it represents less than 10% of their articles). But what is with Antisocialmedia being described in that way? That seems to be a personal vested rationale.

Anyway, this is quite interesting just the same.

You know what is the most disgusting thing in all this? People like me are banned from Wikipedia and have found one place to raise their honest concerns, and then we're called scums who were justfully banned, languages which in similar circumstances will justify block for personal attack. What are they expecting, that banned users just shot up and disapear from the face of the internet. They are not the internet, it seems that they are ignoring this.

Well, Dan, your "rutabaga" post was pure genius....but I'm afraid you might end up getting banned for that, since it was an affront to the "Holy of Holies" which is Arb-com. Nobody can take a joke over there, can they?....

There is some question as to whether they can even get a joke, but fortunately we have Cla68 to provide a heavy-handed explanation.

Although Mr. Tobias and Cla68 are doing their best, I sense some retribution coming after this is over.

Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...resented_by_Guy

Well, Guy now is presenting evidence against Mr. Tobias! Truly this will be the Scopes trial of our wikiday.

This post has been edited by Derktar: Mon 17th September 2007, 3:22pm

Although Mr. Tobias and Cla68 are doing their best, I sense some retribution coming after this is over.

Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...resented_by_Guy

Well, Guy now is presenting evidence against Mr. Tobias! Truly this will be the Scopes trial of our wikiday.

And I'm not even officially a party to the case!