Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Howa0082 (talk | contribs) at 18:05, 16 May 2008 (→BLP?: I make funny.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:05, 16 May 2008 by Howa0082 (talk | contribs) (→BLP?: I make funny.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Encyclopedia Dramatica article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25Auto-archiving period: 7 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Websites: Computing

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

See latest DRV Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 8. Note the closer explicitly does not preclude relisting at AFD if needed.

Wow

Thats a HUGE amount of references for a mid-importance site Retro Agnostic (talk) 08:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That's because the page has had a huge amount of issues. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Several were not legit, and didn't even mention the site at all. I've removed those, as well as a few that fail WP:RS completely, some copyvio YouTube links, and one that was some private YouTube video. Someone may want to check the non-online ones to be sure they actually mention ED as well. Collectonian (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcRbsuwe4uw here's a new upload of the youtube video that was made private. you should be able to restore the citation now. also the two Brian Gray Toronto/Ontario paper references were removed with no sufficient justification. --Truthseeq (talk) 23:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

also the sentence in the stub about Bantown and Livejournal was cited with a washington post blog entry that directly linked to ED within the body of the article. someone, i believe, missed the link in some sort of oversight, and removed the source, and then the statement was removed for not having a citation to back it up. it should also be restored. --Truthseeq (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't AFD

I would strongly recommend not AFDing this page for at least a month as it would prove unduly divisive and disruptive, especially after such a strong consensus to recreate it. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

We need more articles to link to this

I'm sure we could start, somehow, by including links in the articles 4chan, Anonymous (group) and/or Project Chanology to here. But how should we do it without original research?--AnonymousUser12345 (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

We don't need more to link here. If relevant articles exist they will be linked as outside connections are documented. MBisanz 09:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've already tried but they keep getting reverted.--I LIVE IN A HAT (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe because there isn't consensus to link from those articles here. Just because its technically possible to link doesn't mean we must. MBisanz 15:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Many of the places people have been trying to add links are completely inappropriate, too - like List of encyclopedias by branch of knowledge‎; ED is not an encyclopedia by any serious definition of the word. krimpet✽ 15:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And looking at the account adding the links, I'm getting the feeling of a SPA-TROLL at work. MBisanz 15:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

B Class?

Erm, who rated this article as B class? Doesn't seem up to scratch, im my opinion. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 10:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I did.--I LIVE IN A HAT (talk) 10:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Still doesn't seem up to scratch to be a B class article. Lacks insufficient information, and is too short, to really be a B class article. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 11:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I rated it B as it had to go through the most rigourous review in Misplaced Pages history.--I LIVE IN A HAT (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but struggles do not a B-Class article make. Downgraded to start, which may be too generous as well. Howa0082 (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks more like a stub to me. Very good as stubs go but the amount of actual content is still very limited. Hut 8.5 16:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Using ED as a WP:SPS about itself

The article now reads, "The websites slogan is "In lulz we trust", a pun of In God We Trust.", and cites the ED main page. Personally I think this should be removed. We could write all we like about what ED says about itself, but due to the fact that it's a wiki, and a somewhat unstable one at that, I don't think we should use ED as a self-published source, because if we did so we could make the article a lot larger, but the quality would be vastly reduced.--AnonymousUser12345 (talk) 11:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Slogans are on nearly all wikis, and nothing is wrong with self-published sources as long as they are encyclopedic and relevant.--I LIVE IN A HAT (talk) 11:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

True, but wikis aren't reliable sources anyway, specifically because anyone can edit them - in theory, the slogan could change. If a site-owner or operator is quoted in a secondary source as confirming that slogan, then we can use that source, but - ignoring the link issue - the site itself can change and should not be considered a reliable source. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 14:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Part of the point of this website is that it often attempts humour by this use of patent falsehoods, exaggeration and sarcasm - and it extends this even to self-references. I don't think you can use it as a reliable source for anything, including itself. CIreland (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have commented out the slogan, in the absence of a reliable source to back it. No objection to re-adding it if such a source exists. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 15:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Re-added it with source.--I LIVE IN A HAT (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Template

Please change the template to include revenue and the url of the site. Editprotected {{Infobox Website |name = Encyclopedia Dramatica |logo = ] |screenshot = ] |caption = The main page of as of May 14, 2008. |url = http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Main_Page |commercial = Yes |type = ] ] |language = English |registration = Optional |owner = |author = |launch date = |current status = Active |revenue = Ad driven |slogan = In lulz we trust. |alexa = }}

The URL is blacklisted. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 12:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't seem to be protected at the moment. And doesn't the blacklist now have the capability of granting special exceptions to allow links to blacklisted sites from particular articles? (It would stir up a huge hornet's nest to allow it in this case, but consistency with other website articles would seem to argue for it. We even link to Stormfront (website) on its article, after all.) *Dan T.* (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There's the Spam-whitelist, but it doesn't seem to be possible to allow a URL to exist in just one article, sadly. --Conti|✉ 12:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Blogs as references

My addition of another blog to the list of two other major blogs that used ED as a reference was undone on the grounds that blogs can't be used as references (even for themselves?), but isn't that true of the other two as well? (Or maybe the Gothamist network qualifies as a "news site" rather than a "blog", but in that case it probably shouldn't be referred to as a blog in this article.) *Dan T.* (talk) 12:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Blogs are blogs. There are some exceptions, but our verifiability policy is rather strict on blogs. If unsure, take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 12:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Then shouldn't you be taking out the reference to AlterNet? (Personally, I have no problem with using a blog as a reference for the specific fact that ED was referenced in that blog, but I recognize that standards are being applied ultra-strictly in this article due to its controversial nature.) *Dan T.* (talk) 13:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

- Steve, per WP:SPS, some blogs can be used as references when appropriate. No comment on this specific case, but please get your policy right. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 13:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Erk, my bad. :S Feel free to undo my edit. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 13:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The point is that a blog is a website in a specific format. Most blogs are not reliable sources. But being in a blog format does not preclude a site from being reliable for a given claim. Just as most websites are not reliable sources does not mean no website can be used as a reliable source. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Infobox images

Two things:

Is the screenshot really necessary? We need to have as little fair-use content as possible. On the negative side, it's a bit offensive and the index page itself, I feel is not discussed critically enough.
Is the logo actually fair-use? There may be a case for {{PD-textlogo}} because it's just text in a serif font, and there's nothing special about the logo.

Thanks, Sceptre 14:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There can't be two fair-use images in an article this short. I suggest we get rid of the screenshot which is pretty useless anyway. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And it's gone. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The image is legit and in keeping with the standards for articles on websites. Misplaced Pages, Citizendium, Uncyclopedia, etc etc. Z00r (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so, but look at the lengths of those 3 articles. They're much longer than this article, and, as raised, in an article this short, 2 images seem to be unnecessary. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 15:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Gone again. Please see WP:NFCC#3a. I'm merely enforcing policy. I'll take this to IfD if needed. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

link to ed

Currently the arbitration will clarify on whether or not the url can be added to the article. I was made aware after my edit via irc, so until that clarification is made, we should probably not re add the link. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added a link to the Arbitration motion, in hidden comment. It's blatantly obvious, so anyone adding a URL link, well would be rather blatantly ignoring it, or not reading it. Perhaps ArbCom will overturn that decision, however I find it unlikely. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this a content/editorial decision by the Arbitration Committee? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

From the Arbitration Case.

“

3) Links to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking. Pass 5-0-1 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

”

And, additionally,

“

1) Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Misplaced Pages as may material imported from it. Pass 5-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

”

. I think that makes it rather clear, at least until they overturn their decision on these remedies. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this was anticipated when the remedy was made. It could be an inadvertent content decision.... they are however empowered to do so advertantly, I believe they will clarify shortly and the link will be permitted. They use common sense on these things. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Around here, what's common seems rarely sensible, and what's sensible not very common. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure, if they will allow a link. We will soon find out, I am sure. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It was upheld with an ED article in mind; see . Sceptre 17:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That "clarification" is far from definitive. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

An ungodly mess is more like it, with arbitrators going many different contradictory directions that led many of them to vote against the proposal being considered then, leaving everybody to guess whether this ended up meaning that links were flatly banned, were to be treated in accordance with policy like all other content, or to be considered again at such time the ED article appears (which some hoped would be when hell froze over, but apparently it's reached the freezing point now). *Dan T.* (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

But still, seven arbitrators out of nine opposed an exception to RFAR/MONGO r. 1 e. 1. for the article. The ban on links to ED applies to this article until AC rule otherwise. Sceptre 18:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, certainly. There's no reason not to wait for the clarification currently being requested. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The arbitrator comments included "If it is recreated then linking should follow the regular standards and it is always better avoiding exceptions." and "Manifestly, this is making policy" . At least those comments seemed to indicate that they were voting against a special exception because it was unnecessary; links were to be decided by normal editorial standards, not ArbCom fiat. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree, except that they did, in fact, specifically ban all links to this site by fiat, so I'd like an explicit indication that this is an issue for the community to decide at least, before putting it here. There's no emergency here. We can wait for the clarification requested. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, this is silly. Isn't our regular standard to link to websites about which we write? I'd add it myself if I didn't think it'd be removed. WODUP 18:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Its on the blacklist, Arbcom says no links to it, so we should try to evade with a disabled link. MBisanz 18:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the committee explicitly (or perhaps implicitly? - it's not clear) said a link could be included in this article in its Marcy 2008 request for clarification. Though I can't understand the outcome 100% it looks like a standard external link should be okay. Wikidemo (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Those votes were 1 arb supporting a link and 7 opposing, with 1 abstention. MBisanz 18:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, it's not really clear to me that they were opposing a link in this situation so much as they were opposed to declaring that there should or should not be a link. Which is odd, since they already declared that there shouldn't be one, previously. Regardless, this is why we should wait for further clarification. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The 7 opposes seemed to be all over the map about what their opposition actually meant, ranging from your position that it supported a link ban, through others saying that it meant that ArbCom shouldn't be making policy and normal editorial decisions should apply, as well as still other opinions to the effect that any decision was premature before the ED article existed. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I really think it's best to wait until ArbCom clarifies their position on the link to ED. It's unclear what their decision is, thats why there are Requests for Clarification. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 19:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that the arbcom clarification is hard to figure out. Plus, most of them seemed to be reaching the question whether citation links to source material in this article would be okay, not a routine external link to the main page. In voting on and rejecting the proposal some members seemed to assume there was a default that linking was okay for this article and that the proposal was for a restriction on those links; others seemed to assume the default was that no linking was permitted due to their earlier decision and the proposal was an exception to permit links in limited cases. Not sure if we ought to demand a further clarification from them or just do it. Is anyone actually objecting to the link in principle, or are those who are removing it simply doing it to honor the apparent outcome of the Arbcom decision?Wikidemo (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom is a dispute resolution body, not a dictator of policy. It can be safely ignored on this issue. Martinp23 19:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What I wish about the original MONGO ArbCom decision is that it be dead, buried, then dug up, chopped into little pieces, and flushed down the toilet. Unfortunately, this sane and reasonable outcome doesn't seem about to happen, so a clarification in favor of following normal link policy would be a reasonable second choice. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, we can't really ignore it because other users won't ingore it and will edit war to remove it, citing the rulings as support and why they're exempt from 3RR. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

To be fair I'd readily block anyone who did that. Martinp23 19:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom is a dispute resolution body, but they can impose any solution which will be considered binding. Don't confuse their refusal to enter into content/policy disputes with a restriction on them entering content/policy disputes - nothing in the arbitration policy precludes them from passing such rulings. Sceptre 19:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Their own precedent does though. Martinp23 19:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Why on earth is this discussion still ongoing? Of course it should be linked to, it's common sense, it isn't being linked to for the purpose of harrasment, it's an article about encyclopedia dramatica, people will want the URL, and we do i on all other articles about websites. This is what WP:IAR is all about. I can see absolutly no way anyone could justify removing the link, arbcom is irrelevant here, if any of you thought for yourselves for a moment you'd agree.--Phoenix -wiki 19:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The original ArbCom decision seems to have caused a lot more disputes than it has ever resolved. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I added it because it's the encyclopedic thing to do. I hope it stays (actually, I hope it's removed from th eblacklist and converted into a working link). WODUP 19:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, I tried adding the link and it's been blacklisted, so blocked by spam filter. Can't be added I'm afraid, unless an admin wants to.--Phoenix -wiki 19:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Great WODUP, that's great, leave it like that people, it's encyclopediodic.--Phoenix -wiki 19:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And I Sceptre removed again, lets wait for arbcom to say something on the matter. MBisanz 19:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I figured this would have happened much earlier in the day - the article is now fully protected. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 19:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, I tried to link, but was stopped by the filter. I tried... WODUP 19:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't see the advantage in doing something just because ArbCom once said something. Does removing the URL improve the article? Does adding it improve the article? Does keeping the URL do some kind of harm? -GTBacchus 19:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there is No Deadline, so delaying the insertion of a URL that is patently obvious from the article's context and any one of the multiple references provided is not of pressing concern. Clarification or no, there's no urgency. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree with everyone here. Adding the URL clearly helps the article but in a minor way, the way any WP:EL would - that's why we have a field for it in the infobox. But no urgency. It's funny that we're getting all dramatica ourselves here. Wikidemo (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Link to ED? No problem. For example Czech Misplaced Pages links to ED without any problem and nobody vandalize that external link. --Dezidor (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Just popped in to remind everyone that community has a guideline on this, see WP:BADLINKS. Just put the url in plain text instead of a hotlink seems to be its advice. -- Kendrick7 20:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I realize that that guideline says that it is sometimes a reasonable compromise, but I don't think WP:NPOV is something we should ever intentionally subvert. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Listen, guys, I think it would be to the article's advantage not to be fully protected right now. Can we get an agreement not to reinsert the external link for now so that we can reduce the protection level? -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it. WP:EL is policy. WP:BADSITES is a guideline. Both were determined by the community, and community trumps ArbCom so.. Martinp23 20:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

BADSITES isn't a guideline. Ooops. I was thinking about WP:LINKLOVE Martinp23 20:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Considering this page is now semi-protected due to IP vandalism, I'd prefer not to expose the article to sleeper socks. MBisanz 20:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It's actually fully protected. I think semi-protection would be prefereable. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"This page", as said by MBisanz, = the talk page here. Martinp23 22:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Advance warning

Just a quick warning that there is likely to be an influx of trolling after this comment was made on Uncyclopedia. I know the two wikis don't exactly hit it off, but it may still attract the idiots. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 18:42, May 14, 2008 (UTC)

vandalism

some guy deleted about half the sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.123.93.132 (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

They were links to unreliable sources such as blogs and sites which didn't even mention ED. Enforcing Misplaced Pages's content policies is not vandalism. Hut 8.5 19:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Plea for Harvard style

Collectionian made a good-faith reversion to the embedded-link style of reference rather than the standard Harvard-style that I prefer - mainly because embedded links in references make the source text completely unreadable. Plea to return to a standard and widely-used academic style of referencing? Peter Damian (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe both are permitted per WP:MoS, so the version first in the article is the one used. MBisanz 19:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The method of embedding URL's in the source text, which makes it unreadable, is not recommended, as far as I can see. Peter Damian (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I converted it from {{reflist}} to {{reflist|2}}. Looks neater, I think. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 19:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think they are all listed at Misplaced Pages:CITE#How_to_cite_sources as permissible.MBisanz 19:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict x2)That is purely wrong, and it is the most widely used method on Misplaced Pages, particularly in articles of this type. There is nothing wrong with the current style and Harvard style is wholly inappropriate and useless for this type of article. I undid the reflist|2 because it doesn't have enough to warrant it. When it has 20, then you can two column it.Collectonian (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I still haven't found any reference on the style manuals to embedded URLs. There is a recognised difference between putting the name of the work in the ref itself, and Harvard style, yes. But these two methods do not include actually embedding the URL in the text itself, which is barbaric. Peter Damian (talk) 19:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, no, it is not "barbaric" and it is perfectly fine. Hence the existance of the cite web template, and for in-line citations. There is nothing wrong with the citations being directly in the text, where they belong. I personally find shoving everything to the bottom and forcing people to hunt around to find stuff to be barbaric, ugly, and less than useless. If you really think it doesn't belong, why don't you go argue the dozens and dozens of featured articles using the same style as this article. This is not academia and you can't force those ugly Harvard styles on anyone. If consensus doesn't agree it belongs, we use the regular citation method. Oh, and the link MBisanz gives above supports it just fine, if you read of context.Collectonian (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

As a non-cite-dork user, I totally do not understand this issue, beyond Pete wants to use one type of citation, and Collectonian wants another. So that I don't have to go digging (because I am extremely lazy), can these differences be explained, to help further concensus? Howa0082 (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is the style Peter links , which is rarely to never used outside of academia topics. It shoves all the references and stuff to the bottom, then just puts (last name) in the text between the ref tags. So if you want to edit the source, or make a correction, you have to go hunt it down at the bottom of the page and try to match it. My method is the typical and standard method of having the source between the reference tags where it belongs. Collectonian (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Again NO! See C's talk page. It is the use of URLs in references that I object to, because then you have to write a whole paragraph through a briar thicket of URLs. Peter Damian (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, if we cite an online source as a reference for a particular piece of information (as we surely must, if the subject is a website), don't we have to provide the URL? UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 19:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And, as I said on my talk page, frankly you need to get over it. Its an article about a website. There is no sane reason to dump every last ref with a URL (which will be 90-99% of them) to the bottom just because YOU don't like seeing a URL while you're editing it. Collectonian (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Look I'm the person who rewrote that paragraph. As I commented on your talk page, you appear to be one of the many editors who edit one line at a time, without reading the whole thing. I rewrote the para. Why can't I provide the style of referencing I am comfortable with?? Peter Damian (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Your arrogant, and frankly wrong, presumption that I edit "one line at time" is just plain asinine, and mildly insulting, and has no place in this argument. As for why can't you provide the style you are comfortable with: because consensus doesn't agree with you, because the article had an established referencing style, and because your don't to make the other 99% of editors comfortable just for your sake. Collectonian (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict?!?!!!1) Personally, dude, I find it not-at-all difficult to sift through the inline style when I'm editing. And, if I understand this right, Harvard-style doesn't let you name a ref in the code, then just type <ref name=Reference/> to add another citation to that same reference? Howa0082 (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What I am objecting to

There is a complete confusion about what I am complaining about here. I have no particular beef about whether the reference, without URL, is located inside the 'ref' tags in the source text. It's when URLs are linked that I go mad. I cannot edit a whole paragraph into a single coherent thought when faced with this. Below is what you now see when you try to edit the article. Who can EDIT their way through, faced with that?

'''Encyclopedia Dramatica''' is a parody of internet encylopedias such as ], written on a ]<ref name="neva">{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/09/17/PKG6BKQQA41.DTL&type=printable |title=Sex and the City |work=] |publisher=] |date=2006-09-17 |accessdate-2008-05-14 |last=Neva |first=Chonin |pages=p.20 }}</ref><ref name="warrens">{{cite news |title=Privacy |work=Warren's Washington Internet Daily |date=2006-09-12}}</ref>, using apparently comprehensive referencing and linking, but in a satirical and often abusive style. Many of the articles are written in an ironic manner with the express purpose of upsetting those who take it seriously (an activity known on the Internet as ]). The content is wide-ranging, covering drama and gossip on other internet forums, Internet subculture, users of web services<ref name="Dee">{{cite web |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/magazine/01WIKIPEDIA-t.html?_r=2&pagewanted=5&oref=slogin |last=Dee |first=Jonathan |title=All the News That's Fit to Print Out |publisher=] |work=Magazine |date=2007-07-01 |pages=p. 5, 34}}</ref> and ] in a coarse, offensive and frequently obscene manner.<ref>{{cite web| url=http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=459249 |last=Davies |first=Shaun |title=Critics point finger at satirical website |work=National Nine News |date=2008-05-08}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://gawker.com/346385/what-the-hell-are-4chan-ed-something-awful-and-b?mail2=true |last=Douglas |first=Nick |title=What The Hell Are 4chan, ED, Something Awful, And 'b'? |work=] |date=2008-01-18}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=2 Do: Monday, December 26 |publisher=] |work=RedEye Edition |date=2005-12-16 |pages=p. 2}}</ref><ref name="northadams"/>

That is a standard wikipedia format for citing articles. Check any FA. MBisanz 19:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(EC) I don't know about my esteemed colleagues here, but I'll open the article itself in a tab and read it there, find what I want to edit, then hit ctrl-F in the edit window and find that text. Much simpler for big articles, and it bypasses all of the referencing. I'll also add that I'm a big fan of <ref name="something">, which cuts down a LOT of the clutter. The value of inline citations with URLs (to document WP:V) trumps ease of editing, in my mind. The alternative is to write the paragraph and then ref it. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 19:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(Conflict!) I dunno, man, if you can't hold onto the thought of the line you've been reading while you scan ahead to find the end of the reference, well, I don't know. But that seems a little strange for someone who insists upon academic standards to not be able to, like, remember stuff. Y'know? I swear to god, I'm not trying to flamebait you, it just seems silly to me. Howa0082 (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, is this what you want articles to look like, Peter? Because, if so, damn. That's crap. Nothing quite breaks up my ease of reading an article than seeing huge nonsense words floating around the text. Those inlines are SEXY. Howa0082 (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No I think you misunderstand. I use endnotes. But I keep the material in there at a minimum. Peter Damian (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if it might be easier to put the cite section (not just specific to here, but in general) in one list-format location, and then just drop refnames throughout the article? Would that be against MOS? I'm wondering based on this comment if that might be better for my articles... Lawrence Cohen § t/e 19:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Its possible, but most people don't find it generally to be easier. The coding is different. The section on Wikiepedia:Citing sources on In-line cites gives an example of it, but it isn't widely used from what I've seen, likely due to the way you have to do it code wise. Misplaced Pages:Citing sources/Further considerations#Wikilinks to full references has a fuller example. I wouldn't call it easier myself :P Collectonian (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Linking URLs may be common, but I have been editing Misplaced Pages since 2003, and it's a comparatively new phenomenon. Indeed, providing citations is only relatively recent. All I am saying is that if I make a major edit to an article, it is reasonable for me to choose the style of citation. Reasonableness is all I am asking. And for the record here is Collectonian's profile which does, as I say, consist mostly of articles about lists of things. This is not meant as disparaging, but a list approach easier accomodates the embedded URL approach than the whole-paragraph one. Peter Damian (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone and everyone know that the Kate tool is only useful if an editor doesn't work with a lot of articles. My actual editing history and my user page far better document my extensive work. So stop looking down your nose at me, particularly considering your history here. Collectonian (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? Peter Damian (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You came on with what seemed like a very aggressive revert, you tell me to 'get used to it' or whatever. I apologise if what I said seemed condescending. It was not meant that way: I meant, my style of editing requires going through large chunks of text at a time, and given I rewrote that paragraph, it was unreasonable of you to revert. Peter Damian (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Your last account was given an indef block, as is plainly noted on your user page. And, FYI, your link above is to YOUR profile, not mine, and just shows what a very limited editing scope you have. Just as you had on your old account. You edit almost entirely in academic topics, which this is not within the realm of at all. Your comfort with the ugly style preferred there has no relevance here at all, and thus far, not a single editor has supported your desire.Collectonian (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Your "apology" has no sincerity when you continue to insult my editing. And no, your rewriting does not mean you have free reign to redo the entire citation of the style without consensus. Collectonian (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Apologies here is yours. On who supports what, of course, you win on a show of hands. Peter Damian (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I must go now. Shall we try to be friends? I haven't reverted your revert, after all.Peter Damian (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I know where mine is, I have it clearly linked from my user page. And while I'm glad you didn't attempt to revert before the page was protected, I'd have to say no, sorry, but after all the insulting on my editing, friends isn't a word I think of while conversing with you at the moment. Collectonian (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh well. But there is this joke about Misplaced Pages and Pokemon and anime and all that real-world stuff, as you surely know. Farewell. Peter Damian (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, sorry, don't know it and don't particularly care. People want to be ignorant and make stupid jokes about stuff, that's on them. *shrug* My editing history really speaks for itself, despite your attempts to minimize and insult it, and your false claims that I mostly work on list stuff (where as the very history you point to shows clearly that I work in a wide range of areas, and on a relatively equal number of articles and lists). The fact that you claim the lists don't require "prose" only goes to show you didn't even look at them, just made some assumptions to devalue my editing. Don't know the Pokeman and Misplaced Pages joke, but since you do, I'm sure you also know what they say about making assumptions. In the future, I suggest you actually do real looking before trying to pigeonhole an editor's contributions and then dismiss them.Collectonian (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected the page because there seems to be edit warring over whether or not we can link to ED. This isn't going to be sorted with ArbCom clarification at Misplaced Pages:RFArb#Request for clarification: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MONGO, so it is likely that the good faith edit warring would continue. The article is in a stable state, so until the clarification comes, there's no urgent need for the page to be open to edit, but if an edit becomes apparent, please use the {{editprotected}} template. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It's protected, please no editing. The last thing we need is drama. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 20:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose people already know this, and I meant to mention this earlier, but the talk page has been semi-protected due to a recent vandal wave. Acalamari 21:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Vulgar?

I see we've called ED satirical, abusive, ironical, upsetting, trolling, coarse, offensive and obscene. Could we please call it vulgar too? Wikidemo (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Collectonian removed the word "vulgar" from the intro before protection occurred. I'd support its re-addition. MBisanz 20:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should be calling it anything... we should be citing what reliable sources call it. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No I changed 'vulgar' to 'coarse', which was what was meant. Peter Damian (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't remove it, Peter did. I just put back his rewrite, without the hideous citation redo. I personally suspect the language is still far from being NPOV, even with the sourcing, so suggestions on better phraseology would be good. Collectonian (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hardly NPOV is it? Martinp23 20:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If the negative in tone comments are from 3rd party RS, as in the NY Times calls this site "a piece of shit", we can say "The NY Times called this website a piece of shit". For simple descriptive material like that, as it's sourced, it's fine to call this shit site vulgar. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 20:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Lovely. Martinp23 20:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Usually you don't have to cite uncontroversial summary adjectives in an article lead if they're supported by the article. I think "vulgar" is a little less rude than to say "offensive" (which is a value judgment) and "obscene" (which is almost certainly technically incorrect). Not a big deal though. I don't think we are compelled to repeat every disparagement made by a notable person or publication. In fact, I don't think there is such a thing as a reliable source that something is a P.O.S. They don't mean that literally, they're just editorializing. And we don't run an editorial insult count on every single thing just because someone writes an editorial about it. Wikidemo (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"it's fine to call this shit site vulgar" "this shit site vulgar" "shit site" -> WP:OR Howa0082 (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, its a shock site, but when taking the moral high-ground 'vulgar', 'offensive', 'obscene' and 'rude' remain OR. Unless of course someone can cite someone else having said that. Ditto "using apparently comprehensive referencing and linking, but in a satirical and often abusive style.," and where the "apparently" only reinforces the OR-ishness. -- Fullstop (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "vulgar" is too judgmental, not compared to these other words. It just means it uses provocatively lewd language and discusses colorful subjects. Here is one citation for vulgar but just the Myspace article. They also use the word "blunt." I like that one, blunt. Wikidemo (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I like "coarse". If you've got a tv show where everyone says "fuck" and "shit" and "niggers", like The Sopranos, they'll throw a "coarse language" warning up on that on your average tv station. So I think coarse is a much more appropriate word that adequately describes the content. Vulgar and obscene are value judgements, and some people won't find it at all obscene, or find it vulgar. Coarse takes no sides on whether such language is good or bad. So, thusly, I nominate "coarse" at the Kingsmoot. Long live the coarse! Howa0082 (talk) 23:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think vulgar is more neutral than coarse. Coarse implies that something is rough, unfinished, low quality...it's also a euphemism. Vulgar is a proud word. Perhaps they can have a google fight. Aw, damn. "Coarse" won. Nevermind then. Wikidemo (talk) 01:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Every adjective represents -- by its very nature -- an evaluation of quality, of value. What "some people" think is not pertinent; either such qualification is cite-able or its not. Myspace is unfortunately not a good source, otherwise "blunt|... <whatever>" (as a direct quote) would be fine. -- Fullstop (talk) 01:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC) ps: I really don't understand the aversion to direct quotation for evaluative statements anyway.

Yes, and not just adjectives, nouns. But we don't cite every word indivdually here. In the lead section we're sometimes known to summarize... using toned down language to describe strong things is not necessarily accurate or neutral. Sometimes the denial and soft-pedaling itself becomes a POV issue. Perhaps we can look to how other messy sites like fuckedcompany, slashdot, etc., and articles about magazines like Vice. Wikidemo (talk) 04:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirects

Encyclopædiadramatica.org, Encyclopædiadramatica.com, Encyclopediadramatica.org and Encyclopaediadramatica should probably be protected, as well. Corvus cornix_talk 22:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll be bold and say they should be permanently protected at that. Collectonian (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected them for now, though if anyone objects, I can unprotect them, though I'm not sure what purpose having them unprotected would serve. Acalamari 22:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of sleeper trolls... apparently ED has a "slave name". Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And I've sent the redirects created by the now-banned troll that include the ED web address to WP:RFD. MBisanz 23:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Chebyshev is not a sleeper troll, he is the 3rd sock (or so) of User:Weierstrass, an active and knowledgable editor of mathematics articles who has a tendency to get riled up, act incivilly, and get banned. Z00r (talk) 03:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

There are several more redirects than the above. Corvus cornix_talk 01:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I protected all the ones I didn't nom for deletion. MBisanz 01:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

protection / new information

I don't understand how can I add new information to this article, since its protected, but I wanted to add the information about the stylization of the word Encyclopædia (see for example Pink (singer)). --Have a nice day. Running 01:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

List the content you want on this page, and add the term {{editprotected}} and an admin will come and review the submission. This process is necessary due to editwarring over the content of the page. MBisanz 01:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well then.. --Have a nice day. Running 01:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} please add (sometimes stylized as Encyclopædia Dramatica) to the beginning of this article.

I'm seeing no objections to this... anyone? UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 03:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Done I have made the requested change. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 03:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

External link required

Official Site external link should be added. This is standard for any article describing a website or organisation with one - there is no justification for treating this site any differently. Exxolon (talk) 01:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This is currently under discussion by the arbcom here. The link won't get readded until they decide something. Results shortly. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is beyond the Arbcom's remit. The Arbcom's primary responsibility is sanctioning users who damage the project, not formulating policy - that's down to the community. Asking the Arbcom to rule here is inappropiate and an abdication of responsibility by the wider community. Request reinstated. Exxolon (talk) 02:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, not happening. MBisanz 02:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The ArbCom's remit is whatever the community says it is. Corvus cornix_talk 02:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Its not going to happen untill the current ruling is clarified. There are admins willing to block those who blatantly ignore the ruling pre-clarification. I'm count myself lucky I Did not get warned/blocked for inserting the link. Its not going to happen right now. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I would happily insert the link myself if I was permitted to. I'm very disturbed by your assertion about certain admins - admins should not be willing to throw blocks around for good faith attempts to improve articles regardless of their personal feelings about the site. Exxolon (talk) 02:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Woah... I never said an admin would block for personal feeling, I said an admin would block for blatantly ignoring a ruling. I'm always willing to source my assertions. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I should've parsed your comment more carefully. In that instance I would say that a good faith attempt to improve an article should trump a quasi-legal 'ruling' and should not lead to to a block. Exxolon (talk) 02:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

An administrator doing that would be misusing administrative privileges. It is not clear at all that Arbcom has forbidden such a link, and in fact some strong arguments that the ruling permits it. A responsible admin would know that the actual meaning of the Arbcom ruling is unclear, not just its legitimacy. Any admin who uses blocks to favor one position or another is plainly using their privileges to prevail on one side of a legitimate dispute. Blocking for edit warring on the subject, however, is a different matter. Wikidemo (talk) 03:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please review Misplaced Pages:No_personal_attacks#External_links, linking to the mainpage of that site would be linking to harassment. MBisanz 02:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but if we have an article for ED, don't we, by definition, have to link to it? I mean, that's like saying 'Here's what ED is like, but we can't show you the place'.Half Shadow 02:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Concur. Not linking opens a can of worms whereby we link or not link to sites based on there attitude towards us. That's a slippery road - we are here to collate content from other sources in an encyclopedic manner and letting another groups opinion of us affect our decisions as to the inclusion or non-inclusion of any information is unacceptable. Exxolon (talk) 02:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Basically, the same we we have articles on child sexual abuse, and don't ahve pictures to show the act. MBisanz 02:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I don't really care one way or the other; I just think it's sort of odd that we have an article for the site, but no link to it. HalfShadow 02:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

While some external links may be permitted by the External link guidelines, they are in no way required, guaranteed or mandated by any Misplaced Pages policy whatsoever to be included.

Previous consensus, rulings, practice

"Users who link to webpages which attack or harass other users or to sites which regularly engage in such activity are responsible for their actions." See #Support of harassment
"A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Misplaced Pages participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Misplaced Pages pages under any circumstances." See #Outing sites as attack sites

ArbCom rulings

2) Any user, including an administrator using administrative powers, may remove or otherwise defeat attempts at harassment of a user. This includes harassment directed at the user themselves. (Pass 6-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC))

Links to attack site

3) Links to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking. (Pass 5-0-1 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC))

--Hu12 (talk) 02:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much required as it is just silly to refuse to link to it, when all other Web site articles that I know of include links, even to hateful sites like Stormfront. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

ED is not an attack site, and the link in this article is not used as such. If you took the time to actually look at the content there, there is a lot of criticism and parody of Misplaced Pages but it's also a general user-contributed humor site, much of it quite funny though in bad taste (about as bad of taste as a typical blue comedy routine). It's actually a legitimate site - 2,000-something Alexa ranking, big ad buys by Live Nation and other big companies. Most of its articles have nothing at all to do with Misplaced Pages. I think this is all just posturing over content. We (some of us) don't like the site because it antagonizes Misplaced Pages. Well, tough luck. There's no policy against that. Wikidemo (talk) 03:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

1. I agree that the link should be included. The sole justification for its omission it is that the website engages in behavior of which we disapprove. It simply isn't our place to bar the inclusion of links to websites of entities that we dislike.
Particularly disconcerting is that it's only because some of this behavior pertains to Misplaced Pages that this ban has been enacted. So basically, we're punishing them for wronging us. Meanwhile, we link to a Ku Klux Klan website from the relevant article (rightly so).
2. I also agree that the Arbitration Committee's place is to enforce policy, not to create it. Quite frankly, they overstepped their bounds.
3. Anyone who wants to find the site can do so easily, so omitting the link accomplishes nothing other than to create the appearance of spite and anxiety on our part, thereby handing Encyclopedia Dramatica ammunition to use against us.
4. This dispute is exactly what the ED people want. They love to cause disruption, so they're undoubtedly pleased to see us arguing about this. If we could just treat this like any other article, we'd spoil their fun. —David Levy 03:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

N Edit request declined. This matter is currently under ArbCom consideration at WP:RfAr, and the article is being discussed at WP:AfD. The present discussion may become redundant depending on the outcome of these discussions. Please re-issue this request only after the RfC and the AfD have been completed. Sandstein 21:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, the inclusion of this external link seems to be what the edit war that prompted the protection of this page was about, so there's also no consensus to make the requested edit. Please try to establish such a consensus before issuing an {{editprotected}} request. Sandstein 22:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Deadline

Why is there a rush to include this link. Why not wait patiently for ArbCom to clarify? I think we all agree on the inclusion, as a matter of content. Now I believe we should just give the elected folks a chance to clarify their own ruling, out of respect. The precedent is that we as a community respect and enforce the remedys, and if need be, we move for clarification. We have done so (sought clarification), now we wait. We ought not turn this issue into a fight or dispute with arbcom. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with a spirited discussion. The editors run Misplaced Pages, not Arbcom. No doubt they will read what we have to say before making up their minds. Wikidemo (talk) 03:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, eventualism is a good idea (other than with WP:BLP issues), and edit-warring is a bad idea. Hopefully if everybody calms down and acts reasonably, the just and sane outcome (i.e., my opinion! :-) ) will prevail in the long run. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps because I got caught up in an IP range block a while ago and unblocking was delayed as no-one wanted to undo a block made by an ArbCom member without their express permission. That kind of mentality, that the ArbCom are some kind of almighty gods we must kowtow to is an anathema to me. Exxolon (talk) 03:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Decision

This just in from the ArbCom Clarification request :-

"Arbitrator views and discussion

I'm fairly certain that this matter has already come up for clarification (albeit in a more hypothetical manner), and that we stated fairly clearly at the time that our prohibition on linking to ED was contingent on there not being a legitimate article on the site, and that the existence of such an article was a matter for the community to decide. Kirill 01:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- To clarify: as far as I'm concerned, at this point, the community can do whatever it wishes regarding the existence of an ED article and the presence of links to ED, whether within that article or elsewhere. Kirill 03:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)"

I move that the article be unprotected immediately and normal editing resumed. Exxolon (talk) 03:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Unprotecting the page and editing as normal seem right to me, but do others want to wait and hear the opinions of more arbitrators? WODUP 03:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer it stay protected pending a fuller view from the arbcom. MBisanz 03:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You know, I'd argue to have it be left protected for the short while. It's bound to attract so many harsh feelings, that perhaps not allowing edit wars to occur at all would be for the best right now. Put the weblink in, however. No reason not to, really. Howa0082 (talk) 03:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No, lets leave the weblink out per our harassment policy. The front page of that site does harass wikipedians. MBisanz 03:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

When the link isn't added for the purpose of harassing or intimidating a user (as would be a link that's to the site the article is on in accordance with normal style guidelines), it's not against that policy, and BADSITES is not policy. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't link to BADSITES, I linkde to a current WP policy on Harassment, and now I'm linking to a current WP guideline on Misplaced Pages:Linking_to_external_harassment, now take at look at the Misplaced Pages:Linking_to_external_harassment#Link_assessment_table, I'd say ED meets all the criteria to be excluded, and that is from a WP Guideline. MBisanz 03:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As I understand that policy, the harassment would be linking directly to an article on a certain admin for the purpose of humiliating them. Linking to ED's main page passes by that harassment policy so far, it's like throwing a pencil down a hallway. Howa0082 (talk) 03:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

From the cited guideline: "If a website is in itself notable enough to have its own article, it should be linked from that article." *Dan T.* (talk) 03:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:PROBLEMLINKS states:

sound editorial judgement should be applied to determine whether links are encyclopedic, and whether they're being included for encyclopedic reasons. Links that are included for unencyclopedic purposes should be removed.

In this article, the link is encyclopedic, and the motivation for including it is encyclopedic. Moreover, not including it would be a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED, both of which are policy, whereas WP:PROBLEMLINKS is simply a guideline. Z00r (talk) 04:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Link the article. We should be neutral here. As long as we are not linking to a specific piece of harassment. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

External links are in no way required, guaranteed or mandated by any Misplaced Pages policy whatsoever to be included.--Hu12 (talk) 04:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait? Does policy mandate us, or do we mandate policy? NonvocalScream (talk) 04:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The homepage is not harassment. There might be some if I click a few links, but everything on the fromt page looks okay. Additionally, if it were harassment, the method listed at Misplaced Pages:Linking to external harassment#In articles is as censored as it should be. WODUP 04:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

site. I'm sure arbcom was intentional on this wording --Hu12 (talk) 04:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If arbcom throws the decision of whether or not to have an external link on this article back to the community, citing previous arbcom decisions in order to trump community consensus doesn't make a lot of sense. Further, whatever guideline you cite, WP:NPOV trumps them all. -Chunky Rice (talk) 04:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV?...trump community consensus?... the abcom ruling was ED specific;

Links to ED

1) Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Misplaced Pages as may material imported from it.

Pass 5-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

--Hu12 (talk) 05:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow. just wow. You can't be serious.Z00r (talk) 05:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Fuckin' mindblowing isn't it..

Outing sites as attack sites

11) A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Misplaced Pages participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Misplaced Pages pages under any circumstances. (Pass 6-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC))

Encyclopedia Dramatica as an outing and attack site

16) Numerous pages of the Encyclopedia Dramatica website purport to disclose detailed information concerning the names, geographical locations, ISP's, and personal attributes of various Misplaced Pages administrators and editors. Any Wikipedian whose conduct assists the ED editors in compiling and publicizing such information has acted contrary to the best interests of the Misplaced Pages community.Pass 5-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

--Hu12 (talk) 05:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Erm, perhaps you missed my meaning. Everyone here is aware of the ArbCom decision. We are discussing whether it applies to this article, considering current events. Z00r (talk) 06:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, if the clarification of that case is that it's now up to the community whether or not to include a link (which seems likely), then that decision has been superceded. You can't cite to it as an authority. -Chunky Rice (talk) 05:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I had not seen that, so it would take a widespread community consensus that the Arbcom was wrong in that specific matter or the arbcom overruling itself formally (not just some arbs saying they are ok with it). MBisanz 05:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a RFAR novice, but clarification at Misplaced Pages:RFAR#Arbitrator views and discussion (once more arbs comment) would be formal, right? Again, not trying to be a smart ass, just want to be clear. WODUP 05:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If they act, Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Admin_enforcement_requested#Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration.2FMONGO will be amended like Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Admin_enforcement_requested#Case_amended_16:13.2C_22_February_2008_.28UTC.29 was in an unrelated case. MBisanz 11:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. So this means that we'd have to go back and redo this all as a request to amend a prior decision, not a request for clarification. <sarcasm>Beautiful.</sarcasm> WODUP 19:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

no. 3 is superseded by the later clarification, and probably a new one soon. #11 either makes no sense, or doesn't apply here, and #12 does not apply to a link to the main page or pages unconnected with the practice. It takes no "widespread" consensus to overcome any Arbcom decision because there is no decision to overcome. Either Arbcom will tell us they're prohibiting it, or they will tell us they are not taking a position. Or they will tell us something else - too early to speculate. Wikidemo (talk) 05:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I agree I don't understand the Misplaced Pages bureaucracy, but explain this to me. There is no official policy that link to ED shouldn't be included in article about ED. There is some ArbCom decision (I have to say I hear the word "ArbCom" for the first time) that ED links will be banned. Do we have to listen to this decision for some bureaucratic reasons or can't we just include the link? (possibly with some NSFW warning) --Have a nice day. Running 15:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please review the Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy. The committee is the final decision and the only part of the policy I see that permits something similar to not following an Arbcom ruling is:

Remedies and enforcement actions may be appealed to, and are subject to modification by, Jimbo Wales.

So unless Jimbo says we can include links, or the Arbcom formally reverses itself (see my links above), we do need to listen to them. MBisanz 15:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, ok. Sorry if it sounded rude. It's his site after all. Just.. still seems a little bureaucratic to me. Thanks for link. --Have a nice day. Running 16:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well its actually the Wikimedia Foundation's website, just that the English Misplaced Pages community has given him the title of Founder and the ability of a constitutional monarch to overturn Arbcom actions (although he's never done so thus far). MBisanz 16:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "formally reverse." It's pretty unusual for every arbitrator to weigh in on a clarification, particularly when they all agree. I'm happy to wait for some dissenting opinions, but if none appear after a reasonable amount of time, it's safe to assume that those who have responded speak for ArbCom as a whole. -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

To pull my quote from above, the way they would reverse themselves is:

If they act, Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Admin_enforcement_requested#Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration.2FMONGO will be amended like Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Admin_enforcement_requested#Case_amended_16:13.2C_22_February_2008_.28UTC.29 was in an unrelated case. MBisanz 11:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

So until they do that, the decree of no ED links stands. MBisanz 18:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I replied to you above, MSisanz, thanks. FT2 makes a decent point, though, about linking to it: that the link could be gamed. What does everyone think about adding the text encyclopediadramatica.com to the URL field of the infobox without linking to anything? I think this might be a good compromise and, AFAIK, it does not violate the ruling. WODUP 19:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

What practical difference would that make? That it would take someone a few seconds longer to reach the site? For that matter, what practical difference does it make to omit the URL entirely? People know how to use Google. —David Levy 20:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

...except, of course, for the contested claim that the ArbCom possesses the authority to issue such a decree. —David Levy 20:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Some people don't want to link to the site because the Arbitration Committee says not to. I think that on Misplaced Pages, we do something, or not, because it's purely malum in se, never solely because it's malum prohibitum (IAR, right?). The strongest argument that I've seen not to link to ED is that they could game the link, and it's a decent reason to pause and make sure they we're doing the right thing, but anything that they put up is their responsibility. If we link to them and they put something vile on their homepage, I don't think that visitors are going to condemn us, they'd know that ED was responsible for that content. I'm all for adding a working external link, but proposed the text URL as a compromise. We are an encyclopedia, and we should at least give the URL. We do on every other website article. WODUP 23:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

BLP?

I wasn't aware Encyclopedia Dramatica achieved sentience. Will it shortly take over the USA's nuclear weapons facilities and launch a strike against Russia, sending the Earth into a nuclear holocaust wherein the human survivors must fight the robotic soldiers of ~~SkyNet~~ ED, and send a man back in time to keep Dramatica from killing the mother of ~~John Connor~~ Jimbo Wales, but in reality this man becomes Jimbo's father, cementing the creation of Dramatica's most hated nemesis? Howa0082 (talk) 13:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that this is an article which deals with living people, therefore the WP:BLP policy must be maintained in editing the article. BLP says

This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages.

In this case the article discusses several living people who are related to ED, and given contentious nature of this article, BLP needs to be respected in dealing with those people. MBisanz 14:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I got to make a Terminator joke, so I'm satisfied. Howa0082 (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

yes, that did make me smile. MBisanz 18:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The only people who consider ED their nemesis are User:MONGO and User:Sceptre. Jimbo's so busy globe trotting I think he could care less. Neapolitan Sixth (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I would think that anyone vilified on ED would dislike it. --clpo13_(talk) 20:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

How come nobody ever vilifies me? I feel left out. :( Wikidemo (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that there is nobody else who considers ED their nemesis. Corvus cornix_talk 17:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the above statement for you, Corvus. ;) Howa0082 (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Why is the article even full-protected anyway? It makes it really hard for anyone who's not an admin to, you know, improve the article so it more clearly meets WP:WEB. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 19:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Extensive edit warring prior to protection. Use {{editprotected}} to add citations, content, etc. MBisanz 19:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think extensive overstates the case a bit. The URL was inserted once and removed once. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It's quite funny that there is "feel free to edit this article" both in AfD template at the top and stub template at the bottom :) --Have a nice day. Running 21:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the former text. The latter states that users "can help by expanding ," which can be accomplished by proposing changes on this talk page. —David Levy 21:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Requesting unprotection

In a word, don't. I just declined two more requests (yes, two requests were concurrently running at RFPP). There is no way that this article is going to be unprotected before the AFD ends, so please stop asking. Repeated requests are nothing more than an attempt at forum-shopping, which is prohibited by behavioral guidelines established at Canvassing. Horologium (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

For those keeping count, there have been five unprotection requests in the last 24 hours, which were declined by three different administrators. Horologium (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That does seem excessive. On the other hand, if we could simply get an agreement to not insert the link for now, I don't see why the article should be protected. As I noted above, there really wasn't even any significant edit warring before the article got locked down (1 edit, 1 revert). I certainly don't see what the AfD has to do with anything. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

There may be a hint in all this, that article protection may not be desired. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's never desired. It is, however, sometimes necessary. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, CR. I was trying to formulate a civil response that conveyed the same sentiment, but I think you said it best. Horologium (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Unident - That is asinine in the extreme. An article undergoing AFD should NOT be protected as the AFD process can often seriously improve an article. Forcing editors to jump through 'editprotected' hoops smacks of admins on a power trip. Exxolon (talk) 01:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any particular edits in mind, apart from the URL? UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 02:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I really, really didn't mean that to come off as snarky as it did. I'm serious in that I'm more than willing to make any uncontroversial edits you propose, barring objections from other editors. Do you have anything in mind? UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 02:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Normally, I might agree, but considering the outright insanity in the AfD, protection on this article I think is greatly needed. There is enough vandalism and foolishness going on there that doesn't need to be brought here. That said, so far, none of the keep votes that I saw provided any additional sources or information to add to the article, so I don't think its really hindering anything. Collectonian (talk) 02:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree (minus the indignation) that protection interferes with the AfD process and would render any decision to delete (which seems unlikely at this point) questionable as to legitimacy and staying power. Inasmuch as protection may be necessary, and came first, I think the AfD nomination coming in the midst of the ArbCom clarification request was a poor call that should have been speedily rejected. An AfD, arbcom case, and edit war at the same time, all in opposition to Misplaced Pages's coverage of this unruly detractor, really is forum shopping.Wikidemo (talk) 03:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well the same could be said of the DRV coming during the arbcom request I think. And even if it was deleted through this AfD and was unprotected, it would still go to DRV. MBisanz 04:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Categories:

Wow