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 project page was nominated for deletion on April 7, 2007. The result of the discussion was Speedy close. |
|
|||||
So here we are again. The lock on the page has expired, and the fate of this can be considered anew.
I am willing to accept the redirection if and when WP:NPA incorporates some version of this proposal. It's not at all clear that any such thing will happen; at this point it looks as though the discussion there is simply a continuation of the discussion here, and that there's a fair chance that it will also end in a lack of consensus. It has been discussed at length how the redirect creates the false impression that this proposal essentially passed. Therefore this proposal should go back to being tagged as rejected, for lack of consensus. It can point to the WP:NPA discussion, but that is all. Mangoe 15:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't let Elinor distract you - I'm still waiting to hear just who is supposed to be misled by a redirect, and what the harm is in that unlikely event. - GTBacchus( talk) 05:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Saying, "a rejected proposal should not redirect to a policy page," categorically like that reminds me of saying categorically that we should never link to any so-called "attack site". I think a case-by-case approach is better in both cases. In this case, some of us have been arguing that it's better to redirect, so let's talk about this case. How does the redirect hurt? - GTBacchus( talk) 13:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I note that nobody has established any credible story where a redirect leads to an actual bad consequence. I'm pretty sure nobody can come up with such a scenario.
The custom tag... I'm not necessarily opposed to that. I think the redirect is better, and I think the argument that the redirect implies anything to anybody is silly, but you're right that a custom tag is better than simply a rejected tag.
By the way, what about "historical" as opposed to "rejected"? Is that an option? - GTBacchus( talk) 21:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree with this proposed policy and I would like it to be permanently rejected. Removing direct links to attack pages it's ok, but removing generic links to sites that may contain somewhere attacks to wikipedians is unacceptable and should be considered ad a vandalism. So, either delete it, or make it a redirect, or at least let me remove that 'nutshell' box please. -- Twi light 14:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment has been fleshed out with some more comprehensive general restrictions, and specific exemptions. Please have a look. ← BenB4 06:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't Wikipedia policy pages be semi-protected? That's why I request this page to be semi-protected. -- 99.163.124.116 ( talk) 02:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
This page WP:Attack sites was established in 2007 and is not changed much since then. There is a contemporary discussion about a website called Kiwi Farms which may be an attack site, and could be regulated by a Wikipedia policy on attack sites if one existed. No such policy exists right now. See the discussion
The accusation against Kiwi Farms is that it is a user generated content site were random Internet people meet to coordinate harassment activities against others. Kiwi Farms is particularly accused of being the forum which organized harassment leading to the deaths of several people.
That discussion is a bit different from the 2007 intent of this proposed policy, which was to block attacks against Wikipedia editors. If we revived this policy, I think it would be more useful to discuss when to block access to sites when there is evidence that they coordinate harassment against anyone, Wikipedian or not.
If we are going to block sites based on a rationale of them being attack sites, then I think we should have a documented policy of how this works and a process for logging evidence and discussions which led to the decision of blocking. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
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 project page was nominated for deletion on April 7, 2007. The result of the discussion was Speedy close. |
|
|||||
So here we are again. The lock on the page has expired, and the fate of this can be considered anew.
I am willing to accept the redirection if and when WP:NPA incorporates some version of this proposal. It's not at all clear that any such thing will happen; at this point it looks as though the discussion there is simply a continuation of the discussion here, and that there's a fair chance that it will also end in a lack of consensus. It has been discussed at length how the redirect creates the false impression that this proposal essentially passed. Therefore this proposal should go back to being tagged as rejected, for lack of consensus. It can point to the WP:NPA discussion, but that is all. Mangoe 15:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't let Elinor distract you - I'm still waiting to hear just who is supposed to be misled by a redirect, and what the harm is in that unlikely event. - GTBacchus( talk) 05:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Saying, "a rejected proposal should not redirect to a policy page," categorically like that reminds me of saying categorically that we should never link to any so-called "attack site". I think a case-by-case approach is better in both cases. In this case, some of us have been arguing that it's better to redirect, so let's talk about this case. How does the redirect hurt? - GTBacchus( talk) 13:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I note that nobody has established any credible story where a redirect leads to an actual bad consequence. I'm pretty sure nobody can come up with such a scenario.
The custom tag... I'm not necessarily opposed to that. I think the redirect is better, and I think the argument that the redirect implies anything to anybody is silly, but you're right that a custom tag is better than simply a rejected tag.
By the way, what about "historical" as opposed to "rejected"? Is that an option? - GTBacchus( talk) 21:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree with this proposed policy and I would like it to be permanently rejected. Removing direct links to attack pages it's ok, but removing generic links to sites that may contain somewhere attacks to wikipedians is unacceptable and should be considered ad a vandalism. So, either delete it, or make it a redirect, or at least let me remove that 'nutshell' box please. -- Twi light 14:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment has been fleshed out with some more comprehensive general restrictions, and specific exemptions. Please have a look. ← BenB4 06:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't Wikipedia policy pages be semi-protected? That's why I request this page to be semi-protected. -- 99.163.124.116 ( talk) 02:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
This page WP:Attack sites was established in 2007 and is not changed much since then. There is a contemporary discussion about a website called Kiwi Farms which may be an attack site, and could be regulated by a Wikipedia policy on attack sites if one existed. No such policy exists right now. See the discussion
The accusation against Kiwi Farms is that it is a user generated content site were random Internet people meet to coordinate harassment activities against others. Kiwi Farms is particularly accused of being the forum which organized harassment leading to the deaths of several people.
That discussion is a bit different from the 2007 intent of this proposed policy, which was to block attacks against Wikipedia editors. If we revived this policy, I think it would be more useful to discuss when to block access to sites when there is evidence that they coordinate harassment against anyone, Wikipedian or not.
If we are going to block sites based on a rationale of them being attack sites, then I think we should have a documented policy of how this works and a process for logging evidence and discussions which led to the decision of blocking. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)