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???
Full Version: ARBCOM Badsites
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.
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:
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
QUOTE
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:
QUOTE
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.
That implies "We are always right and everyone has been blocked fairly because we are always fair" or something.
QUOTE(Kato @ Sun 16th September 2007, 10:44pm) 
The proposal is this:
QUOTE
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:
QUOTE
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
BoxQUOTE(SqueakBox @ Sun 16th September 2007, 7:31pm)
I added that "There are lots of not banned regular editors here who are also members of WR", Squeak
BoxWell, thank you! Of course, Fred Bauder and a few other prominent "Cabal" have posted here (whether they've admitted it or not).
QUOTE(SqueakBox @ Mon 17th September 2007, 12:31am)
I added that "There are lots of not banned regular editors here who are also members of WR", Squeak
BoxHere's what you wrote Squeak.
QUOTE
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.
QUOTE
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:
Jonny
The logic is utterly all she rote:
- NE1 who says Wikipedia is censored will be censored.
- NE2 who says that NE1 was censored will be censored.
- NE3 who says that NE2 was censored will be censored.
- Read My Ellipsis …
- ¬∃ NEx who can say that NEy was censored.
- Wikipedia operates by Con¢s®us.
- ∴ Wikipedia is not censored.
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.
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.
JzG shows his usual humor-impaired attitude :
QUOTE
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.
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 :
QUOTE
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)
QUOTE
Guy (Help!)
Indeed.QUOTE(blissyu2 @ Mon 17th September 2007, 4:04am)
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.
QUOTE(dtobias @ Mon 17th September 2007, 12:22pm)
QUOTE(blissyu2 @ Mon 17th September 2007, 4:04am)
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.
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.
QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Mon 17th September 2007, 5:33am)
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.
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.
QUOTE(Derktar @ Mon 17th September 2007, 11:16am)
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!
QUOTE(Derktar @ Mon 17th September 2007, 3:16pm)
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.
He'd already started that before the "rutabaga" incident...God only knows what he's going to do now...
...Why do I feel that this is going to end badly for all concerned?
QUOTE(dtobias @ Mon 17th September 2007, 11:30am)
QUOTE(Derktar @ Mon 17th September 2007, 11:16am)
Although Mr. Tobias and Cla68 are doing their best, I sense some retribution coming after this is over.
WP:R4Arbitrariness/Attack Sites/Evidence#Evidence Presented 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!
That's too rich not to copy, typos and all !!!
QUOTE
Evidence presented by Guy
Dan Tobias does not appear to recognise the gravity of some of the attacks which have been unlinked
Here, Dan apparently considers that liking to sites which harass, out, attack and otherwise cause distress to Wikipedia editors, is of no real importance. While satirical, this indicates to me a profoundly inappropriate response to very genuine concerns. Guy (Help!) 21:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Jonny
QUOTE(dtobias @ Tue 18th September 2007, 2:00am)
QUOTE(Derktar @ Mon 17th September 2007, 11:16am)
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!
People have been banned during an Arbitration hearing that they weren't involved in before.
Remember that Arbitration isn't about a win-win situation, its about taking sides.
QUOTE(guy @ Mon 17th September 2007, 4:47am)
QUOTE
Guy (Help!)
Indeed.The more I look at that the more I think it's some kind of a distress signal.
QUOTE(Derktar @ Mon 17th September 2007, 11:38am)
The more I look at that the more I think it's some kind of a distress signal.
Maybe the Bat Signal to attract the Caped Crusader?
I hope Dan doesn't suffer too badly from this WP process because it appears to be not worthwhile. This itself strikes me as odd. It should be interesting and relevant. It should generate discussion about free expression and the right to dissent, as well as community building and solidarity from the other side. But it doesn't. Not really. It is boring and hollow.
I can't even say why this is so. Maybe it is because of the proliferation of acronyms that substitute for reasoned discourse on WP. May it is because of the dishonest use of language where discussing normal contact information becomes equated to a violent assault. Maybe it is because I know that that honest discussion is not a possibility in a dysfunctional social networking environment. Maybe I have seen consensus mugging too many time before.
...or maybe it by design. Perhaps WP has figured out the ultimate weapon against dissent. Make dissent boring.
I can't even say why this is so. Maybe it is because of the proliferation of acronyms that substitute for reasoned discourse on WP. May it is because of the dishonest use of language where discussing normal contact information becomes equated to a violent assault. Maybe it is because I know that that honest discussion is not a possibility in a dysfunctional social networking environment. Maybe I have seen consensus mugging too many time before.
...or maybe it by design. Perhaps WP has figured out the ultimate weapon against dissent. Make dissent boring.
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Mon 17th September 2007, 3:48pm)
...or maybe it by design. Perhaps WP has figured out the ultimate weapon against dissent. Make dissent boring.
Well, look at it this way: NOR takes out any original thought. You can't even put sources together in an original way. That takes out any creativity.
Then you have AGF , which means that you can't question the motives of anyone. If you do, you get banned. What we're seeing here is that even a joke (and a funny one at that), can get you banned. So there goes any eccentricity, character and humor.
What does that leave? It leaves the worker bees like Antrandus, the "general accounting dept" admins like JzG and Moreschi and the A-List stars like Cyde, SlimV and Jayjg (although the last two are probably going to be the Wiki equivalent of Britney Spears before too long;...).
In other words, unfunny, uncreative, procedural "cogs in the machine" who work on saving the system and who never even consider that they could be more a problem than a solution....
So, maybe you're right....
There are a number of issues that I have with this.
- They aren't focusing it appropriately. There are 5 primary sites described as "attack sites" - Wikitruth, Wikipedia Watch, Wikipedia Review, Encyclopedia Dramatica and Antisocialmedia (the first 3 specifically to do with Wikipedia, the latter 2 about many topics). These should be the 5 primary examples of what an attack site is. Other sites should be described in the context of what these sites are like. The fact that (until recently) they didn't even mention Wikitruth or Wikipedia Watch is a big problem.
- They aren't correctly defining what the sites are about. The sites are authorities on their own web sites, and all of them have stated what their goals are, and these are relatively accurate. Wikitruth is designed to undelete deleted revisions, Wikipedia Watch to out administrators, Wikipedia Review to criticise Wikipedia's problems, Encyclopedia Dramatica to make fun of people, and Antisocialmedia to analyse issues. Trying to suggest secret hidden meanings is not helpful.
- They need to determine whether a web site is harmful in essence, whether aspects of it are harmful, and whether the web site has a valid reason to be included on Wikipedia.
i) Wikitruth is only valid in terms of an article about itself and criticism of Wikipedia, but whilst it continues to have an article on itself, and continues to be mentioned in criticism of Wikipedia, it should remain. However, links should be monitored.
ii) Wikipedia Watch is valid in terms of an article about itself, criticism of Wikipedia, and criticisms of a broader context, however the "hivemind" aspect may cause personal problems to individual Wikipedia editors, and hence it should be linked carefully and appropriately.
iii) Wikipedia Review is valid in terms of any article, policy, RFA or AFD which it discusses in a thread, as it may bring up points that can be raised in the on-wiki discussion, or potentially be described as influencing a discussion. Whilst it could potentially be used to harass, this should be determined on an individual basis.
iv) Encyclopedia Dramatica is valid in terms of discussion of itself and other related topics. Since the article on ED appears to be permanently deleted, along with related articles including LJ Drama, and other issues which it is relevant including 4chan are described better elsewhere, then it has no valid purpose being mentioned. Furthermore, their use of pornography and shock images, in addition to embedded viruses suggest that it is described as spam. Henceforth, whilst articles related to it remain deleted, it should not be mentioned on Wikipedia at all, and should remain on the spam blacklist.
v) Antisocialmedia is relevant in terms of discussion of itself, and articles related to itself including Overstocked.com. It is also relevant in terms of uncovering issues related to various discussions, for example its discovery of the content of the oversighted edits. As with Wikipedia Review, it should be used correctly. - General recommendations with regards to the 5 main sites described as "attack sites":
i) Wikitruth should be mentioned with regards to itself and criticism of Wikipedia, and all care made not to allow it to be used to harass others
ii) Wikipedia Watch should be mentioned with regards to itself, criticism of Wikipedia and related issues, and all care made not to allow it to be used to harass others
iii) Wikipedia Review should be mentioned wherever relevant, in discussion pages and policy pages, and if an article on it is re-created, or it is again included in Criticism of Wikipedia then it should be mentioned there. All care should be made not to allow it to be used to harass others.
iv) Encyclopedia Dramatica should not be mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia unless things change, and should remain on the spam blacklist.
v) Antisocialmedia should be mentioned where relevant, in discussion pages and policy pages, its own page and criticism of Wikipedia. All care should be made not to allow it to be used to harass others. - Further application of concepts:
With regards to all of the sites, it is clear that the issue is not the web site itself, but how it is used (with the possible exception of Encyclopedia Dramatica). An editor should be penalised when a link is used to try to harass others, not simply for including the link outright. When the link contains harassing information, then and only then should it be removed.
That a web site happens to include some questionable material does not automatically mean that it is invalid. All that we need is to ensure that the link itself, to the page itself, does not contain questionable material. Whether other pages on that site happen to contain questionable material is irrelevant, as a reader has to then click through to other material. Only the page itself is relevant. - Application with regards to other sites not generally regarded as attack sites (e.g. Michael Moore, Don Murphy):
We can determine that whilst the Michael Moore main page contains questionable material, it should not be linked on Wikipedia, in a similar way to the Don Murphy main page. However, if a sub page happens to contain questionable material, that is immaterial to the main page being linked. Therefore, it was correct to de-link these sites at the time, although these should have been re-linked once the main pages changed. However, when a sub page is attacking but the main page is not, then the main page should not be de-linked (e.g. Prison Planet). - Additional questions with regards to sites not generally regarded as attack sites (e.g. Michael Moore and Don Murphy) is whether them including an attack should be sufficient to remove them from an article where the site is notable.
An argument could be made that they are notable with regards to the article itself, but not for any discussion pages, and hence should remain in the article, regardless of whether they attack Wikipedia or any of Wikipedia's editors.
However, a counter argument could be made that protecting Wikipedia's editors is of utmost importance.
The issue perhaps is more that if a notable person chooses to attack an individual, then it really doesn't matter whether Wikipedia mentions the attack or not, as the attack is going to be notable as it was done by a notable person. Henceforth, Wikipedia cannot be held responsible in these cases, and should not seek to remove the links.
Wikipedia should not pass judgement as to whether the attacks were valid or not, or whether they are legally relevant. If Wikipedia wishes to pass judgement, they should do so in the form of assisting the affected editor with any legal action against the said notable person, rather than by removing links.
QUOTE(dtobias @ Mon 17th September 2007, 4:30pm)
QUOTE(Derktar @ Mon 17th September 2007, 11:16am)
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!
Dan, it says you do "not appear to recognise the gravity of some of the attacks which have been unlinked"! This is appalling and unforgivable! You better start recognizing!
QUOTE(everyking @ Mon 17th September 2007, 1:49pm)
Dan, it says you do "not appear to recognise the gravity of some of the attacks which have been unlinked"! This is appalling and unforgivable! You better start recognizing!
I guess I need an apple to fall on my head so that I can discover gravity. (Would an Apple iPhone work?)
QUOTE(everyking @ Mon 17th September 2007, 1:49pm)
Dan, it says you do "not appear to recognise the gravity of some of the attacks which have been unlinked"! This is appalling and unforgivable! You better start recognizing!
I think you all better start recognis/zing the BIG DIFF between recognising and recognizing. No wonder there's so little Kross-Kult-Kommunication over dey !!!
Jonny
QUOTE(dtobias @ Mon 17th September 2007, 12:04pm)
QUOTE(everyking @ Mon 17th September 2007, 1:49pm)
Dan, it says you do "not appear to recognise the gravity of some of the attacks which have been unlinked"! This is appalling and unforgivable! You better start recognizing!
I guess I need an apple to fall on my head so that I can discover gravity. (Would an Apple iPhone work?)
Given the nature of gravity, getting some distance away from that kind of reasoning exponentially lessens it's pull.
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Mon 17th September 2007, 6:08pm)
QUOTE(everyking @ Mon 17th September 2007, 1:49pm)
Dan, it says you do "not appear to recognise the gravity of some of the attacks which have been unlinked"! This is appalling and unforgivable! You better start recognizing!
I think you all better start recognis/zing the BIG DIFF between recognising and recognizing. No wonder there's so little Kross-Kult-Kommunication over dey !!!
Jonny
Can we spend the next 10 pages arguing the difference? Of course it makes a huge diference if he is attacking for not recognizing or for not recognising, the latter being better for attracting appleas to one's head, but possibly completely unacceptable to Dan's proven American heritage, Squeak
BoxQUOTE(SqueakBox @ Mon 17th September 2007, 2:25pm)
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Mon 17th September 2007, 6:08pm)
QUOTE(everyking @ Mon 17th September 2007, 1:49pm)
Dan, it says you do "not appear to recognise the gravity of some of the attacks which have been unlinked"! This is appalling and unforgivable! You better start recognizing!
I think you all better start recognis/zing the BIG DIFF between recognising and recognizing. No wonder there's so little Kross-Kult-Kommunication over dey !!!
Jonny
Can we spend the next 10 pages arguing the difference?
No, but I know a place where you could.
Jonny
The evidence page seems to be quite good so far (with the possible exception of JzG's submission):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req..._sites/Evidence
The main page is also quite good:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...on/Attack_sites
But when we look at the workshop page, oh dear:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req..._sites/Workshop
After my browser has stopped crashing from the sheer volume of it, and if I have time to spend 30 hours+ reading the whole thing, well, we have basically 4.1.1-4.1.37 then 4.2.1-4.2.15 then 4.3.1, 4.3.1.1 and 4.3.2 as the amount that is there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req..._sites/Workshop
I started to go over it but woah is that ever long. So many confusing elements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req..._sites/Evidence
The main page is also quite good:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...on/Attack_sites
But when we look at the workshop page, oh dear:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req..._sites/Workshop
After my browser has stopped crashing from the sheer volume of it, and if I have time to spend 30 hours+ reading the whole thing, well, we have basically 4.1.1-4.1.37 then 4.2.1-4.2.15 then 4.3.1, 4.3.1.1 and 4.3.2 as the amount that is there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req..._sites/Workshop
I started to go over it but woah is that ever long. So many confusing elements.
QUOTE(Derktar @ Mon 17th September 2007, 4:16pm)
resented_by_Guy? Fair enough.
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Mon 17th September 2007, 7:23pm)
Given the nature of gravity, getting some distance away from that kind of reasoning exponentially lessens it's pull.
Isn't it an inverse square law?
QUOTE(guy @ Mon 17th September 2007, 2:12pm)
QUOTE(Derktar @ Mon 17th September 2007, 4:16pm)
resented_by_Guy? Fair enough.
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Mon 17th September 2007, 7:23pm)
Given the nature of gravity, getting some distance away from that kind of reasoning exponentially lessens it's pull.
Isn't it an inverse square law?
I thinks so. Did I describe it badly with "exponentially lessen?" I meant to describe a situation where say doubling the distance would more than reduce the force by half.
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Mon 17th September 2007, 4:44pm)
QUOTE(guy @ Mon 17th September 2007, 2:12pm)
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Mon 17th September 2007, 7:23pm)
Given the nature of gravity, getting some distance away from that kind of reasoning exponentially lessens it's pull.
Isn't it an inverse square law?
I thinks so. Did I describe it badly with "exponentially lessen"? I meant to describe a situation where say doubling the distance would more than reduce the force by half.
Actually, yer rite, but's not gravitation — it's definitely a WIK Force.
Jonny
QUOTE(SqueakBox @ Mon 17th September 2007, 6:25pm)
Can we spend the next 10 pages arguing the difference? Of course it makes a huge diference if he is attacking for not recognizing or for not recognising, the latter being better for attracting appleas to one's head, but possibly completely unacceptable to Dan's proven American heritage, Squeak
BoxI heard that...
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Mon 17th September 2007, 2:56pm)
Actually, yer rite, but's not gravitation — it's definitely a WIK Force.
Jonny
Help, Mr. Wizard.
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Mon 17th September 2007, 5:07pm)
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Mon 17th September 2007, 2:56pm)
Actually, yer rite, but's not gravitation — it's definitely a WIK Force.
Jonny
Help, Mr. Wizard.
Vide Weak Interaction
Vide Intermediate Vector Boson
Y'see, we're all Bosons on this Bus …
Jonny
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Mon 17th September 2007, 9:07pm)
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Mon 17th September 2007, 2:56pm)
Actually, yer rite, but's not gravitation — it's definitely a WIK Force.
Jonny
Help, Mr. Wizard.
Summary of the Attack Sites Issue, as it stands today.
Gary Weiss will do anything to flail around on wikipedia to try and prevent more than the 1,000 people who already know from seeing antisocialmedia.net
He's SPA'ing on WP in a blaze of bullets, going down shootin', and trying get everyone, more than just Guy and "Ballroom Blitz" Gerard to sing the odious song.
He's even been wooing Mongo on Mongo's intimate subpages. Whatever it takes. Sockpuppets. Delusions of ethical grandeur. Lying about your age and religion on your userpage to make your Martin Luthering seem objective.
Attack sites is all about the Gary.
And Jimbo, cuz Jimbo already did an Essjayish "I have no problem with that!" on Weiss before Essjay denials were cool.
QUOTE(dtobias @ Mon 17th September 2007, 8:46am)
QUOTE(Derktar @ Mon 17th September 2007, 11:38am)
The more I look at that the more I think it's some kind of a distress signal.
Maybe the Bat Signal to attract the Caped Crusader?
Maybe....just maybe...
Wow. Note this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...l_link_addition
The first ACTUAL Proposed Remedy is to sanction Dtobias, who wasn't actually involved.
The other proposed remedies are nonsense really.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...l_link_addition
The first ACTUAL Proposed Remedy is to sanction Dtobias, who wasn't actually involved.
The other proposed remedies are nonsense really.
I can't post all the quote for some reason as the last bit makes the forum say "404 not found" when I try to post the last bit even on a separate messaget.
This is proof ArbCom is a kangaroo court. They can't take their biggest issue seriously:
Everybody involved is sent to their room with no dessert
1) Everybody involved in this issue is instructed to go to bed half an hour early and refrain from dessert for 24 hours.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Just to make clear that we're not proposing any, you know, real sanctions. Phil Sandifer 15:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree. This was a rather minor editing dispute as these things go, and everybody calmed down pretty quickly. However, I think it needs to be made clear that when it is perceived that the explicit provisions of a policy are "broken" or flawed, the place to resolve that is at the policies themselves and not by removing edits carried out in accordance with the "flawed" policy. (Just that general principle, nothing aimed at any particular editor, as everyone was acting in good faith yadda yadda.)--Mantanmoreland 16:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:
This sanction is subject to overruling by their mommies. *Dan T.* 16:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Loss of WP editing time by early bedtime is recovered by non availability of dessert. Strike proposal as having no net effect? LessHeard vanU 16:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Nothing new here. Lots of cases end without editors getting their just desserts. Newyorkbrad 16:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, per my favorite TV show being on at 9:30 tonight. You're not even my real dad. ShaleZero 19:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
My people are the people of the dessert. - T.E. Lawrence, picking up his fork. DurovaCharge! 21:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
He was known to confuse the two, which is why he is so thin in his photographs.--Mantanmoreland 02:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Um, are you Shaw? LessHeard vanU 12:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Shaw, I'm Shaw. *Dan T.* 21:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Everybody involved is sent to the desert
1.1) Everybody involved in this issue is instructed to go into a desert for a length of time to be determined (24 hours? 40 days and 40 nights? 40 years?).
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
I think taking one "s" out of "dessert" yields something that will do better for giving humility to the participants, encourage meditation about the issues involved, and, presuming that it's a desert without WiFi hotspots, will keep them from making trouble on Wikipedia for a while. *Dan T.* 17:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
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.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I can't think of a better example of the degree of contempt some editors feel toward victims of stalking.--Mantanmoreland 14:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Proposed. And, once this case closes, this page should be refactored to remove the offending word in the above section. Maybe it could be replaced with a less offensive word like "pedophile". *Dan T.* 20:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
This might very well be the most disruptive point proposal I have ever seen on an arbcom case.--MONGO 04:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
You're right... it's ridiculously slanderous of the perfectly fine vegetable, rutabagas. Didn't some midwestern state pass a law banning defamation of foods? Now, if it were broccoli being proposed for a ban, I'd be all for it... that's an Attack Vegetable. *Dan T.* 14:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about the law being passed, but I do know that whenever someone is on this website and has an agenda that is not congruent with writing encyclopedia articles and instead is more interested in tabloid nonsense, innuendo and ridiculing those that have had to deal with real life harassment as a side effect of editing here, they really do need a large dose of reality. Frankly, I think your pointed nonsense here is disruptive and about as helpful as a dead fly.--MONGO 14:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
If the editor in question who feels traumatized by mention of the word "rutabaga" also happens to be a prominent admin here in the project, who has written much of Wikipedia's current policy, and once used a sock to vote twice in a Featured Article candidate review and then concealed that she did that during her subsequent RfA, then we should especially protect her by banning any website that mentions that word. Of course. Cla68 06:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I find the sneering innuendo above every bit as offensive as this contemptuous WP:POINT "proposal."--Mantanmoreland 15:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
Offensive, in this context - where we are discussing attack sites that have spread on the web viscious innuendo and have defamed editors who act in good faith, who have been outed and stalked, receiving threatening leters and phone calls including threats against family members, it at best is trivial and inappropriate, and at worst offensive for trivializing the problems (which sometimes require the intervention of police) attack sites cause fellow editors. I am not saying I am sure what the solution to this problem is, but it is a serious problem and people who make light of it are, if acting in good faith, ignorant, and if they are not ignorant, then they are bullies. Dan Tobias seems to think it is funny that people are stalked and memebers of their families threatened, and they have to turn to the police. This is no joke - Tobias is just being a bully. Laughing at other people who are suffering is not funny, and to support these attack-sites is no defense of free speech, it just means you find your own sadistic amusement and entertainment more important than the physical safety of others Slrubenstein | Talk 08:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
While certainly engaging in an un-needed excess of sarcasm, I think that Dan was alluding to the fact that there has been unwarranted demonization of those who disagree with BADSITES and its ilk... as ably demonstrated by the responses above. The proponents of BADSITES go on about how the people opposing them 'support harassment', 'themselves engage in harassment by linking to attack sites', 'are cruel and insensitive to people under attack', 'should be banned', et cetera. It's unjustified and improper... all of it. Nobody is saying that we should not care about and try to protect our users, and the people claiming otherwise have so lost sight of 'assume good faith' that they may need a map and long days of travel to find their way back. What is disputed is the particular method of protecting our users being suggested... both in that it does not IMO achieve that goal and causes damage of its own. The anger and denunciations are understandable from the mindset of, 'we need to have this to protect people'... but AGF should lead to the understanding that the alternate view is 'this does not protect anyone and it makes a horrific mess'. --CBD 13:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
CBD, my point is that these experience of stalked and violated editors is what is at stake here. Now, if BADSITES was an inappropriate or ineffective way to deal with that, so be it. If people's proposals about attack sites are not the right way to handle this problem, so be it. But let's have constructive suggestions about better ways to deal with this problem. Let's focus on the problem that needs solving and not failed attempts to address the problem. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
What you are describing is a community discussion to work out new policies on privacy and user protection. This is an arbitration case... something which specifically does not create new policies. We are here for the explicit purpose of 'focusing on what went wrong'... precisely what you say we should not be doing. One of the things which has gone wrong is that proponents of BADSITES have violated civility and AGF in attacking people who disagree with them and think the policy is being abused. Dan's parody of that behaviour above was not the most polite way of raising the issue, but sadly it was an accurate parallel of the reality. --CBD 17:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Granting your point, surely you can see a difference between finding out what went wrong in a constructive way, versus an unconstructive and even meanspirited way. I would have no objection to a harsh analysis of what went wrong if I thought it were constructive. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
This is proof ArbCom is a kangaroo court. They can't take their biggest issue seriously:
QUOTE
Everybody involved is sent to their room with no dessert
1) Everybody involved in this issue is instructed to go to bed half an hour early and refrain from dessert for 24 hours.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Just to make clear that we're not proposing any, you know, real sanctions. Phil Sandifer 15:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree. This was a rather minor editing dispute as these things go, and everybody calmed down pretty quickly. However, I think it needs to be made clear that when it is perceived that the explicit provisions of a policy are "broken" or flawed, the place to resolve that is at the policies themselves and not by removing edits carried out in accordance with the "flawed" policy. (Just that general principle, nothing aimed at any particular editor, as everyone was acting in good faith yadda yadda.)--Mantanmoreland 16:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:
This sanction is subject to overruling by their mommies. *Dan T.* 16:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Loss of WP editing time by early bedtime is recovered by non availability of dessert. Strike proposal as having no net effect? LessHeard vanU 16:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Nothing new here. Lots of cases end without editors getting their just desserts. Newyorkbrad 16:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, per my favorite TV show being on at 9:30 tonight. You're not even my real dad. ShaleZero 19:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
My people are the people of the dessert. - T.E. Lawrence, picking up his fork. DurovaCharge! 21:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
He was known to confuse the two, which is why he is so thin in his photographs.--Mantanmoreland 02:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Um, are you Shaw? LessHeard vanU 12:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Shaw, I'm Shaw. *Dan T.* 21:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Everybody involved is sent to the desert
1.1) Everybody involved in this issue is instructed to go into a desert for a length of time to be determined (24 hours? 40 days and 40 nights? 40 years?).
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
I think taking one "s" out of "dessert" yields something that will do better for giving humility to the participants, encourage meditation about the issues involved, and, presuming that it's a desert without WiFi hotspots, will keep them from making trouble on Wikipedia for a while. *Dan T.* 17:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
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.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I can't think of a better example of the degree of contempt some editors feel toward victims of stalking.--Mantanmoreland 14:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Proposed. And, once this case closes, this page should be refactored to remove the offending word in the above section. Maybe it could be replaced with a less offensive word like "pedophile". *Dan T.* 20:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
This might very well be the most disruptive point proposal I have ever seen on an arbcom case.--MONGO 04:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
You're right... it's ridiculously slanderous of the perfectly fine vegetable, rutabagas. Didn't some midwestern state pass a law banning defamation of foods? Now, if it were broccoli being proposed for a ban, I'd be all for it... that's an Attack Vegetable. *Dan T.* 14:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about the law being passed, but I do know that whenever someone is on this website and has an agenda that is not congruent with writing encyclopedia articles and instead is more interested in tabloid nonsense, innuendo and ridiculing those that have had to deal with real life harassment as a side effect of editing here, they really do need a large dose of reality. Frankly, I think your pointed nonsense here is disruptive and about as helpful as a dead fly.--MONGO 14:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
If the editor in question who feels traumatized by mention of the word "rutabaga" also happens to be a prominent admin here in the project, who has written much of Wikipedia's current policy, and once used a sock to vote twice in a Featured Article candidate review and then concealed that she did that during her subsequent RfA, then we should especially protect her by banning any website that mentions that word. Of course. Cla68 06:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I find the sneering innuendo above every bit as offensive as this contemptuous WP:POINT "proposal."--Mantanmoreland 15:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
Offensive, in this context - where we are discussing attack sites that have spread on the web viscious innuendo and have defamed editors who act in good faith, who have been outed and stalked, receiving threatening leters and phone calls including threats against family members, it at best is trivial and inappropriate, and at worst offensive for trivializing the problems (which sometimes require the intervention of police) attack sites cause fellow editors. I am not saying I am sure what the solution to this problem is, but it is a serious problem and people who make light of it are, if acting in good faith, ignorant, and if they are not ignorant, then they are bullies. Dan Tobias seems to think it is funny that people are stalked and memebers of their families threatened, and they have to turn to the police. This is no joke - Tobias is just being a bully. Laughing at other people who are suffering is not funny, and to support these attack-sites is no defense of free speech, it just means you find your own sadistic amusement and entertainment more important than the physical safety of others Slrubenstein | Talk 08:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
While certainly engaging in an un-needed excess of sarcasm, I think that Dan was alluding to the fact that there has been unwarranted demonization of those who disagree with BADSITES and its ilk... as ably demonstrated by the responses above. The proponents of BADSITES go on about how the people opposing them 'support harassment', 'themselves engage in harassment by linking to attack sites', 'are cruel and insensitive to people under attack', 'should be banned', et cetera. It's unjustified and improper... all of it. Nobody is saying that we should not care about and try to protect our users, and the people claiming otherwise have so lost sight of 'assume good faith' that they may need a map and long days of travel to find their way back. What is disputed is the particular method of protecting our users being suggested... both in that it does not IMO achieve that goal and causes damage of its own. The anger and denunciations are understandable from the mindset of, 'we need to have this to protect people'... but AGF should lead to the understanding that the alternate view is 'this does not protect anyone and it makes a horrific mess'. --CBD 13:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
CBD, my point is that these experience of stalked and violated editors is what is at stake here. Now, if BADSITES was an inappropriate or ineffective way to deal with that, so be it. If people's proposals about attack sites are not the right way to handle this problem, so be it. But let's have constructive suggestions about better ways to deal with this problem. Let's focus on the problem that needs solving and not failed attempts to address the problem. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
What you are describing is a community discussion to work out new policies on privacy and user protection. This is an arbitration case... something which specifically does not create new policies. We are here for the explicit purpose of 'focusing on what went wrong'... precisely what you say we should not be doing. One of the things which has gone wrong is that proponents of BADSITES have violated civility and AGF in attacking people who disagree with them and think the policy is being abused. Dan's parody of that behaviour above was not the most polite way of raising the issue, but sadly it was an accurate parallel of the reality. --CBD 17:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Granting your point, surely you can see a difference between finding out what went wrong in a constructive way, versus an unconstructive and even meanspirited way. I would have no objection to a harsh analysis of what went wrong if I thought it were constructive. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
QUOTE(blissyu2 @ Mon 17th September 2007, 10:32pm)
Wow. Note this:
WP:R4Arbitrariness/Attack Sites/Workslop#User:Dtobias is placed on Prohibition & can't buy any more beer
The first ACTUAL Proposed Remedy is to sanction Dtobias, who wasn't actually involved.
The other proposed remedies are nonsense really.
WOW — He's really in Utopia (= Noplace) now …
Jonny
They've tossed DennyColt under the bus, officially... well, at least Possibly Musical Elinor has... from the Dan Tobias Is The Eighteenth Amendment section of the above comic opera...
What makes you think he's on the opposite side? It's perfectly possible to set up an account to act excessively on one side, in order to discredit it. Remember DennyColt. - ElinorD (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
...and yet, they continue to pursue this asinine policy that was mostly written by someone who they are now claiming is a counteragent?
Is there anyone who ISN'T getting a headache from this reality-bending?
QUOTE
What makes you think he's on the opposite side? It's perfectly possible to set up an account to act excessively on one side, in order to discredit it. Remember DennyColt. - ElinorD (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
...and yet, they continue to pursue this asinine policy that was mostly written by someone who they are now claiming is a counteragent?
Is there anyone who ISN'T getting a headache from this reality-bending?
The proposal to sanction me was posted by a now-blocked troll (who actually put in his user page a request to be blocked... honestly!), and is not being taken seriously even by the clique people who are out to get me.
QUOTE(Piperdown @ Mon 17th September 2007, 6:47pm)
Attack sites is all about the Gary.
If only more people realized just how true that is. I might go so far as to say that NONE of this would be happening at all, were it not for Gary Weiss. (And Chip Berlet too, of course.)
Think of all the time wasted!
For anyone who may have missed it, El C seems to be calling for Cyde's head.
exhausting the proletariat?
Something else sort of funny, try googling "attack site" or "attack sites" and see what comes up. It doesn't seem to be the same thing that some are attempting to ban. I dunno though, I'll let you connect the dots on that one.
On an unrelated note, while searching what WP pages have the term "attack site", I found a male Wikipedian living in the WR motherland of Iowa that seems to be a traitor to the great cause.
QUOTE(El C)
I'm surprised to find that, at this time, the workshop fails to even touch on Cyde's public spectacle. Only the evidence page accounts for his gross indiscretion and ''de facto'' provocational act. Throughout the "long-time community member" superlatives, Phil Sandifer fails to note the simple fact: had the question been posed semi / privately, a lot of needless anguish (and countless lost work hours, lest we forget) could have been spared. I am not going to formulate this into a remedy or finding of fact, but I truly hope that this incident will not simply be whitewashed by the Committee and that its members will rise above factionalism to deliver a just resolution. The breadth of this case notwithstanding, abusive acts that, not only link to but mirror the practices of attack sites need to be addressed. Not only in theory, but also in practice. Thx. [[User:El C|El_C]] 04:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
exhausting the proletariat?
Something else sort of funny, try googling "attack site" or "attack sites" and see what comes up. It doesn't seem to be the same thing that some are attempting to ban. I dunno though, I'll let you connect the dots on that one.
On an unrelated note, while searching what WP pages have the term "attack site", I found a male Wikipedian living in the WR motherland of Iowa that seems to be a traitor to the great cause.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.