Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JzG (talk | contribs) at 16:01, 20 October 2007 (→WR link purge tonight: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I am here for some very limited purposes, because some people have asked me to help in some specific cases. I am prepared to do this. I am not intending to be here much, at present. I have not yet decided whether to start using this account actively again. No, I don't want to talk about any of the foregoing, thanks, the people concerned know who they are and how to get hold of me. This is about some ongoing unresolved issues being discussed on one or more mailing lists, when that debate comes to fruition I will take a view. Guy (Help!) 12:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Good motion

Just wanted to drop a note to let you know that your motion on the ArbCom page was well thought out, exceptionally well reasoned and appears on its face to be carefully and thoughtfully considered. I'm extremely impressed. ⇒ SWATJester 14:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no provision for "motions" in ArbCom cases. Charles Matthews 18:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a request to clarify. Thus far you have clarified that you have complete contempt for my good faith effort to resolve a long-running issue that was always a prime motivation for both BADSITES and the attack sites arbitration. Guy (Help!) 18:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not unreasonable to request that you produce a query for clarification on the area of the page provided for that. If all it comes to is: "is there no finding of fact on WR?", the answer, as you can see, is that there isn't. With no finding of fact, there can be no specific remedy. Now, we have dealt with the case in question. The matter of policy is open, since the AC doesn't make policy. Charles Matthews 18:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I'm asking. As far as I can see, there is a prohibition on WR, because the behaviour that WordBomb / Bagley engages in on ASM< which resulted in ASM being banned, he also engages in on WR, which means that the exact same finding applies to WR, especially since there are multiple other instances of similar harassment. To me, it's perfectly clear. The problem is, that there are one or two people (some of whom are active on WR, but this is, perplexingly, not seen as a relevant conflict of interest) who will read it the other way. So: we need a clarification. And the clarification we need is that legitimate criticism does not include harassment, where sites engage in significant harassment, as per the finding, then they are not appropriate, and the issue of good-faith concerns over ability to highlight genuine abuse has other outlets which mean that removing such links need not have any negative impact on the project; also, WR being a harassment site, as it presently is, is not a permanent and unfixable issue. It can be fixed by reining in the harassers.

Alternatively you can continue to send mixed messages, or you can send the message that links to WR are welcome, in which case the problem of harassment - identified by several individuals - will continue unabated until the next blowup. Your call, I guess. Guy (Help!) 18:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

We have defined harassment, and we have used the word "substantially". It is, frankly, absurd to say that we send the message that links to WR are welcome. That site is a forum like thousands of others, not a reliable source. Anyone using links to WR as harassment will find out how welcome that is. Otherwise the point would be to ignore the site, not to put it on a list of public enemies. Charles Matthews 18:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you have done just that. And on that basis, I would feel entirely comfortable removing any new link to WR. But WR is not mentioned in the finding, despite being prominent in the Evidence section, so clarification would be helpful. We would not want another series of edit wars, after all. Guy (Help!) 18:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Just so. The focus of the case is defined, and it is not WR. Where would be the point in running around after any site where Bagley could get a toehold? We are clear on Bagley's site, ED and harassment by linking. Charles Matthews 18:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The focus in the case is sites which engage in harassment and outing. Which WR does. In fact the exact same individual whose actions are the primary focus of the case is using WR for the exact same purpose. This is not just a site where Bagley can get a toehold, it is a site which is a serial enabler of Bagleys great and small. Guy (Help!) 19:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Give me strength. The focus of the case is defined in the FoF. Why argue the toss on that? Charles Matthews 19:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. "AntiSocialMedia.net, a creation of the banned user WordBomb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), is part of an extended campaign of harassment directed at several users." And he's now carrying out the same campaign at WR. So we know what to do, but there will be kickback, because Dtobias (who is right now pretty much a SPA, dedicated to pretty much nothing but supporting links to WR) will fight back. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are a few mistakes that can be made here. Some of them are quite clearly dealt with in the case. I would suggest to everyone who intends to start warring about this again that they save time by looking at what is said. Charles Matthews 07:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed. Edit warring to reinsert links to a site containing significant harassment and outing, when you are connected wiht that site, is unlikely to have any good result. Guy (Help!) 10:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• Edit warring to remove links, after failing to get an ArbCom ruling or policy demanding such removal, is not a really good thing either. *Dan T.* 01:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

For good measure, I'll chime in here to remind you to not remove links appear to have been added in good faith. I think we can safely say it's okay to remove those links that were intentionally added for the purposes of harassment, but none of the links you removed today seem to fit that description. Remember to WP:AGF and please do not disrupt wikipedia to demonstrate a point again. --Alecmconroy 03:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Alecmconroy, for good measure, I'd like to take this opportunity to remind you to also WP:AGF and please do not disrupt wikipedia to demonstrate a point again....surely you should know that linking policies to a long established editor is ridiculous. Stop harassing those that are trying to make this website a better place.--MONGO 09:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit-warring? Where did I edit-war? I saw Dan Tobias edit-warring to re-insert links to a site of which he is an active contributor, and I saw some somewhat pointy reversions of my removal of selected links for considered and stated reasons, but I don't see any edit-warring on my part. It's all about the encyclopaedia, and making it a place where people can contribute to contentious topics. See the LaRouchites' latest kick at the can on WP:RFAR. It is time for the community to remember what we are here for - and facilitating harassment and campaigning by banned former editors is not what we are here for. Guy (Help!) 11:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Cypri

We may have another problem related to that issue, and articles that link there. Next time we're both on IRC, remind me, and I'll explain. DS 00:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you returned?

Just wondering. OrangeMarlin 01:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Pending JzG's answering the question himself, you might be interested in the note he put on the top of this page. Newyorkbrad 03:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh huh, I missed the strike through. That's subtle, but good :) So that means he's back. Hopefully, he kicks some butt of various POV-warriors. OrangeMarlin 04:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The text under the large print is also of relevance. Newyorkbrad 04:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

WR link purge tonight

Me, I'd say that was very, very POINTy. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. WR is unreliable...it's a blog that is dominated by banned wikipedia editors, and their goal is to harass our editors and this website.--MONGO 09:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you actually look to see where the link removal was from? Talk pages and the wikipedia criticism article. Reliability doesn't come into it. Viridae 09:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't you contribute to that website? COI.--MONGO 09:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't you and JzG claim to be harrassed by it? COI... Viridae 09:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, by that argument the article Misplaced Pages should never have been written, because everyone who contributes to it has a conflict of interest. Viridae 09:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think I have complained that they harass ME...in fact, I wish they would make ME their primary mission and at least leave everyone else alone. Your second comment doesn't make any sense.--MONGO 09:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No, not in any way at all. Not only was is not a purge (not many links at all, in fact), WP:POINT is doing something you don't want in order to make the point that something you do want should happen. I was very careful and assessed each link in context. I am going to continue to review these links in context and see if they are supportive of or damaging to the process of building an encyclopaedia. For example, links to WR in mainspace talk, suggestive that it may be a potential source, are inappropriate, especially if the topic is a contentious one. Some discussions on user talk do not pose a pressing problem. Alerting a user to a debate about them on WR, especially one of the older debates which were markedly more moderate than the current tone, may well not be a problem, especially if the user themself is content to keep the link. It's all about the encyclopaedia, and keeping the encyclopaedia safe for people to contribute, especially to contentious topics. And the same will apply to any other site that is credibly identified as containing significant harassment. We are being far too accommodating to those who attack and harass, and keep attacking and harassing after they are banned for it.

An example: one of the pages was a rather vitriolic essay by a banned user, which was distinctly personalised in respect of some current Wikipedians. If that individual made such comments on their Talk page, it would be blanked and locked. The individual concerned is well aware of the channels that exist for debating his position, he has posted to the mailing lists where his views have been extensively discussed, and he has also corresponded with the arbitrators. The end result is that the ban stands. There is no discernible difference between linking to this banned user's aggression on or off Misplaced Pages; in neither case does it advance the process of building an encyclopaedia.

I encourage anybody looking at links to off-wiki opinion posted in debate to consider exactly that question. Does the link show evidence of a sincere commitment to improve the encyclopaedia, or is it just sour grapes by someone who has tried and failed to promote the same sour grapes on Misplaced Pages? It beggars belief that people will go to such lengths to defend external links to material which would in many cases be utterly unacceptable if posted directly on Misplaced Pages. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yow. All you have to do to defend yourself against a WP:POINT accusation is to claim that you wanted to do the thing? There's a dandy defense with which I wasn't previously familiar. —Steve Summit (talk) 12:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yup. But that won't excuse any form of disruption. Disruption to make a point is a problem because it's disruption, not because it's making a point. Guy (Help!) 12:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, is Viridae a contributor to the troll site? --Tony Sidaway 12:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

That surprises you? El_C 12:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I have bever hidden that, my account there is in the same name as my account here. It may interest you to know that a range of wikipedians have an account there and contribute to a greater or lesser extent,including a member of the arbitration committee and Guy himself. I will say to you what I said to them when I first started participating, nothing I say there is anything I would not say on wikipedia, and I do not engage in any form of "outing" or harrasment. My participation there is usually in the form of debate about policies and administrative actions, but not about real life identity. I find the opinions there about wikipedia to be an interesting opposing view to the opinions of people who are directly involved with wikipedia, and there are some useful criticisms that come out of some of the debates there, which have helped me understand the perspective of some of the more vocal critics of wikipedia (if you can look past some of the more vitriolic rants). Let it also be known that I have never and will never use my admin tools as a "favour" for any user here or there unless it is a situation I happen to agree with (ie it is not actually a favour, but they have brought my attention to an issue I agree needs rectifying/needs tools - that applies to both wikipedia and wikipedia review). If you have a problem with my conduct there, you are welcome to create an account and discus it with me there, unless you believe my conduct there has led to me abusing my position as an administrator here (in which case discus it here). This all applies to WR a well as all other forums I may be involved in where my position as an administrator is known, now and into the future (at the moment I believe that count stands at just one other). Viridae 12:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you can tell me how many posts I have to Misplaced Pages Review. But you make a good point: one must look past the vitriolic rants to find anything approaching valid critique. The Misplaced Pages mailing list is open to banned users and offers critique without the need to look past vitriol the whole time. In any case, nobody's suggesting you can't read and post to WR, only that giving banned users a platform by proxy is counterproductive at best, and outright hostile at worst. Guy (Help!) 13:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

0 actually, though I could have sworn I had seen you post at some point. The mailing list is moderated, and frankly, I don't like them much. Viridae 13:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, Guy, removing links to WR as you have done is a pretty strong suggestion that people are not supposed to read WR. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a big difference between seeking to defend oneself, as some editors have, and actively participating in a site. If indeed it was me at all, which to be honest I can't remember. My view on WR is that some, at least, have aspirations for it to be a source of legitimate and balanced critique, but the whip hand right now is firmly with those whose main aim is to pursue their own agenda. Consider: WordBomb, Jonny Cache, Looch, Blissyu2, Herschelkrustofsky. Especially WordBomb. As soon as Mr. Brandt gets rid of these kooks and stops (himself) repeating as fact the same ludicrous conspiracy theorist harassment that WordBomb published on ASM, then we can have a nice chat about it, but until then links to WR are actively damaging to attempts to write an encyclopaedia which covers contentious topics. I will remove any link to offsite rants by banned editors, any link to offsite harassment of editors, and any link that repeats as fact material which is credibly identified as harassment. It is silly to suggest that removing a link to, say, one of banned User:Blissyu2's rants is preventing people from reading WR. It's preventing Blissyu2 from asserting his garbage despite a ban, but so is locking his talk page, and we have no problem with that. Guy (Help!) 13:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You're not making sense. Removing a link does nothing to prevent Blissyu2 from asserting his garbage. The hope is obviously that removing the link will mean that fewer people read it, and, more importantly, that fewer people will talk about it.

(But of course it doesn't necessarily work that way. For example, I had never heard of antisocialmedia until last night, when it popped up in ten of your edit summaries. Now I find myself wondering how many of that site's allegations about someone's abuses of Oversight might be true...) —Steve Summit (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Blissyu2 is banned. That means, the user has demonstrated that they are not capable of contributing to Misplaced Pages in a way that meets policy. Taking their assertions to another site doesn't change that: their input is simply unwelcome. You can read about it on their blog if you can find it, or on WR, but we have decided that this particular user's opinion, stated this particular user's way, is not helping to build an encyclopaedia. If we were a social networking site it might be different, but our discussions are in the end about content, and if someone is banned it means that their views on content are not welcome - usually because they inflame already heated disputes.

Antisocialmedia has been investigated by Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites. Bagley is engaged in attempting to build a meme. The meme has no provable basis in fact. More editors and admins than you would credit have investigated it, and the general view of the supposed "abuse" of oversight is that it is well below trivial. Again, Misplaced Pages is all about the encyclopaedia; the use of oversight does not impact on the present content of any article. Bagley is simply trying to harass and undermine an administrator who prevented him from abusing Misplaced Pages to promote his agenda. What he says has been heard, considered and dismissed as both stale and trivial. Most of it was old news even before he raised it. Of course he doesn't like that, he'll never like anything other than being allowed to pursue his holy crusade against those his boss seeks to blame for the dismal performance of his company's stock (which incidentally can be perfectly adequately explained by its consistent falure to show a profit, but that is by the by).

Now, you can choose to believe the deluded conspiracist rantings of a rebuffed POV-pusher, but I'd suggest that it's not an especially productive course. Guy (Help!) 16:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)