Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Gracenotes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit count

Contents

[edit] WP:100

With six days still to pass, I start to believe that this will go on WP:100 ;-) «Snowolf How can I help?» 22:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, fabulous. Majorly (talk | meet) 23:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
It's reached it now. :) Acalamari 18:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
You have an extremely odd definition of "fabulous". This is the must disgusting thing I have seen in nineteen months with this project – Gurch 15:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Closing in on WP:200 btw. Just 10 more support votes. with 6 hours or so left. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

201 supports. Evilclown93 20:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting

Gwern, I reverted your formatting changes, because it did something weird to the count. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opinions, opinions

First off, I see lots of opinion here. Several people opposed due to question number 4. While it is useful, as a question about his opinion on attack sites, it's still opinion, and he did limit it. Second off, he opposed removing ALL links from EVERYWHERE. If they're in good faith (which is perfectly possible), then it's okay. Gracenotes, please correct me if I misstated anything. ~EdBoy[c] 22:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal musings of an arrogant ex-Wikipedian

Wikipedia needs administrators with clue. Clue is an important and diminishing resource, and we need to treat it as a commodity with value. Gracenotes has demonstrated, on multiple occasions, that he has clue. He thinks for himself, which is something I value; he is not a sheep. He is polite and enquiring and, I believe, will continue to be an asset to a project that is appointing an increasing number of ineffective users to a position with an elevated standing.

Being an administrator is no big deal; assigning and removing the permission is very simple, and should be done liberally, to ensure we have enough clueful users to deal with the various irritating minutae that occur, and to do it in a manner which doesn't kick up a fuss over every little controversy. Similarly, when we encounter a user who is abusing the tools, we need only to revoke it. This pattern seems to work for all the other nine hundred odd wikis under the Wikimedia umbrella, plus countless hundreds of thousands of third party deployments of the MediaWiki software, and I see no reason the English Wikipedia should be different.

I'm not really interested in how many edits Gracenotes has made, or how many vandals he has reverted. I couldn't give a damn about his edit summary usage or his attendance record on the various deletion "discussions". What I care about is that every impression I get from this user's actions; every interaction I have with him...are positive. robchurch | talk 00:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly why people say RfA is broken. People oppose for unnecessary reasons, some of which have nothing to do with adminship. If he or she is qualified, then give him the tools. If he/she is not, then you have legitimate reasons to oppose. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
"Qualified" has to involve that the person has a certain degree of common sense. Leaving aside Gracenotes, and speaking in general terms only, I'm entitled to form an opinion that someone doesn't have enough common sense based on whatever criteria I choose. No one else has the right to say that my criteria are wrong, but that someone else's are correct. People vote and comment according to their own priorities, or their intuition, or their personal experience with that candidate. All those approaches are valid. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but sometimes people go overboard on their criteria. Apparently, I'm a tough adminship evaluator, yet I draw the limit somewhere. It's okay to oppose for problems with question answers, but when people oppose for other ridiculous criteria (hopefully, I won't have to divulge and name names) then it becomes pointless. I mean seriously, when you talk to admins who have a good upstanding record, and you hear them say "I don't think I could pass if I went up for an RfA now", then there clearly is a problem. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Nish...you're 100% right. (BTW-do you think you could pass now?) --R ParlateContribs@ (Red Sux!) 02:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that sometimes the reasons people give may not be the only reasons they have. We need to be very cautious about calling some reasons acceptable and others not. People form intuitions about other people, and they're entitled to act on them. All we can ask of people is that they vote and comment in good faith. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
R, just FYI I don't think you'll pass now. It's been too soon since the last RfA for most people's liking, and you've had 3 already. I'm afraid you'll have to wait quite a bit longer, they're a tough crowd. Majorly (talk | meet) 12:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Majorly, R was asking me if I could pass, not him :P. To answer your question, R, I think I could probably pass now, only because I don't think I have pissed many people off on Wikipedia. That's just my interpretation of my actions here, and I could be totally wrong. Nishkid64 (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Would you agree to recall then? Matthew 15:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm in Category:Administrators open to recall. If there's sufficient reason to think I haven't been doing my job properly, then I would willingly go for an RfA again. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm entitled to form an opinion that someone doesn't have enough common sense based on whatever criteria I choose. Absolutely. Couldn't agree more. I question, though, whether 60 other people are entitled to form an opinion based on whatever criteria you choose – Gurch 15:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Experience and character v. Ideology

While I totally respect other editors' opinions, I'd like to say that increasingly people on RFA emphasize too much on ideology rather than the person's intellectual integrity, experience, and dedication to the project. This can draw a parallel in the United States Supreme Court confirmation today where it becomes politicized. The Samuel Alito mess is one example, and same thing happened here to User:Danny. In the 1960s, even the ultra-conservative Senator Barry Goldwater voted "YES" to the confirmation of a staunch liberal African-American Thurgood Marshall, and that is the correct attitude. We cannot support/oppose an editor in RFA based on his ideology over editorial/administrative quality. WooyiTalk to me? 02:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If someone's "ideology" shows me that he doesn't care about attack victims, why would I want to give him access to our deleted records and other critical tools? Crum375 02:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
People have misinterpreted many of my comments. The best place to look for my ideology is in my contributions to this encyclopedia and real interactions with other users. GracenotesT § 02:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Experience and character are more important than ideology, during the 1980s, the older folks on Wikipedia knows how Robert Bork got rejected just because of his ideology, despite he was a legal genius. This shouldn't happen on Wikipedia. WooyiTalk to me? 02:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Gracenotes says that he supports linking to attack sites. That to me indicates that his priority is not the protection of his fellow editors who are being attacked, while that should be the top priority as an admin. We already had a case of an admin who volunteered to give confidential deleted information to an attack site - do we want a repeat? Crum375 02:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Who? WooyiTalk to me? 02:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Gracenotes says that he supports linking to attack sites. Gracenotes has never said any such thing at all. SchmuckyTheCat 07:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
More than just volunteered. We obviously have at least one admin who's been giving material to Wikitruth, and logging discussions from IRC for Wikitruth and ED. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
We also had an administrator who persistently reverted people who were trying discreetly to remove posts from my stalker (who is now, as far as I know, in police custody) which linked to the stalker's website with my personal contact details and his sexual fantasies about me, and protected the page even after he had been told of Jimbo's "block on sight, revert on sight" instruction, because he, at that stage, hadn't seen any evidence that the man was a stalker, and thought it was "a bit much" telling people what they could and couldn't have on their pages. Musical Linguist 07:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
So I comment that censors should actually understand why they're removing a specific link, and within hours this makes me ready to share Wikipedia's darkest secrets with the world? You can learn about my attitude towards other users in my contributions to their user talk pages. GracenotesT § 02:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The people who removed links to my stalker's website (which was taken down after he was arrested) did know what they were doing. It was the people who reverted them that didn't know exactly what they were doing. You don't need to be "ready to share Wikipedia's darkest secrets with the world" in order to be someone who shouldn't be trusted with admin tools. The administrators who restored my stalker's posts were not motivated by a wish to "ready to share Wikipedia's darkest secrets with the world"; they were motivated by a mentality that said that preventing "censorship" was more important that showing solidarity and sympathy and sensitivity to someone who had been outrageously violated. Musical Linguist 07:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
You tell us that you disagree with this statement from ArbCom, and believe that links to attack sites are permissible. That indicates that to you the effects of these links on the editors being attacked are not your top priority. I suspect that this was the case with the admin who offered to share confidential deleted records with the attack site. Crum375 03:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe we have a problem at our hands, but respectfully disagree with ArbCom that removing links to such sites is the best solution. I'm allowed to disagree, am I not? Building an encyclopedia is my top priority. If editors that contribute to the encyclopedia (that is, Wikipedians) are in danger, I will certainly try to help them (and, if I can, be a catalyst, rather than an one who escalates), but what is past is past, if not exceedingly regrettable and unfortunate. GracenotesT § 03:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
You say "[b]uilding an encyclopedia is my top priority" - if we don't maintain a safe and pleasant workplace for our volunteer workers, we won't have an encyclopedia. An admin's top priority has to be ensuring that environment for others. Crum375 04:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Building an encyclopedia is my top priority. Ensuring a safe environment can only be a means to that end. I don't see the problem here. GracenotesT § 13:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by "ideology." I don't like his answer to the question on attack sites. It did not leave me with a feeling of trust concerning his future actions on that subject. There was one other RfA involving attack sites, which I was not aware of and in which the person became administrator despite the misgivings of some. In the other RfA, the editor had acted as meatpuppet of a banned editor and his RfA went down. Totally not comparable.--Mantanmoreland 13:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Mantanmoreland (and others involved in this discussion), I'd like to ask your opinion of this diff, posted by you on a previous RFA. This post contains a link to one of the sites most often mentioned in the attack sites discussion, in a situation where the link provides salient evidence of off-wiki misconduct that might be important to !voters in the RFA. In your opinion, was this an appropriate message to post, or not? If it is now your opinion that the link in question was inappropriate, how would you have modified the post to exclude it and/or the naming of the site from which the material was quoted? JavaTenor 00:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
To add to that question, would you consider the link in that diff an attack link? daveh4h 00:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Please note that I don't want to be disruptive in this discussion, so if anyone finds my posting of that diff inappropriate, please alert me (via my talk page or my email) and I'll remove it immediately. JavaTenor 00:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
It certainly is an attack link, and I should not have added it. I was not aware of the MONGO decision when I posted it. That is mistake number 3343, give or take, that I have made since I got here. An administrator should remove it. I hesitate doing so only because it is an archived RfA discussion.--Mantanmoreland 00:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. In hindsight, how would you have reworded that message to avoid the link, while still retaining the (important) evidence presented? JavaTenor 00:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course Gracenotes is allowed to disagree. But we are not required to make Gracenotes an admin. We are allowed to disagree with Gracenotes's belief that people who post links to attack sites for some reason have more right to their edits than other people have to their personal, real-life privacy. Corvus cornix 18:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This attitude is exactly why the U.S. Supreme Court confirmation is becoming a politicized mess. As long as the candidate has enough expertise and integrity, We should not "Bork" him. WooyiTalk to me? 19:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Please provide evidence that Gracenotes has said that people who post links to attack sites for some reason have more right to their edits than other people have to their personal, real-life privacy, or remove this personal attack immediately. -- nae'blis 19:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Corvus, your statement saddens me because it is a misrepresentation of User:Gracenotes opinion on the matter. If you want to oppose because Gracenotes, in good faith, arrived at a different opinion than you, that is your choice. To attribute a malicious quality to Gracenotes opinion worries and saddens me.
(edit conflict) I don't feel Corvus' statement is a personal attack, I think a lot of people are opposing on this misrepresentation (or misunderstanding) in good faith. daveh4h 19:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Gracenotes said I oppose removing all links to all such sites in all contexts. Please explain how my understanding is a misunderstanding. Corvus cornix 19:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Quoting from someone without context is a bad practice. WooyiTalk to me? 19:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Sure (I'm not logged in at the moment, but this is nae'blis). I believe you and several other readers are misunderstanding the multiple "all"s in that statement. Gracenotes can correct me if I'm wrong, but this is a form if the double-negative problem: What GN is actually saying here is that not all links to all such sites should be removed in all contexts. In other words, there MAY be rare times when a link to the URL of an "attack site" has value; none of that should imply that Gracenotes supports linking directly to attacks, supporting stalkers, or eating babies. Does that make more sense now? (Gracenotes, please back me up/correct me here if I'm getting you wrong). -- nae'blis 19:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So I suppose...

...according to the reasoning of some of the people who have commented above, people participating in this RfA are, so far, voting 84 to 19 in favor of attacking, degrading, outing, and stalking other Wikipedians, and also killing puppies and bunnies, clubbing baby seals, accelerating global warming, and distributing kiddie porn. So I guess it's time to shut down Wikipedia, as a majority of Wikipedians are just plain evil. Or, perhaps, this interpretation is just plain loony, and the majority is taking a balanced, reasonable stance on the issue. *Dan T.* 03:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that very few of the people who support linking to attack sites, or who don't consider it an important issue, have ever been harassed, 'outed' or attacked. Crum375 03:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Outed, no, since I have always used my real name here and in other online sites and forums. Harrassed, and attacked, lots of times, but developing a thick skin is a good idea when you participate in online discussion of controversial things. *Dan T.* 03:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
What if you are a female and you have various creeps and wackos stalking you, and relying on the attack sites to get closer? Do you have any compassion for others, whose skin may not be as thick as yours? Crum375 03:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
...and your stalkers are so inept and clueless that they can't find any of those "helpful" attack sites themselves unless we help them out by giving them links to them, in the form of some link on a completely unrelated subject in an obscure talk page somewhere that happens to go to a page that, if you follow a link to its site's main menu and another link to a different subforum of it and another link to an old thread there, they might manage to find the crucial information needed to stalk you effectively? I don't know how fearful that sort of stalker is... maybe more pitiable than anything. *Dan T.* 03:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Stalkers are not always rocket scientists - otherwise they'd all be working for NASA instead of stalking. Also, to an attack victim, every link counts like another attack. If the link is posted in Wikipedia itself, it hurts even more, because it is being done by fellow editors. It is a classic example of workplace harassment. Crum375 03:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
It's a question of not increasing the readership, Dan, and not kicking people who've been attacked in the face by giving oxygen to the attackers. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

(restore indent) Not to get too involved in this, but because some people don't support a certain interpretation of the issue does not mean they "support linking to attack sites." it is not as one-sided as that. I don't think every "victim" approaches "being stalked" the same way. I, for one, have been pushing a pragmatic guideline for handling personal information issues, but so far no substantial support from people concerned about "attack sites," and I am rather perplexed as to why this is... it seems there has to be an audacious controversy to get people riled up before they support anything.—ACADEMY LEADER FOCUS! 03:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, as Crum375 correctly recognised, Gracenotes could and should have laid emphasis on any personal, empathic efforts to try and understand the victims' situations and perspectives. Of course they are very much afraid of policy allowing links to any sites that continue to decipher their RL names and addresses for purposes that can only be sinister. If anyone simply wants to privately communicate with any WP user, they know where to go, so there's no excuse for outing and even attempts.
We who have never been targeted by stalkers are obviously having a (more or less) hard time putting ourselves into the victims' position. Which is not a priori our fault or mistake, but it's up to us to at least try and do so and therefore carefully choose our words regarding this very delicate issue, so as not to offend anyone unnecessarily.
That's not to say however, that I endorse opposing users for the fact that they take a different stance on the attack sites issue, but I can relate to someone who does so for a lack of effort regarding empathy. —AldeBaer 06:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the "personal, empathetic" approach is impossible, not to say completely delusional, if anyone thinks "empathizing" with self-declared "victims" is any path to greater security on WP. Pretending or acting as if there were a personal bond of some sort between regular users on WP is the kind of thing that allows for stalking in the first place... by facilitating the public sharing of private information. typing some keys claiming you "empathize" with someone you don't know is not a methodology, is not a tactical or strategic response to stalking or any other personal danger someone may have gotten into as a result of being too "open" on WP.—ACADEMY LEADER FOCUS! 07:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Feelings of being hurt are not rational and they don't need to be. Do you honestly want to "culpritize" a crime victim? Even if they "left the door unlocked", being assaulted is not their fault. To invoke a crude but legitimate example: It's like saying that a rape victim is guilty for "seducing the rapist by wearing a mini-skirt". Well, maybe it's not a good idea to wear the proverbial mini-skirt on WP, but I don't blame the people who did. They fell victim to their idealistic approach, the open-minded and innocent notion that we live in a society where everyone is as well-intended as oneself. Well, obviously that's a bit delusional, and here's a perfect explanation for the bitter response the victims appear to be giving: They have been hurt and are the targets of continued efforts to that very end, and now there's an understandable backlash. I think they have learned their lesson, now we should learn ours. —AldeBaer 08:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't discount that... but making "empathy with victims" the basis of policy is "not rational." Notions of community based on such principles are unrealistic. (See Jeremy Bentham, Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation [1] Run a search on "community." Also, Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities is a very interesting examination of the invention of nationalism in this context.) It's not that I lack empathy, it's that feelings of "empathy" are delusional in an on-line context.—ACADEMY LEADER FOCUS! 19:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Empathy's the basis of pretty much all social policy and legislation. We have laws against murder because we imagine that we wouldn't want to be victims of it. Read Rawls. What does Bentham say that's relevant? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

(restore indent, r to Slim Virgin) Re: Bentham, I was mainly thinking of his definition of community:

The community is a fictitious body, composed of the individual persons who are considered as constituting as it were its members. The interest of the community then is, what is it?—the sum of the interests of the several members who compose it.

This is just my interpretation, but I think its a sane idea to treat extended notions of "community," such as Anderson elaborates on in "Imagined Communities," as fictitious. I disagree with your assessment of "empathy," as I think laws were developed to prevent "angry mobs" from acting on emotions and taking justice into their own hands. Codified law, to my understanding, is not anywhere an empathetic institution.

This is not to say that real world personal security issues derived from user-generated media are themselves fictitious, but that, in the manner I've been proposing, they can be handled in ways that don't compound upon the initial problem and directly lead to further attention to both a) the attacker(s) and b) the victim(s), which is what the "no links to attack sites" policy proposal does. Even if there wasn't a controversy over it, trolls and whatnot blocked per NPA would be getting clued that there are "attack sites" out there.

Benthan and Anderson's ideas re: "community" make online interactions "saner" for me, to some extent. "Empathy" may be felt but in this environment it's probably altogether less verifiable than someone's Ph.D claims... and even if authentic, it's still not useful. Acting with sensitivity and compassion is fine and all, but claiming "empathy" more or less presumes identification with another's emotions, which is a lot to presume, esp. in an entirely self-disclosed environment that relies on trust to begin with. I can't do that, and I can't agree that "empathy" with anyone's highly individual reaction to a specific situation could be or should be taken as the basis of policy addressing similar situations.

In this case, I strongly prefer a model of triage, wherein once an attack has occurred, whatever evidence of it on WP is promptly oversighted, but there's not much else that can be done once "the horses have left the barn," so after the notes of "empathy" have been exchanged the focus should be on censuring or strongly cautioning against the posting of any personally identifiable information on WP in the first place. This wouldn't help those who already have problems, but other than "removing links to off-site attacks" there is nothing that can realistically be done for them within the WP system anyway, outside of a real-world legal system, so the focus should be on creating a culture that prevents the exchange of information that allows attacks to occur, not on "cleaning up the evidence" after the fact.

I'll look into Rawls, I haven't read him. Thanks for the opportunity to vent.—ACADEMY LEADER FOCUS! 08:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Very nice points Academy Leader. Since we seem to have gotten on to the topic of laws and justice, it may be of note to point out that laws/punishments/sanctions are not usually delivered by victims. A victim would have to be highly objective, logical, and dare I say emotionless to impose a punishment that "fits the crime". Putting myself in the victims' shoes is very difficult because I have no idea how I would react; however, I could definitely see myself advocating blanket bans. Actually, I would probably give into the harassment and disappear. As a victim I would want my opinion consulted, but there is no way I could prescribe a just punishment or even an effective preventive plan. I would hope that my opinion on any such punishment or plan would be highly valued. Objectively I can say that extremes usually do not hold the answer. The extreme of blanket bans will have unintended consequences and the extreme of allowing attack links is just plain bad. Where the middle path is probably the best approach. Apologies to Gracenotes for my actions in hijacking this RfA a little bit more. daveh4h 09:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hmm

This is one of those troubling discussions in which people I respect deeply are making what seem like very strange statements and leaps of logic. The discussion is fairly complex, though, so perhaps I'm just missing some things. Here is how it seems to me (and, I think, to others):

1. Neither Gracenotes nor any other party here support linking to pages containing personal attacks or personal information about Wikipedians.
1a. Presumably this also applies to pages/sites containing clear or direct links to such pages. (I don't think this was discussed as such).
2. All parties here support the removal of such links whenever they are found on Wikipedia.
3. The matter of dispute is whether this removal should be implemented through the automatic blacklisting of sites hosting such information, potentially including portions of those sites which do not link or refer in any way to the personal attack/information, or whether judgment must be used in each case.

Is that basically correct? If so, this really seems like a matter about which reasonable people can disagree. I find it difficult to sympathize with the "it's OK to disagree about policies except for this one" approach... so I'd like to think that I'm missing something. -- Visviva 12:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I think the issue (on this attack sites thing) is whether one trusts Gracenotes to approach the issue properly. Based on his mealymouthed answer to the relevant question, I don't. It's not a referendum on attack sites. --Mantanmoreland 13:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
For values of "approach the issue properly" that equal "agree with Mantamoreland on the issue"? *Dan T.* 13:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, yes. If I liked his answer, I'd be voting for him. Didn't I just say that?--Mantanmoreland 14:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The first sentence of the Mantanmoreland's response seems to sum it up. From what I see, it appears the issue is whether we can trust him as an administrator in handling this matter to the community's liking. The !votes on the RfA have mostly concerned the general public's disapproval of Gracenotes' method of handling such situation. Nishkid64 (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, by a (currently) 92 to 23 margin, they seem to express the community's either supporting, or not finding to be a big deal, his position and approach on this issue, or at least finding other issues to take precedence over it in determining his suitability as an admin. *Dan T.* 13:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
And, since an attempt to get further discussion on the issue on the Village Pump failed to bring even a single response, a possible conclusion is that most of the community really doesn't give a dern one way or the other on this issue. *Dan T.* 14:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, take into account that much of the opposition came after this RfA was already riding at nearly unanimous support. Most of the opposition has come in the last day or two and I think there's been a near 50-50 split in the support and oppose votes during this time. Some people don't think Q4 is a big deal, while some others think it is. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I guess I just don't see the "mealymouthedness" here; the answer to Q4 seems rather well-thought-out and nuanced to me, and also expresses quite clearly the nominee's intention to deal with these links in the way that we all agree is appropriate (i.e., by removing them). So I'm still at a loss to understand the opposition, but I can at least appreciate that it, like my support, arises from careful thought. -- Visviva 16:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
By removing them? Not necessarily. He said, "I oppose removing all links to all such sites in all contexts, especially if such removals interfere with the good faith development of Wikipedia (if rules make you nervous or depressed...)" That's too large a loophole for my taste.--Mantanmoreland 16:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
But here we seem to definitely be on point #3 above -- the question is not whether to include links which point directly (or even indirectly) to personal attacks, but whether to impose a blanket ban on all links to a site that includes a personal attack. This seems to boil down to a practical question: How does Wikipedia best address the threat posed by these sites, while neither compromising its integrity as an encyclopedia nor permitting unacceptable threats to its members? When it comes to practical questions of this nature, it seems to me, we need diverse points of view at all levels, if we as a community are to address problems and threats in an optimal way. -- Visviva 17:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
To your original question/point, Visviva, there are those who believe invoking WP:IAR would not be necessary if the potential of acting outside the general consensus (that attacks should not be linked to) were made part of the policy (i.e. in exceptional cases it is permissable to link to a site which hosts attack content). Thus any ensuing discussion would be if any case is exceptional, and not whether IAR was correctly applied. Since IAR is a fact of Wikilife then any policy that is so defined that it may cause its (IAR) invocation for the greater good is flawed (although not fatally). It has to be said that all parties (in my experience) are sincere in wanting what is good for WP.LessHeard vanU 22:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
If everyone here were acting in good faith, there'd be no problem. I strongly support the removal of these links wherever and whenever, but even I don't go around looking for them; I only remove if I happen to see one. No sensible admin is going to act fanatically. But the problem is that there are morons around who are stirring it, and some of them were behind the BADSITES dispute. Given that context, I would hope that admins would distance themselves from the arguments in favor of ever linking to those sites, because it feels as though you're pushing a principle ahead of common sense and sensitivity, and in so doing playing right into the hands of the stirrers. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NOT

Wikipedia is not censored for minors, or workplaces, or the Chinese government. Wikipedia links to racist hate sites when there's a reason to do so. So why is a rigid censorship policy suddenly considered desirable when the protection of the tender sensibilities of other Wikipedians is concerned? *Dan T.* 17:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not the protection of tender sensibilities that's the issue, Dan. Speaking only about myself, one of the sites concerned has published material about me that could get me killed in certain parts of the world, and retains it despite being sent takedown notices. Similarly dangerous and unpleasant material has been posted about others too. That kind of material goes way beyond what anyone could regard as legitimate criticism, and no one has shown a single reason that an encyclopedia would need to link to any of these sites. That's the main point here — this is an encyclopedia. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the counter is that while there may be no encyclopedic reason to link that, if people are discussing an attack site in regards to policy, it may be very helpful to link it so people can make up their own minds instead of relying on hearsay over what is or is not an attack site. If there's a rule "no attack site may ever be linked, period." you can't have an intelligent discussion about whether or not something is an attack site. —dgiestc 20:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Anyone who cannot support this simple principle, and supports links to actual attacks, thereby promoting the attacks and increasing the effect on their victims, should not be an admin here. When specifics are needed for enforcement, a quiet email with the link on a need-to-know basis is more than sufficient. To publish the information publicly, or link to it, while 'discussing' it, is like blowing up a bomb in a busy place to see if it's not a dud. Crum375 21:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Hrm, hadn't seen that arbcom, and your workaround makes sense. —dgiestc 21:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Crum375, for admins, we need skills, not views, get it? WooyiTalk to me? 21:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Wooyi, for admins we need sensitivity and common sense. 'Skills' are not so critical. Crum375 21:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Skills can be learned, whereas people tend to have the other two or not. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I have not supported links to actual attacks. Common sense comes into play when deciding to remove any link, not just those to well known criticism sites. I agree with Crum375 about the quiet email, but that's only one case. In most imaginable cases, the text should be rephrased, but having a blanket rule strikes me as contrary to common sense and against sensitivity to context. I do not support giving away private information (unless there has been extensive abuse of that privacy; this is reflected in the WMF's privacy policy), as explained in my answer to question five. People read these words from me and start thinking the worst about my judgment. GracenotesT § 22:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
For me, it's contrary to common sense to fight a blanket rule because of some unforeseeable circumstance where the rule might not be the best way to proceed. I don't think the worst of you; I believe only that a more rigorous application of common sense would tell you that there's no need to link to these sites, and that exceptions to that rule are extremely unlikely. I also believe that if these attacks had been directed against you, you'd see that. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I understand what you mean. Well, in crude summary, the only difference between my approach and yours is ideology towards hypothetical examples. Perhaps it's a waste of time to develop a systematic way of dealing with hypothetical links to attack pages: just do what makes sense to protect the project's contributors, and make it better in the long run. Whether you can trust me to do that is a slightly different issue issue, one hopefully based upon my previous interactions with other users, and one upon which my adminship partially depends (although, as an admin, I would mostly be doing technical work, cleaning up vandalism, and clearing tedious backlogs). GracenotesT § 00:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't have expected this, but WP actually has a pretty decent article on Ideology, which correctly positions that concept as the basis for "common sense." Appeals to "common sense" are typically deployed in rhetoric to support or effect particular ideological objectives, whether these are achieved by means of persuasion or coercion.—ACADEMY LEADER FOCUS! 06:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
In reply to SlimVirgin above, and without presuming to voice Gracenotes's opinion on this matter, I don't believe that Gracenotes is actively fighting that blanket rule. He doesn't quite agree with it, but he certainly doesn't agree with the opposite, nor does he propagate not following the blanket rule: he follows consensus. In fact in almost all imaginable cases his course of action, according to his words, will be the same as if he does subscribe to the blanket rule. Phaunt 11:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Phaunt, for me the main issue is that the people who think it might sometimes be okay to link to these sites are people who have not been attacked by them.
I know that I'd oppose linking to these sites whether or not I'd been a target, and I want as admins people who can think themselves into that position. I want as admins people who understand that even having this conversation is upsetting for the targets of these sites, because it's a horrible feeling to have to try to persuade someone that these sites are incredibly harmful, when it should be obvious. It's that lack of empathy I find worrying because it signals immaturity.
Had it been Gracenotes's mother who lost her health because of insane phone calls from one of these banned lunatics, and not someone else's — had it been Gracenotes who was having material published about him that could get him killed in certain countries, and not some other editor — then it would be obvious to him that Wikipedia shouldn't do anything to increase the readership of these sites. If it would be obvious to him if he were in those situations, then it should be obvious to him even when he is not in them. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
If not empathy (as you pointed out), I do feel sympathy for what sounds like a terrible ordeal. Adding links to pages which kill the privacy of Wikipedians is as unacceptable as the pages themselves. On the a pragmatic level, removing links to pages which merely criticize Wikipedians (about content) requires caution. Actively and blatantly removing some links can give the sites more oxygen than silently keeping said links, possibly causing further attacks and more privacy ruined. Once again, this is only pragmatic, and there is still the "human", empathetic aspect to consider. Things can get murky there. GracenotesT § 18:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
All right, let me see if I can clear up my "misunderstanding" about where you stand. Are you now saying that we should give in to the attack sites and let them have links here, so that they won't be mean to us and keep attacking us? Corvus cornix 19:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, if we were pragmatic, cold, heartless, logical beings. Which, it turns out, I'm not. I'd rather be a straw man than a tin one, but then again, I'd prefer to be neither. GracenotesT § 19:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

(restore indent, r to Corvus) Unless I am misinterpreting WP:NOT# Wikipedia is not a battleground no one is "giving in" or "surrendering" by not supporting an absolutist, blanket policy against "attack sites." To my understanding, the entire point of not having a policy, of allowing links to be evaluated on the basis of content linked to, as they were previously, was to avoid blow-ups like this. Adopting a policy of "eliminating links" is not "a path to victory," but will ensure "defeat" in the sense that it will be one more item that works towards WP's embarrassment by making the administration look self-censoring. Prior to this debacle, there was no relationship between our linking to them and whatever their collective attitude was towards Wikipedia or Wikipedians, however negative. Now that there seems to be one, the strategy should not be to "set this controversy in stone" so to speak, and perpetuate it eternally, but to eliminate it by allowing review of such links when and where they pop up. This is not "giving-in" this is flexibility and sensitivity as a strategic response to context-driven situations. If appropriate: delete, if not: keep. That is the approach I think G is articulating or at least tacitly supports.—ACADEMY LEADER FOCUS! 22:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur. I do not believe that there is an editor or admin who, although against an absolutist position, feels the necessity to be able link to attack material directly and only holds for the potential for WP to link to a host site in exceptional circumstances. Rather than "give in" to those places, these editors want only to use what is useful (even if that is a very remote likelihood) and ignore the rest, thus emphasising the lack of credibility of the controversial content. LessHeard vanU 22:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To move from hypothetical cases to an actual one...

In this recent diff, User:MONGO "munged" a link to an "anti-Wikipedia" forum thread, citing the attack sites policy. This link was being used by the subject of an RfC to present evidence he considered relevant to it. The thread in question was specifically critical of MONGO, but didn't do anything along the lines of "outing" him or uncovering personal information about him; it merely made an accusation about his on and off-wiki behavior (whether this was true or not I can't say, lacking further information). Was this link-munging proper or not? Does it illustrate a good or bad use of the attack sites policy? Discuss. *Dan T.* 11:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

2nd example: In the history of this Signpost article (Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-04-23/Brandt_unblock), there is edit warring as to whether to include a link to Daniel Brandt's website in the text or not (the current revision does not). With all respect to the concerns of those who have been affected by DB's efforts, I maintain that given the Googlability of the website in question, the insistence that mentioning the name of the website (which is relevant for the discussion in the Signpost article) is acceptable but linking to it from that mention is not acceptable, is not productive. Martinp 14:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

3rd, less concrete example. Wikipedia Review, a site of commentary by disaffected former and current wikipedians, contains a plethora of comments that run from rather silly sounding strident complaints to genuine well-intentioned discussion of wikipedia's flaws to attempts to coordinate approaches to bring Wikipedia down. It is frequented by both constructive critics as well as destructive ones. It has been the object of considerable discussion on Wikipedia. I maintain that there is no incremental harm and some incremental benefit to being able to link to those discussions there which would be helpful in policy discussions on Wikipedia. There is no benefit and some harm to linking to fruitless sniping, mudslinging, or any privacy violations being discussed there or anywhere else. Why is a nuanced approach not the correct one here? Martinp 14:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia review also contains attempts to out the real life personal information of Wikipedia editors and admins. Such sites should never be linked here. Corvus cornix 19:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
And spectacularly succeeded in the case of Essjay. I suppose it comes down to whether sauce for the goose (putting people's private lives on Wikipedia to spread around 1000+ sites and Google) is also sauce for the gander (putting out real information on abusive admins' real names and addresses to spread around the Internet). I don't suspect that you'll agree with it, but there it is.
Oh and criticism of Wikipedia by WR is just the thin end of a very large wedge of academic and scholarly hostility to this digital palimpsest that is Wikipedia. --86.131.90.51 09:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I've just visited their site and checked the rules---they have now explicitly banned the practice of "outing" real life identity of Wikipedians. So is it clarified now? WooyiTalk to me? 20:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Whatever their "rules" might say, they are right now discussing the live home address and "real name" of one admin. Their rules also say "This is provisional, pending approval by Selina", and Selina has apparently not given her approval. Corvus cornix 20:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) No evidence has been presented that this is true; if you have accusations to make, cite them. I follow discussions there, and I have not seen anyone's address mentioned of late (or for that matter, as far back as I can remember). Mangoe 23:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The rules of the sites are important, if the rules prohibit something but people still do it, that's not the site's fault. Sites don't attack people, people attack people, like guns don't kill, people kill. According to your logic, if tomorrow someone "outs" the identity on Hipforums, we should consider that one as an "attack site" as well? WooyiTalk to me? 20:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah. I see. Because the rules say one thing, but the actions are something else, the rules make this not an attack site. Even though the admins have the obligation to remove postings which disagree with their rules, but have not seen fit to do so. Oh, that makes all of the difference. Corvus cornix 20:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Let me explain, first, rules are there to be enforced, but they are impossible to always be enforced without any omission. Look at ourselves, corvus cornix, Wikipedia has rules against POV pushing, but can you guarantee every article we have conforms NPOV? The answer is no, and Wikipedia Review has a policy against outing, but some people still do, it's not a surprise. It's just simply like American law bans murder, but murder happens everyday, you can't label America a "murder nation". WooyiTalk to me? 20:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
You are either being naive or disingenuous, and I don't feel the need to discuss this with you further. Corvus cornix 20:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
...WP:NPA. I'm only a teenager, not an insidious troll or vandal, and I have edited Wikipedia for a long time. I have no bad intent here, if you disagree my analogy, refute it, please do not give any ad hominem attack. WooyiTalk to me? 21:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The admins of that site have been sent two takedown notices and yet the material in question remains on it, so it's clearly not against their rules. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
75.144.57.73 (talk · contribs) recently wrote that "The admins of that site have offered, in public, to remove any material that you warrant is both malicious and false." I will make no claims as to the validity of that statement, and only indicate that it was made. GracenotesT § 16:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I repeat that I have sent them two takedown notices, and yet the material in question remains on the site, and it now seems I'm going to have to proceed legally, with all the time, money, and effort that entails. How utterly bizarre that you'd repeat the opinion of an anon IP and an attack site when I've already told you what I've done. There, in a nutshell, is why I oppose your promotion. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your clarification about the comment. GracenotesT § 18:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
What's your opinion of that site? --Mantanmoreland 16:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
It's a mixed bag. Some comments are constructive; others bitter. GracenotesT § 17:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Is that all you have to say? I felt your position on this issue was cold and lacking in empathy, and your response confirms that belief.--Mantanmoreland 18:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

← Do you disagree with what I wrote? You asked me for my opinion on the site in general, not my opinion on the site in terms of privacy violations. GracenotesT § 18:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

What an amazingly evasive way of responding to a simple question. I am deeply concerned about your being promoted, now more so.--Mantanmoreland 19:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Ditto. I was prepared to give Gracenotes a chance at first, which is why I asked those questions, but every reply, every evasion, has deepened my concerns. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
After reviewing my answers, I have concluded that I did not think them out enough. I will address them when I have more time and less stress in real life. GracenotesT § 19:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you've thought about any of this. The last thing we need is another admin who jumps in head first to defend troublemakers without knowing the background. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I have thought about it, except it takes a little longer to think of a solution that will cause the least trouble for everyone in the long run. I don't just want your issue resolved—I want it resolved in such a manner that will cause the least amount of net conflict. You can think of a catalyst: if allows chemical reactions to be completed when the normal energy required is too much. I viewed the IP's comment as a way for you to avoid the aforementioned lawsuit, and to make sure there was no other method of dispute resolution. Self-aware gullibility is only a small risk to take when thousands of dollars could be saved. I am very empathetic towards your situation, if not towards your logic. GracenotesT § 20:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Look, this long response isn't meant as a dig. I am seriously trying to explain to you why I feel you may turn out to be a problematic admin. One of the biggest problems we have with adminship on Wikipedia is that some admins aren't very active when it comes to problem users. They concentrate on maintenance issues, rather than editing articles, so they don't know who the troublemakers are and don't know why they're regarded as troublemakers. Then one day they get e-mailed by one of the difficult editors who has been blocked and who's trying to find a soft-touch administrator to unblock him. Suddenly that admin feels important. Suddenly there's a victim only he can defend! And so he steams in, unblocking or arguing endlessly for the unblock, giving the troll the benefit of a thousand doubts, but the other admins none, making us all explain the entire background over and over until we reach the stage of never again wanting to suggest that someone be blocked because of the endless hassle it can trigger. I've seen this happen a hundred times, and it's tiresome beyond belief.
During this RfA, you have exhibited exactly the qualities of the part-time, doesn't-inform-himself-before-posting admin. You partially restore the post of a Wikipedia Review anon IP, even though it's twice been deleted by other admins, because you think he may have something to say that will help to solve the whole problem! You don't think I have asked them to remove the material? Even after I've told you I have, you somehow think perhaps I've not done it right? Well, in that case, e-mail me your advice. But don't take on board the ranting of an anon IP. They know exactly which posts are problematic, they've been asked to remove them, and they won't do it. Their game is that they want me to say "My name is X; my name is not Y; therefore please remove everything about Y that you say is about me." That is, they are trying to force me to out myself to them, and because I won't, they argue that it's fair enough to call me an antisemite, a neo-Nazi, and the more serious things they've said about me — because it might not really be about me! This is the kind of stupid game that will cause a court to rule against them, but to get there, I have to ... well, get there.
Admins need to have the common sense to know not to wade into that kind of situation without being fully informed, and if you were fully informed, you'd know better than to think you knew better. That's the long and the short of it. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, one of the worst experiences of my life was being psycho-trolled for 7 hours on end, on IRC, by someone who was banned from Wikipedia. For some reason, I had accommodated him all that time, couldn't sleep that night, and failed a test the next day. I swore that I would never do it again.
Look, it bothers me when others are sad, or depressed, or confused. This hardly a fault in my character. But I can see how it fits into your rationale for opposing. When I say that I would like only a mop and a bucket, I mean that.
But thanks, at least, for being honest. GracenotesT § 21:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, then try to imagine being psycho-trolled for 18 months by an external website you have no control over, which twists and distorts every tiny little thing you say and do, often making stuff up out of whole cloth, which publishes what it thinks are real names for you, locations, and your photograph, contacts what it thinks are your work colleagues and former boyfriends to get information about you, and which publishes some material that is so serious and potentially so damaging you're having to consider hiring investigators to find out who they are so you can take them to court, at a tremendous cost of money and time. Then please imagine what it feels like to have to beg other Wikipedians not to increase the readership or credibility of that site by linking to it. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
OK. So take him to court. Or alternatively stop feeding WR by continuing to behave like a paranoid, ultracontrolling manic obsessive on Wikipedia. You think DB wants to be on Wikipedia either?
I'd strongly recommend hiring invesgtigators if the police wont do anything. You are not alone in facing wikipedia harrassment and stalking and more importantly you dont have a monopoly on how to deal with said situations in the best way. How have you helped remove Hive Mind, Slim? SqueakBox 22:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what kind of fairy-tale world you live in, Squeak, where when someone says a bad thing about you, you can just call the police, and where investigators are hanging off trees just waiting to help, but in the world I live in, the police have better things to do, investigators are expensive, libel cases take a long time, and to recover costs and damages you have to know who and where people are. It all takes time, and, like war, it's not something that any sane person approaches lightly.
I've no idea what you mean about hivemind. I've not done anything to help or hinder its removal that I'm aware of. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Fairy tale world? Come on, Slim, I live in Honduras, a hard and dangerous third world country with an under resourced police service so please dont accuse me of living in a fairy tale world. But if I needed investigators I'd employ them (as I already employ security precisely because where I live is dangerous as I know having been physically attacked with a machete to the head here and spending 6 days in hospital). So dream world? not quite. But taking responsibility for my own protection? Absolutely.
You may not have done anything to hinder HiveMind but I certainly have, hence my comment re that attack page that has included the both of us, and I support Gtrace in this opne believing his approach more than yours will minimise any attacks of wikipedians off site, SqueakBox 22:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Then I may have to ask you to lend me some of your security people. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I respect your opinion SlimVirgin, but you are trying to make adminship more then it is. Admin is not supposed to be a big deal. This is just not feasable. If you want multiple levels of adminship (deleters, blockers, police, fbi), then go and advocate that. This is just disrupting the RfA proces. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
What utter bullshit. To call SlimVirgin's real life concerns about her life, her profession, her personal security "disrupting the RfA process" is to turn the world on its head. It's you, and those who keep trying to defend the trolls and those who are dangerous in a real-world ocntext (and I'm talking to you, Wooyi) who are disrupting the RfA process. Corvus cornix 03:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Rather than bicker among ourselves on this subject, I'd hope that the candidate for adminship address this subject. He's had plenty of time to formulate a well-thought out answer to replace his "mixed bag" answer that he withdrew. --Mantanmoreland 15:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I note that nobody has actually replied on-topic to my original thread-starting message, asking about whether a particular recent application of the rule was good or bad. People seem to be eager to change the subject rather than take on particular cases directly. *Dan T.* 00:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, on pain of repetition, I'll give it a go. Insofar as there was anything wrong, it was with JVM's entire response, which in my opinion was an attack upon the character and motives of a wide swath of people. (Then again, it seems to me that he's given to such accusations.) Smudging the link did nothing to improve this; indeed, anyone with the slightest inclination could correct the link without difficulty, even without resorting to the history. Mangoe 01:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
And messing up the link in that manner could be said to be insulting to Merkey, as it would cause anybody not checking the history to think that he was careless enough to mistype the link or somehow screw it up accidentally in the copy-and-pasting, which people (the sort who like to make spelling and formatting flames) might hold against him. I'm surprised, especially given his history, that Merkey didn't go ballistic about this "editing" of his message, but he seems to have accepted it calmly. *Dan T.* 01:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrator Comments

[2]

Grace - In the MONGO RFA, one of the arbitors gave a view on the handling of harrassment of Wikipedians on external sites. On my reading, the views you have given on this issue seem very similar to the view given below by one of the arbitors in the case.

Can you tell me if the statement below reflects your sentiments on this issue?

The decision in MONGO is intended to apply to harassment of individuals on sites which are not making a good faith effort to engage in legitimate criticism of Wikipedia or those associated with it, simply smearing Wikipedia and its users. Sites which make some attempt to engage in legitimate criticism such as Wikipedia Review present a different situation and should probably be addressed, not by a blanket prohibition, but on what is being linked to. Many of those who have been banned by the arbitration committee or by the community have ended up there, and continue to voice criticism of our decisions and practices. These criticisms are occasionally useful. It is inappropriate to attempt to generalize principles expressed and relied on in arbitration into policy. We have make it very clear that we neither honor nor set precedent. This matter nicely illustrates why. The facts and users the "policy" would apply to, often differ sharply from those presented in the arbitration case. I would make this comparison: imagine a meeting, one person comes in and loudly denounces the others attending the meeting. He shouts, gives everyone the finger, and stamps his foot. Contrast this with a situation where a person comes in and dumps a bag of shit on one of the others attending the meeting. One situation is difficult, the other utterly unacceptable, the decision in the MONGO case addresses the unacceptable situation. Fred Bauder 17:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


Please move this to a more appropriate location if this is not the correct spot for such a query. Uncle uncle uncle 16:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Fred later clarified this, and said specifically that Wikipedia Review does count as an attack site. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Yep! I'm just trying to note that Fred is a reasonable guy and he believed that addressing what is linked to is preferable in some cases to giving a blanket prohibition to a site. I found this similar to Grace's argument on sites vs links. As in "Sites which make some attempt to engage in legitimate criticism ... present a different situation and should probably be addressed, not by a blanket prohibition, but on what is being linked to." I did not intend to make a point about Fred's views about the appropriateness of any particular site. Uncle uncle uncle 17:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Fred's quoted comment seems both logical and sensitive to me. Those two qualities, however, are partially afforded by abstraction. I remember weakly disagreeing with him elsewhere. GracenotesT § 18:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One simple question

Keeping in mind that being an "admin" is not supposed to be such a big deal, and is really only supposed to be about being trustworthy with tools, I have a single question for those opposing Gracenotes's adminship:
Do you believe that Gracenotes cannot be trusted with the tools? No rhetoric about empathy, or accusations that people would feel different if it applied to them. Just a yes or no. Do you believe that Gracenotes would abuse the tools? Bladestorm 19:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that anyone who thinks that Wikipedia should contain links to sites which make it easy for attacks, both physical and legal, against other Wikipedia editors, should NOT be an admin. Corvus cornix 19:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
So then, is your answer, "I don't understand the question."? Or, "I refuse to answer the question."? If I wanted to know if people wanted him to be an admin, I'd look at the list of Oppose's. I asked if you believe that he would abuse the tools. It's a yes or no. Do you believe he'd abuse the tools, or use them incorrectly? Bladestorm 20:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
In other words, you are not interested in hearing anybody's opinions, just in arguing with them when they don't meet your expectations. I said what I said. I answered your question. Corvus cornix 20:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
No, in other words, I asked a very simple question. I wanted to know something very specific. You refused to answer. I'm not trying to argue. I could've seen a thousand, "I believe he will abuse the tools", and wouldn't have said a word about it. You're the one who forced an argument. Bladestorm 20:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
We already had admins who believed it is OK to hand over deleted records with confidential personal information to attack sites. This candidate has indicated he does not accept this simple principle. Do we really need more admins abusing their admin tools? Crum375 20:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what I'm supposed to be reading at that link, but I'm not asking a rhetorical question here. Yes or no. Do you believe that Gracenotes will abuse (or accidentally, but destructively, misuse) the tools? (And, if so, could you outdent your answer? Because I'd like to easily see how many people think this is an actual problem) Bladestorm 20:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
People can be poor admins without actually abusing the tools, Bladestorm. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
And I never once said (or implied) anything remotely to the contrary. However, I'm still allowed to ask a question. I simply wanted to know what people thought he was going to do with the tools. Again, if I wanted to know if people thought he'd be a good admin, I'd look at the "Support" and "Oppose" entries. I'm allowed to ask a question. Bladestorm 01:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
You can read a simple principle describing what Attack Sites are, and that we shouldn't link to them under any circumstances. Gracenotes does not accept that principle, which means to me that his top priority is not protecting our editors against harassment and attacks. Since we have already had incidents of admins with apparently a similar attitude abuse their tools, it is prudent to prevent that from recurring. We don't need to 'believe' he will abuse the tools - it's enough to feel that he cannot be trusted with them. Crum375 20:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
You're becoming very disruptive here. You made your point. Everybody knows your point. Please stop trying to impede my questions. I didn't ask if you thought he should be an admin or not. I didn't ask your reasons. I have no desire to challenge your reasons for not approving. I simply wanted to know how many actually felt he'd abuse the tools. You decided not to answer. You don't have to. However, you've padded this section with so much bloat that it's now very hard to continue with my actual question. I now have to once again ask. This time, I would request that you not disrupt it. Answer it. Don't answer it. I don't care which. And discuss it as much as you like where appropriate, but please don't put anything but "yes" or "no" in a "yes or no" section. Bladestorm 20:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
It's this kind of aggression that's very off-putting. If you think your support is helping Gracenotes, I can assure you it's doing the opposite. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not aggressive at all. When I ask a question, and people decide to treat me with such little respect that they reply, but don't answer, I take that to be very insulting. If someone doesn't want to answer, no biggie. Whether they don't like the question, or simply don't feel like it, no biggie. But replying, and taking up space in a section where actual answers belong is insulting. It's not only saying, "I'm not going to answer your question." It's saying, "you shouldn't even be allowed to ask." It's just frustrating. I'd never treat anyone else like that. And, incidentally, I am not specifically an advocate for Gracenotes. My interest in asking was more related to the RFA process than to Gracenotes specifically. Though I do support Gracenotes, and applaud his patience with the insults and accusations, that doesn't mean I can't get input on a larger topic (or at lesat try to). Bladestorm 01:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
It's clear that this RFA is not about my administrative abilities. It's about my character. For that, I refer you to my contributions. GracenotesT § 00:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One Simple Question

I need to ask this one again. This time, please respect that I'm trying to get actual information here. I wish to know how many people actually believe that Gracenotes will either abuse the tools, or accidentally (but destructively) misuse them. Simply a yes or no please. Bladestorm 20:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

See above. Your question has been answered several times. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it hasn't been answered once. But I think I've pretty much given up on getting a straight and definitive answer from anyone. I didn't even ask for reasons, just a simple boolean expression, but can't even get that. Ah well. Question closed. Just ignore me. Bladestorm 01:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps not strictly Boolean, but I think the syllogism at work here is:
1. It is not reasonable to disagree with position X.
2. Candidate disagrees with position X.
3. Therefore, candidate is not reasonable (and therefore cannot be trusted with admin tools).
Clearly there are positions X for which this is a valid syllogism, so it is reasonable to believe that the opposers are acting in good faith, and in the best interests of the wiki. Of course, they are wrong in this case, but so be it. -- Visviva 01:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Even when X is a rejected policy proposal? By definition, others must have disagreed with it for it to get that way – and in fact, many current administrators did just that. I'm still waiting for those who oppose Gracenotes to call for the desysopping of each and every one of those administrators, but it doesn't seem to have happened yet. Can't begin to imagine why – Gurch 17:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ambiguity of language

I do have another question as the language has some ambiguity: When you state:

To delineate, and to address some of the concerns in your question, I oppose removing all links to all such sites in all contexts, especially if such removals interfere with the good faith development of Wikipedia (if rules make you nervous or depressed...)

Did you mean: 1) I oppose removing all links to all such sites no matter what the context

or

Did you mean: 2) I oppose removing all links to all such sites without examining the context

I believe that the statement can be parsed either way (by a human), but there is a large difference in meaning depending on how the sentence is read.

The first way would indicate an opposition to ever deleting such links, where the second would indicate something quite different.Uncle uncle uncle 19:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of removing links without examining 1. what the page on the other side of the link actually is and 2. how the link got there in the first place. I believe this corresponds to the latter of your two interpretations. GracenotesT § 20:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I wonder how you feel about the tactics of some of your supporters in this RfA - pushing your cause via comments in talk pages and in the spin that they stuck at the very top of the "Discussion" segment of your RfA.--Mantanmoreland 22:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
You criticize a link to the talk page as 'spin'. Such a terrible act, eh?
And "I thought it was ambiguous, lawyerly in the least complimentary sense of the word and mealy-mouthed." is a much better tactic? Bladestorm 23:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I deleted that immediately because I thought my language was too strong. You are being disruptive. Stop trolling. See WP:POINT.--Mantanmoreland 03:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Hold up, and refrain from personal attacks. In no way was I trolling. I've already told you to stop personal attacks. You falsely accused nae'blis of putting a 'spin' and drawing discussion from the talk page, when he specifically linked to the talk page. On the other hand, you did force arguments away from the talk page in the process. You brought up the conduct of Gracenotes' supporters, in spite of the poor conduct you've shown. You falsely accused me of trolling twice. You've been uncivil, and lobbed personal attack after personal attack. Please stop now. Participate in RFA as much as you like, but insults and attacks aren't in any way necessary for participation. Bladestorm 03:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Bouncing off the walls is not helping your cause. Just so you know.--Mantanmoreland 03:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'll admit it. I have no clue what that means. Does it mean I'm talking in circles? That I'm getting too worked up? That I'm making mountains out of molehills? Even close? Bladestorm 03:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
You got it. Chill, Will.--Mantanmoreland 04:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
ehh. I guess I'll log off for the night. But my name isn't Will. so there. (I win!) Bladestorm 04:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm just a human being, but interpretation 1 seems frankly bizarre, and certainly not reflective of anyone here. -- Visviva 01:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions about the premise of this controversy

I'm trying to understand the controversy over attack sites and am finding myself a little puzzled. I apologize in advance for the naïveté of the following questions, but I have read everything I can find about the controversy and these questions haven't yet been answered, so here goes. 1) Why are they called "attack sites"? They seem to combine strong criticism/critique of Wikipedia with periodic efforts to "out" editors. From what I can tell, it's the latter goal that we consider intolerable, so why aren't they called "outing sites"? "Attack sites" makes it seem that the problem is criticism of Wikipedia. 2) To those who are opposing Gracenotes RfA on the grounds that he won't elevate his opposition to the linking of such sites to a blanket prescriptive rule, I'd like to ask: Would such a blanket rule carry no cost at all to other dimensions of the Wikipedian ethos, such as WP:NOT#CENSORED? Please note that I'm not saying the latter should take precedent; I'm just wondering if it should be seen as relevant at all, and perhaps have a tempering effect on the position a prospective admin takes on WP:NPA. 3) It has been claimed that not reverting a link to those sites "gives them oxygen." Is this true, or just a kind of rhetorical statement? It seems anyone who sees mention of one of these sites can find it in a few seconds. Wikipedians are pretty good internet navigators, maybe the best. We could ban even the discussion or mention of them, but that would certainly come at a high cost to what Wikipedia is supposed to be all about, and I doubt many are prepared to do that. But just banning the link itself is a little like writing "Motherf$%*er!" and imagining that the reader's innocence has been protected.

Regarding oxygen. I actually went and read one of these sites for the first time as a result of the pie fight over Gracenotes' RfA. And from what I can tell one of the liveliest threads at the moment focuses on Gracenotes' RfA and the controversy around BADSITES. I'm looking at the tally at the bottom saying the number of "users" and "guests" currently reading the thread, and I realize I'm counted among them, and I begin to wonder if our turning this into a major litmus test, a high-profile divisive issue, and – to be very frank – a platform for grandstanding, etc., isn't giving far more oxygen to these sites than Gracenotes' low-key, pragmatic approach would do.

When one considers any measure having even the faintest whiff of censorship, the measure has to clear a pretty high hurdle of cost-benefit analysis. The speech value of shouting fire in a crowded theater is so low, and the cost so high, that just about everybody can agree about it; it may be safe to say that those who don't lack "common sense." I do not see how a blanket rule against all linking of attack sites, however, can clear such a hurdle. And I can't but wonder if the collective passion over this question hasn't become a proxy for something else; perhaps a way of expressing loyalty or solidarity to admins who have prominently identified themselves with this issue. If true, I think this would be unfair to Gracenotes and unhealthy for Wikipedia. Solidarity with editors who feel victimized is a good thing, loyalty oaths are a bad thing; and I wonder if the one hasn't bled into the other in this most tumultuous of RfA's.--G-Dett 18:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The "oxygen" issue is one I was planning to bring up as well. It is my assertion that this RfA (and to a lesser extent, this previous one) has provided a great amount more publicity to the sites in question than any unremoved link in a months-old discussion ever could. I would ask people participating in this discussion to consider whether turning RfA into a referendum on what appears to be one site in particular may have unintended consequences. JavaTenor 02:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it's not one site in particular, since the RfAr actually originally referred to another site altogether. Corvus cornix 03:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Hipocrite

"Anyone who believes a site ... is not trustworthy." That sentence makes no sense – and I'm not just being picky, because this is important. Do you mean "anyone who believes in the site is untrustworthy"? I don't think so – it makes no sense to say that an editor in good standing "believes" in an attack site, and that is clearly untrue in this case. What exactly do you think Gracenotes believes? If you mean Gracenotes believes links to attack sites are fine, that's simply not the case. Gracenotes voiced opposition to a proposal (which is not and was never policy) which would have not only have prohibited linking to sites that incidentally happened to contain a page with personal attacks, but actually blacklisted them (that's the Wikimedia-wide, all-namespaces blacklist where you can't save a page until all offending links are removed). The proposal as worded would have made it policy to remove all links to, say, MySpace (from userpages as well as the encyclopedia) if someone put up a MySpace page attacking a Wikipedia user. This would of course never happen, as a request to blacklist such a site would be rejected as "silly", but the fate of smaller sites – say, an otherwise useful wiki that temporarily contains an attack page because they're a bit slow at dealing with vandalism – would be open to abuse. The proposal would also have allowed people to get away with removing more or less any link simply by calling it an "attack site". This was a bad wording, not a malicious intention on the part of anybody – but such things need to be caught and fixed. That's all Gracenotes did – object to that absolute, no-questions-asked, unnecessarily restrictive proposal. Which he has every right to do. I repeat the word proposal again, because he has never violated the policy on personal attacks and I see no indication that he would. And somehow that has been turned into a claim that he "supports attack sites" – yes, I find it hard to believe I'm not dreaming, but people have used those exact words. Of course he does not support linking to pages which contain personal attacks or reveal private infomation. There is absolutely no evidence of that, and it's a ludicrous accusation. Have you seen him do so? I thought not. And the idea that he might not be trusted with deleted revisions is an attempt to blow this thing out of proportion still further. Certainly a user who would happily scoop up deleted revisions and post them to an attack site is someone who should be denied adminship. But, I say again, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Gracenotes would do this. There no more evidence that he would do it than there is that any other RfA candidate or current administrator would. And at the very least, there is no more evidence that he would than that anyone else who opposed the proposal would; several of those people are administrators, yet I don't see a call for their adminship to be revoked because they can't be trusted with deleted revisions. This is a chronic violation of Assume Good Faith on the part of the entire community – Gurch 20:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Believes the site is a mixed bag. Wikipedia review is a bag of shit. Myspace is a mixed bag. I gave GN the benefit of the doubt with respect to the last poor turn of phrase. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Bags of shit have their uses... as fertilizer for instance. *Dan T.* 01:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Thought about posting this here rather than clogging up the RFA page with more irrelevance, but what I find interesting about the community at WR, apart from the obvious personal security issues that are indeed reprehensible, is that they also tend to evaluate the quality of contributors here based on their article edits rather than activities on the userspace of the encyclopedia. I think its fascinating that, though they generally claim to be committed to the destruction of WP, they more or less also operate under the same values that seem to be motivating editors here, so far as WP is to be a free and open information resource.—ACADEMY LEADER FOCUS! 23:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Unmitigated Bullshit. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New user essay on the "BADSITES" issue

I've put together an essay expressing my views on this contentious issue here:

User:Dtobias/Why BADSITES is bad policy

*Dan T.* 23:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Your argument is well-thought-out and logical. I thus fear it will gain little traction here – Gurch 00:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, excellent essay. Except for the concluding hooey about left-brain/right-brain.--G-Dett 19:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The "bot" thing

The candidate's contribs show a max of about 6 edits per minute. This is certainly a high rate, but not beyond what a human could achieve. In fact, I think I have gotten up to 10 edits per minute when doing a batch of trivial fixes, without any script assistance whatsoever. With the minimal script assistance the candidate has described, it seems perfectly credible that adequate judgment was given and that these edits were not "automatic" in any meaningful sense.

Anyway, I don't recall contrib spikes being an issue in my RfA, although that may just be because nobody really looked through my entire contribs in detail (nobody mentioned the fact that I gave Ed Poor a barnstar for deleting VfD either, heh heh). -- Visviva 01:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The max edit rate is at least 16 edits per minute (see 03:20 UTC), and the edits continue for 5 hours or so non-stop. Have you even sat down in one place and hit a button hundreds of times per hour for 5 hours non-stop? Let's assume you were able to do it, do you really think it's possible to actually read and 'inspect' edits at that rate for that duration? And getting 1,400 edits to mainspace in a few hours, more than many admin candidates have total, is a significant 'spike'. Crum375 01:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is possible. I have done it myself, not once but dozens of times, mostly when dealing with vandalism but a fair few times for other reasons too, including exactly the same purpose as Gracenotes. I did recieve one query as to whether I was using an automated bot but when I (truthfully) said "No", that seemed to satisfy them. Of course, I wasn't a candidate for adminship at the time – Gurch 01:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
While I haven't gone for five hours in one sitting (usually because I never have five solid hours to do anything on Wikipedia), I know for a fact that I've gotten more than six edits in a minute, and I don't use any scripts or AWB or anything; the closest I come is using the "Find and Replace" feature in BBEdit. If you're doing mindless repetitive stuff (like manually GUSing userboxes, or replacing templates), it's easy to zip right through, and it doesn't require much "inspection". EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Nor mine – at least not enough to warrant any opposes. That was nearly a year ago, though, and adminship requests have been getting progressively harsher for no particular reason throughout that entire time (a trend which also extends backwards, almost to the creation of the process in 2003) – Gurch 01:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Crum375: I feel as thought the best way for you to understand it is for you to try it yourself. Enable JavaScript, and then go to User:Gracenotes/Sandbox 2. Click "unhide", and see how long it takes for you to check whether the hidden text contains "{{r from shortcut}}" or not. Now, imagine that you had to do the same thing, except instead of clicking to reveal the contents of a page, you merely had to scroll down. GracenotesT § 02:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's assume you are right, and you sat there for 5 hours non-stop and pressed a button, at speeds of up to 16 edits per minute. It would seem to me that after an hour or two, assuming you are human, your 'inspection' would degrade significantly. Also, your RfA nomination opens with (third sentence): "His edits are firmly spread across a wide range of namspaces, with nearly 1,500 of those being in wikipedia space." You generated nearly all those edits in the span of just a few hours of your programmatic edits on May 8, 2007. Don't you think it is misleading to present (or accept) this information about your edits to the community this way? Crum375 02:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about? Not one of his 1500 Wikipedia-space edits was generated by this script. Also, I fail to see why a completely unobserved, alleged "degradation" of edit quality over time for which you have absolutely no evidence should serve as a reason to oppose. I can tell you from personal experience that it's easily possible to deal with vandalism for 8 hours or more, given the odd break of a few minutes at intervals, without any problem. Tagging redirects requires less thought than dealing with vandalism. You seem to overestimate human incompetence a little. Could you possibly try to keep such hypotheticals out of your criticism? – Gurch 04:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Inspection this primitive cannot degrade easily, and my script even has a stopgap against mistakes:
 if (new RegExp('r from shortcut', 'i').test(temp)) {
  if (confirm('The template was already sensed. Click OK to STOP editing.')) return;
 }
Here is what my edit count would like like (mainspace approximated) if I didn't run the script:
Category talk: 6
Category: 22
Help: 1
Image talk: 1
Image: 30
Mainspace 3500
MediaWiki talk: 119
Portal talk: 1
Portal: 5
Talk: 346
Template talk:  96
Template: 785
User talk: 2269
User: 772
Wikipedia talk: 266
Wikipedia: 1568
I am of the opinion that this is balanced for someone that does my sort of work. If you do not believe me, take a look at some other RFAs. GracenotesT § 02:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
You are just telling me the script itself is sensing that the template is not already there. It doesn't sense what it may be replacing or what it may be doing. As far as the edit count, you did not answer my question: don't you think it misleading the community to tell them you have 1,500 edits to mainspace when you generated them with your script in the span of a few hours? Crum375 03:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
He has 5,000 mainspace, not 1,500. 3,500 of those were generated over the course of many months. Furthermore, that claim comes from the nomination. Gracenotes did not write the nomination, the nominator did; he cannot be held responsible for percieved inconsistencies in what the nominator chooses to say or not say – Gurch 04:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Crum375, it really comes down to this: at first I thought you were trying to bring a valid criticism to my attention, but you're only flitting from issue to issue, avoiding a resolution for every issue you bring up. I do not understand why I am being accused of being "evasive" when I can point out several examples of people on this talk page who are doing the exact same thing. There is a difference between providing constructive criticism and maligning me.

Now, I have several essays due for school, and instead of doing them and maintenance work on Wikipedia, I am patiently replying to queries asked of me on this RFA. So I'm begging you—if you have a shred of empathy in you, please stop this conversation. Please. If you look, I have already answered everything from your most recent question. GracenotesT § 16:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New proposal on village pump regarding attack sites

I have made a proposal regarding to attack sites that might solve the problem. Editors please take a look, thanks. WooyiTalk to me? 02:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If the policy on attack sites was itself the problem here, that might solve it, yes. But the attack sites issue itself is largely resolved – as a couple of lines in Wikipedia:No personal attacks. That's not the issue here.
The issue here is pile-on opposes based on a comment Gracenotes made ages ago when commenting on a much more restrictive version of the attack sites policy which many other people, including administrators, also objected to, and has now been rejected. Gracenotes does not oppose Wikipedia:No personal attacks in its current form and does not support links to attack sites.
Yes, I'm still hoping I'll wake up from this horrible dream where RfA candidates are opposed because they disagree with a rejected proposal. It defies all logic.
Making a village pump proposal doesn't solve that – Gurch 04:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] When did "No Link Permitted to "Attack Sites"" become part of WP:NPA...

...anyway? I understood that discussion on this aspect of policy had stalled (on the relevant talkpage) and that it hadn't found the consensus to be adopted. Too much of this debate, and how it impinges on this candidates suitability, appears based that it is part of NPA, indicating that the candidate does not (or would not) follow rules/guidelines in this matter. This is incorrect.

If it is not about failure to adhere to policy, then what is the basis of the objections to this candidates application regarding this matter?LessHeard vanU 09:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it hasn't, unless it never needed any discussion to become policy. This remains indefinitely controversial, and it seems to me that the only reason that discussion there has largely halted is that the proponents of the "policy"/proposal have forum-shopped a second time by taking discussion from Wikipedia talk:Attack sites to Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks to here with a stop at a couple of other RfAs along the way. Mangoe 12:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm guessing the hope is that it will effectively become policy once people realise they are essentially making anti-social misfits out of themselves when they dissent. I don't want to sound like a 5-year-old, but I'm disappointed over this sort of action and the environment of preemptive consensus it effectively attempts to establish. I'm strictly against ever linking to attack sites, but I don't have a problem with dissenters, I welcome them. Groupthink would mean the immediate end of this wiki, because it is the precise problem that makes almost all non-advertising sites on the blacklist impossible. Suppression of dissent is bad, whatever the reason. —AldeBaer 15:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This makes me sad

Reading through the RFA and the talk pages, it seems to me that there is a lot of misunderstanding, talking past one another, and unnecessarily heated emotion. It makes me sad to see my colleagues treating each other like this. And it makes me even sadder to read through all this stuff and struggle to learn anything about the presumably reasonable and reasoned points at the core of the problem. As far as I can tell, the two factions believe:

  1. We should ban all links to all sites seen as attacking Wikipedia or Wikipedia editors, no matter the context of the link.
  2. While we deplore attacks on Wikipedia and Wikipedia editors, we should use our good judgment to decide about particular links to particular pages.

And that further, people in the first faction feel that people in the second faction are displaying such poor judgement that they are unsuited to become administrators. Is that the crux of it? And can anybody point me to pages that have WP:COOL explanations of the two perspectives? Thanks, William Pietri 16:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not it at all. The question is whether whether GN can be trusted as an administrator or not. That's it. Finito. Period.--Mantanmoreland 16:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
No, this RfA is turning into a discussion on the exact role that links to attack sites have on wikipedia - nothing to do with Gracenotes who simply has an opinion on the matter, and with respect to him, not a particularly outragous one. It seems that there have been people commenting here who simply saw the opposes and jumped on board for the ride - there's way too many "per user x," "per user y," for my liking here. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that's what the question should be, Mantanmoreland. But that is not what I'm seeing in these pages. That's why I've asked for cool-headed explanation of views, not more heated argumentation. If anybody has the links I asked for, I'd be grateful. On the other hand, if you are in this section to carry on the ongoing argument, I'd ask you use one of the other 19 sections on this page. Thanks, William Pietri 16:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The topic is what makes us sad. Here is what makes me sad, the latest ringing endorsement of this candidate: If you are really frightned of stalkers, stop editing. (from the edit summary of the latest "support") --Mantanmoreland 16:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

What makes me sad is an editor who has a history of not just creating sockpuppets (forgets to edit under the right name)[3], but of also talking to them (attempt to create illusion of consensus among multiple editors)[4] about edits he makes in a controversial article, then protests too much about gracenotes's rfa, well that's what makes me sad about this. Should this editor really be "trusted" to give opinions about trustworthiness? Piperdown 19:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that we don't seem to be communicating here, but I look forward to a fruitful discussion with you on some future occasion. Thanks, William Pietri 17:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
One should also note that the user whose edit summary had that remark about stalkers actually said in her edit itself that she had been stalked herself, so it doesn't seem like it would be fair to call her insensitive to the feelings of those in such a situation. *Dan T.* 19:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
And sounds like good advice as wikipedia clearly cannot protect people from stalking and it is often very difficult for the police to get involved unless something serious has actually already happened. At the end of the day each editor needs to take responsibility for their own saftey as for their own edits, and we MUST NOT be led to believe that a wikipedia policy on linking or not to BADSITES is in any way a real protection against stalking, SqueakBox 20:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I wrote an essay giving my own thoughts on the matter, but this is an advocacy essay for one side of the issue so it's not really what you're looking for (even though I tried to be WP:COOL about it). I suspect the "bigger picture" here is kind of a left brain / right brain thing, of "cold" logic versus "compassionate" emotion... with some amount of projection also going on, where the "logical" side expects others to also be logical, and the "compassionate" side expects others to also be compassionate, and they both see opponents as evil or insane when they fail to react the way they feel they would if they were in their shoes. This perhaps deserves another essay, with participation from both sides in drafting it. *Dan T.* 16:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
That's definitely a step forward. I especially appreciate the attempt to see both sides and the desire to find some way to collaborate on bridging the ugly divide. If I can't get cooly-written explanations of views, cooly-written advocacy pieces would be a great second. Thanks, William Pietri 17:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I feel the same way, William. It's distressing, but at the same time, it's not at all surprising. This RFA reminds me of how pretty much all political debate has carried on in the United States over the last ten years or so. I suspect that a number of Wikipedians are falling into the trap of judging a person's suitability for a wide range of tasks based on their relatively benign opinions on one specific issue, rather than considering their suitability on the basis of the sum total of their real-world experience and past actions. As long as this poisonous attitude keeps getting imported into the encyclopedia, frankly, we're fucked. -/- Warren 17:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I think we already are, and have been for some time, at least administratively speaking. It's difficult to pin down a time at which administrative backlogs started to overwhelm the active administrators, but I'd put it around the time when having >700 items in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion started to be nothing unusual, and getting it down to a few hundred became cause for celebration – some time around the beginning of this year. The average size of that category has grown significantly since late 2006, even though the rate of article creation has actually gone down. The explanation seems to be that the gradual increase in standards for adminship requests (which has been long ongoing) has reached the point where perfectly good candidates are recieving substantial amounts of opposition, possibly coupled with the departure of established administrators. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the attack sites issue itself, but everything to do with how users' stances on proposed, rejected policies are interpreted – Gurch 17:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
(ec)I agree that ongoing attack sites disputes does harm the encyclopedia. I also see so much politics here (and very interesting insight re current US politics). It seems to me that the BADSITES prohibitionists see a problem and then believe they have the only solution to the problem and that those who oppose them are supporting the problem. As one who opposes attack site prohibition I would say the prohibitionists are being politically naive. Like the cannabis prohibitionists who said cannabis is bad thus to stop people using it we must ban it. Actually the opposite happened and the cannabis prohibition made it much more popular, my point being that obvious political solutionms might look good on paper but that doesnt mean they'll work, and BADSITES is a policy that, IMO, would be deeply counter productive and not in any way lessen the number of attacks on wikipedians or the ability of the general public to find and read these attacks, or in any way defend wikipedians (and if we really wanted to do somethiong getting rid of all nasty on site attacks would be a better approach and one we are much more empowered to facilitate), SqueakBox 17:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
... yes ... and that's what I really don't get. The attack sites policy would have been deeply counter-productive. Which is why it was met with significant opposition – including the opposition of current administrators – and was tagged as rejected. Please see the last non-redirect revision of the proposal. The current debate on Wikipedia:No personal attacks is simply an attempt by the proposal's supporters to get as much of the proposal added to that policy page as possible. And that's fine. I have absolutely no problem with that. But, why the opposition of Gracenotes, who like many other people opposed the attack sites policy in its original form, but has no problem with the personal attacks policy and has made no indication that he will fail to adhere to any changes that may be made to it in the near future – Gurch 17:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to make sure it doesn't get missed by someone who could help me, I'm still looking for some sort of a pointer to a WP:COOL explanation of what I tentatively characterized as position 1 above. Dan Tobias was kind enough to point me to his essay, but I'd love something similar for the other view (or for every other major view if there's more than one). Thanks, William Pietri 18:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I will give my WP:COOL explanation of point 1, although I am a proponent of position 2. I am perfectly happy for anyone to amend and/or strikeout all or any part they feel misrepresents the understanding;
The potential of damage to Wikipedia, and especially its editors, is so great that any link to any site who hosts or has hosted such content shall be forbidden. Any editor with a legitimate concern regarding either content on such a site, or application of the label to a site, should use private means of communication (i.e. email) and not Wikispace.
As I said, I stand to be corrected. LessHeard vanU 18:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
A problem could be that, in accordance with that right brain / left brain stuff I mentioned earlier, the difference in the way the two sides view the issue might end up amounting to the fact that the "pro-link-ban" side thinks the "anti-ban" side is lacking in sympathy and compassion -- they're "cold" and "calculating" and "unfeeling" and stuff like that... which means that asking the "warm" and "compassionate" and "feeling" side to show some WP:COOL might be seen by them as counterproductive on the grounds that they think the issue needs more emotion, not less. *Dan T.* 20:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
If my understanding of the absolutist proponents position is correct then I concede that they have a very reasonable argument. My understanding on the issue, though, differs in that I believe there is more potential harm to WP in never allowing an editor to link in good faith to a site (but never and attackpage), especially if invoking WP:IAR would "defeat" the purpose of an outright ban anyway.
I would suggest that not all proponents of an absolute ban are primarily guided by emotion rather than consideration and application of logic, and that no non-absolutists are resorting to emotionally based arguments. Regretably, emotion (both for and against) is being used within the debate itself. LessHeard vanU 20:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re; Optional Question 13

Am I supposed to remove or edit the text since it mentions a site which has/does host attack pages, or do I ask for a link to support the accusation? LessHeard vanU 18:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well... that's actually a very good question. Mantanmoreland questions Gracenotes' contributions to an attack site – how can an uninvolved party properly interpret the answer to that question if they haven't seen the content of those contributions? Needless to say, if he was actively encouraging the disclosure of personal information, this would significantly affect his suitablity for adminship. He wasn't, of course... but I can't demonstrate that without a link to those contributions. This situation is just the sort of thing that Gracenotes suggests may be problematic if a blanket ban on all links to attack sites was imposed – with, I think, good reason – Gurch 20:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Users can email me and I would be delighted to email back to them a link to all of GN's posts there. Or they can go to the site and see for themselves. I didn't say his posts there were bad.--Mantanmoreland 21:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
So you're telling me that openly offering to email anyone a link to an attack site, and encouraging users to visit the site themselves, is absolutely fine, but expressing concern over a proposed policy about linking directly (not supporting linking, just expressing concern over a proposal) renders a user completely untrustworthy? Someone do something, I'm losing the will to live here – Gurch 22:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Well that isnt the solution, Gurch. To me the idea that a good faith contributor to WR could then have that used against them in an rfa or anywhere on wikipedia is offensive and absolutely not backed up byy any policy or guideline, SqueakBox 22:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Not necessarily. I haven't said he was doing anything bad by contributing to an attack site. I simply pointed out that he did so, and asked him to talk about it. If there is no problem with posting on WR, what is wrong with him saying so? Perhaps we all should post on WR. It is a free country. It is not against any rule here. --Mantanmoreland 22:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, SqueakBox 22:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, I have no problem with that; that's not what I object to. I am questioning your offer to email links to Gracenotes' posts on what has been classed as an "attack site" to anyone, and also to your encouragement to other users to visit it themselves. This suggests to me that your stance on linking to attack sites is also somewhat less than absolute, if you believe these things to be acceptable. How do you reconcile this with your strong opposition to Gracenotes for not disagreeing quite as strongly with linking to attack sites as you desire? – Gurch 23:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. I'll wait until Gracenotes responds to my question and get back to you.--Mantanmoreland 23:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I seem to recall someone, a singularly heroic individual, posting to that site in order to save the good people there from being duped by a propagandist who seemed to hold some beef against a wiki-editor here or the subject of one of our articles, I could never tell the difference. A shame this person could not be posting here with his opinon on this pressing issue.—ACADEMY LEADER FOCUS! 01:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On WP:BADSITES

Forgive me if this is the wrong place to discuss this, but many of the oppose votes have frankly shocked me. This is not meant to be a personal attack on anyone, but if you are opposing based on whether or not an admin will remove links to attack sites, you are voting in the wrong place. RfA is not a place to push for a particular policy, and quite frankly I'm surprised at the audacity displayed by those who are.

You should not be voting based on the answer to the question "will you enforce this particular disputed policy." You should be voting based on the answer to the question "will you enforce community consensus," which includes all current and future policies and discussions. If BADSITES becomes policy, then it's the duty of admins to enforce it on sight. But opposing an RfA based on the enforcement of it right now, while it is disputed, is simply rude, inflammatory, and disruptive.

I've been through an RfA before, and it's very stressful. Please don't make this hard for Gracenotes by bringing your agenda here. I appreciate that some users may feel strongly about this, but it's the wrong place to discuss it.

If this nomination is borderline, I beg the closing bureaucrat to disregard all such votes as irrelevant to this particular candidate.

Note that as I haven't much experience with this particular editor, I'm not voting. But I'm not willing to watch and say nothing as an RfA becomes a battleground for policy.

That's my two cents, take it or leave it. --Chris (talk) 05:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Amen to that. The landslide of opposes based on this issue will have the unfortunate result that we will miss the opportunity to promote a clearly competent editor who's net effect as an admin would be positive (and I'm confident many of the opposers would agree with this statement if reluctantly). This is not what RfA should be about and while I understand the skepticism towards Gracenotes' position on Q4 (especially from those who have directly been victims of these attack sites), I cannot understand the insistence that this stance should be an absolute deal-breaker. It would really be a shame to have the RfA fail on this issue alone. For one thing, it sends the wrong message that the ideal admin candidate should always agree with the majority: this only encourages editors contemplating RfA to remain silent in complex, potentially divisive debates. That's not the wiki-way and as Chris points out, the one thing we all strongly care about is administrator's willingness to recognize, respect and if need be enforce a consensus even when they disagree with it. There is no indication that Gracenotes would behave otherwise. I fear many opposers are too entrenched in their position to change their mind but I do think they should reconsider their position in that light. Pascal.Tesson 06:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Allow me to agree with that, obviously, and also reiterate this for about the 100th time: Many of the people opposing do not appear to fully understand what they are opposing for, as evidenced by use of language such as "supports attack sites", confusion with User:Grace Note and so forth – Gurch 06:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and to the hypothetical "if BADSITES becomes policy" question, check the last pre-redirect revision of that page. It's already been rejected. This is a pile-on opposition of a user for failing to support a rejected proposal, which is insane – Gurch 06:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Note WP:NPA#Linking_to_attack_sites, which is a disputed section of policy. See the article's talk page -- the spirit of BADSITES is still alive in this proposal. --Chris (talk) 07:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
We have lots of policy and guideline disputes. Gracenotes fully supports the policy in its current form, and there is nothing to suggest he would not accept and follow an alternative form of the policy were it to be changed. The rejected nature of the original attack sites proposal, which he raised objections to, means it will not realistically be introduced to the policy – Gurch 07:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Good point. And in fact, the disputed tag there is actually more over the wording of the section than the inclusion. (I should know; I put the tag there. Silly me...) --Chris (talk) 07:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm so glad I passed RfA three years ago, when the biggest concern for me was a lack of talkspace edits. :p Johnleemk | Talk 15:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Essay in progress

This kerfuffle has led me to start on a little essay in userspace that might be of some relevance to this RfA. I'm still working on it at User:Chairboy/Wikipedia:Treeism. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Another one? Be sure to read Dtobias' User:Dtobias/Why BADSITES is bad policy and my Wikipedia:Don't object to proposals :) – Gurch 01:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Might as well throw in WP:PARANOIA and Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_in_the_real_world, outgrowths of the earlier "attack sites" debates before this RFA hit the fan.—ACADEMY LEADER FOCUS! 02:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
It's spring, and the fields of wiki abound with new essays! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
April showers bring May... essays... hrm, that doesn't quite work. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gracenotes removes links to attack sites

It's official. Is there any reason left to oppose him? – Gurch 02:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, all those people who refuse to change their opposes, though the candidate has fixed their problems :) --R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 02:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
And speedily too. One minute! And then you (Mr. Gurch) were there, two minutes later, to bring it to our attention. I commend the vigilance of all concerned.--Mantanmoreland 03:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
It's just "Gurch". And it took him five minutes, and another nine minutes for me to respond. Actually quite a long time, given that I'm constantly checking this page (and I imagine so is he) :) – Gurch 03:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I stand corrected on the timing but remain impressed!--Mr. Mantanmoreland 03:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attack site removal

Right, I've got some serious concerns here with the opposers, how does Gracenotes stance on attack sites mean that he's going to make a poor administrator? He's not going to link to them, that's clear, he certainly doesn't support them. The only thing that he's stated is that he wouldn't blindly remove every single link if he saw them. The last time I checked, removing links was not an admin only job - any user can do it, or take the same stance, so why jump to conclusions and presume that Gracenotes is going screw up as an admin because of it? There's plenty of people who are willing to remove attack site links on wikipedia, so if there really is an issue with a link, it will be removed quickly anyway, no doubt by Gracenotes if theres NPA issues with it. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You're not the only one; indeed, there are as many users who feel this request has been seriously abused as there are oppose voters. Unfortunately, the threshold requirement means only 1 out of 4 has to be fooled into thinking Gracenotes "supports all links to attack sites" or "will not remove links to attack sites" or even "supports attack sites" (all utter rubbish) in order to cause the RfA to fail. Sadly, this is happening – Gurch 15:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm holding out hope that the 'crats will wisely chose to weigh those opposition !votes differently from the rest. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Well... so am I, but past experience makes it hard to be optimistic – Gurch 16:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Surely there is precedent from Danny's RfA for 'crats to take a long hard look at this before closing it. Johnleemk | Talk 16:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Already requested at WP:BN. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
There is precedent for exactly this issue; Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/LessHeard vanU. LessHeard vanU 16:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bureaucrat suggestion

As this has been a difficult discussion, and as there has been some suggestion that this end in a "'crat chat," something I think should only be a very, very last resort, I have made a proposal at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#One_Bureaucrat.27s_Impression. -- Cecropia 16:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A bot request

Hi. Can somebody please add the link below to the RfA? I can't do it, presumably since this RfA was speedy deleted in the past and I can't handle that. Thanks!


Mathbot 17:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


This seems to have been caused by the absence of a "General comments" header, which somehow got deleted at some point in the past history of the page. I've added it back. *Dan T.* 17:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Why would anyone give a damn about Gracenotes' edit summary usage? – Gurch 19:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Danny II?

This RFA is going to be like Danny's now...I think bureaucrats are going to be pretty upset about that. WooyiTalk to me? 17:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not at all like Danny. Danny had/has an almost unique relationship with Wikimedia and the need for functionary powers and the issues at hand are very different. -- Cecropia 19:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, it's absolutely nothing like Danny's RfA. That had multiple arguments for opposition, for a start – a wide and varied range of them, many arguing their own case. It also had far fewer trite, unqualified "per question X" or "per [username]" comments – Gurch 20:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A new way to abuse RFA!

Suggestion to bureaucrats: please consider disregarding the votes against for not supporting WP:BADSITES - a failed policy proposal which its supporters appear to be attempting to hijack RFA to try to backdoor in. The audacity is remarkable. This sort of behaviour needs not to be encouraged - David Gerard 20:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

BADSITES was a proposal started by a sockpuppet in order to cause trouble. Admins have been removing these links for ages and will continue to do so; as Fred Bauder said, we don't need a policy to tell us that hurtful behavior is harmful to Wikipedia.
As for this RfA, please give people some credit. People have opposed for a number of reasons, not least of which were some of the replies to questions, which increased the opposition, and the issue of linking was far from being the only issue. It would be nice if the RfA could be allowed to draw to a close without further attacks on either supporters or opponents. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
People have indeed opposed for a number of reasons, yes. Sixty-two of them, however, have all picked this as the reason. While the issue of linking is indeed not the only issue, it represents the difference between the current 73% support and more like 97%. If the attack sites policy was indeed unnecessary and started to cause trouble, and given that it is now rejected, is disagreement with it really a significant enough problem to make such a difference? – Gurch 21:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense; where do they mention BADSITES? Please don't straw man your opponents. The only people referring to BADSITES are supporters; removing those 10 or so votes (including yours) is the difference between 73% support and 69% support. Jayjg (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
"Including yours"? Have you even read the support votes? I was opposing until my vote was stricken out for "trolling"; I now have no vote at all. Yet you accuse me not only of supporting but also of mentioning attack sites in my (non-existent) rationale? – Gurch 18:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I have now corrected my vote to a support one that mentions attack sites, per your wishes – Gurch 19:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Whose sockpuppet? (clearly was though). Wikipedia needs to clarify this issue IMO and let us know who was DennyColt (they have the tools), SqueakBox 21:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Getting awfully insiderish here. Can someone please explain? If DennyColt is someone's sock, why is the account still active?--G-Dett 21:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The account hasn't edited since 13 April – Gurch 21:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, ok, but that alone doesn't prove anything, and the account is not blocked, and there's not SP template on the user page. —AldeBaer 21:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
We dont know whose sock he or she was but common sense dictates it was a sock, and IMO an extremely destructive one. See [5] which was a bad guess IMO, SqueakBox 21:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Very bad guess and thus not all that constructive or helpful to bring this here, in my opinion. —AldeBaer 22:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree that it was a very bad guess but I think in light of the previous comments that it was right to bring it here, ie DennyColt being a sock has been made as an accusation. I assume Slim was aware of the accusation and hence made her comment, SqueakBox 22:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I meant it doesn't provide any clues as to whether it is really true. I don't recognise any hint that DennyColt is a SP account of anyone. And did he really only start BADSITES to "cause trouble"? This is the first time I heard about either. —AldeBaer 22:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The issue has come up in an RfA before, so it's not really "new" – but it's been abused on a far greater scale in this case – Gurch 21:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Gurch, just because you disagree with something doesn't make it an abuse.
Let me tell you what I see as important here: that we're allowed to have a discussion, as vigorous as it is, and then when it's done, we allow the bureaucrats to decide without harassment, without pressure, and without dumping on them if we disagree with the outcome.
My hunch is that the oppose voters will support either outcome, and will support Gracenotes as admin if he's promoted, but the support camp (some of them) will kick up a tremendous fuss if they don't get their way, will howl about abuse, will scream about how RfA is "broken." More than anything, that tells you the difference between the two camps, and I'm glad I'm in the camp that will accept the bureaucrats' decision, even if we don't like it, because that's the only way this kind of community can ever work. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that abuse is not the kind of wording we should use to demonstrate our good faith. But the assumption that all or most of the opposers will accept either outcome, while "the support camp (some of them) will kick up a tremendous fuss if they don't get their way" is not any better to that regard. AGF works either both ways, or it doesn't at all. —AldeBaer 21:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm right though in this case. We see the signs of it already on the bureaucrats' page. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
In my case I thought I'd give my POV before rather than after, SqueakBox 22:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
What makes you so sure that all of the oppose voters will accept the bureaucrats' decision? I can easily see several of them harbouring a resentment towards Gracenotes for the rest of his time here – Gurch 12:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I am still committed to accept the closing crat[']s['] decision. To recall a statement I said days ago, "I am here to maintain an encyclopedia, and to help keep what I can running smoothly. I can do this with or without adminship." GracenotesT § 22:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed we all can. Non admins dont get less rights, or make less contributions, SqueakBox 22:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not support of BADSITES, and never was. It's extremely unhelpful to present straw man views of your opponents position. Jayjg (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To the bureaucrats, and perhaps also to David

David, I'm not aware of a single oppose vote that is a result of Gracenotes not supporting WP:BADSITES. I never supported it as it was worded, though I thought it had possibilities and could have been useful if the bad parts had been altered. It is now fairly certain that it was created by a sockpuppet/troll who intended, by an exaggerated wording and an aggressive implementation, to make everyone who supported the MONGO ArbCom ruling look bad.

As proof (for the bureaucrats, and perhaps for you if you're interested) that this is not simply about a refusal to support BADSITES, I would refer people to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ikiroid 2, where SlimVirgin asked the candidate his position on links to attack sites, and he replied that he would allow them in articles such as Daniel Brandt and perhaps Criticism of Wikipedia. Now, the WP:BADSITES proposal would not have allowed those exceptions; yet, after reading Ikiroid's response, SlimVirgin thanked him and didn't vote, and I changed from oppose to support.

The fact that WP:BADSITES is not policy is irrelevant. If I opposed a candiate because I was concerned by his position regarding WP:BITE, Wikipedia:Etiquette, WP:AGF, or WP:POINT, I would not expect to see pleas to the bureaucrats to disregard my vote because those guidelines were not policy. I want to make it very, very clear to bureaucrats that I am not opposing because of a refusal to give a blind, unthinking support to BADSITES. I am not sure that anyone is supporting it for that reason, and I am postive that not many are.

Many of the people I trust on Wikipedia are less enthusiastic about the BADSITES proposal than I am, and it is frustrating for those who are concerned by the candidate's attitude towards the whole issue of stalking and stalkers to see people accusing us of opposing because he doesn't give full support to an idea that was almost certainly thought up by a troll in order to hinder the implementation of the MONGO ArbCom ruling. It is perfectly reasonable, after the Everyking case, and after seeing various examples of adminstrators causing trouble by assuming that trolls and stalkers who have been blocked are the innocent parties, to have concerns about trusting the tools to someone who, while familiar enough with WR to be aware of the horrific harassment of some of our editors, can calmly state that it's a "mixed bag".

If some people are voting oppose without any other reason than the candidate's position on linking to attack sites, it has to be acknowledged that others are voting support for exactly the same reason. People who wouldn't have come near this RfA have suddenly discovered that it's being opposed by those who want to remove links to sites that "out" editors, and they're showing up to vote support.

My final plea to bureaucrats is, please, please do not make your decision based on the totally false argument put forth by supporters, that anyone who voices concern as to whether a candidate who is not entirely unsympathetic to the WR crowd has the necessary sensitivity and judgment for adminship and whether he can be trusted with access to deleted revisions is opposing because the candidate does not give 100% support to the failed WP:BADSITES proposal. Please note also that some people opposed for more than one reason (I also mentioned the candidate's trolling of Gaillimh over the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jimbo Wales joke, and some people mentioned other concerns in addition to their concerns about sensitivity, empathy, and judgment). Musical Linguist 23:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If you don't mind me putting this more briefly, opposition here is not about BADSITES, and never was. Bureaucrats, please ignore this straw man argument, except perhaps to strike any "support" votes which make reference to it. Jayjg (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
This seems a bit disingenuous, most of the opposition explicitly calls out the candidate's answer to question 4, which is hinged on the central issue of attack sites in general, of which BADSITES is a distilled attempt at policy. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Hardly disingenuous; to begin with, most of the oppose votes do not mention Q4, and in any event, it was Gracenotes who brought up BADSITES, not the opponents, who are voting based on a perceived lack of empathy and judgement. Jayjg (talk) 15:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
People who oppose him because they think his answer to Q.4 shows poor judgment and lack of sensitivity are not opposing him because he doesn't support the BADSITES proposal. I can think of several excellent administrators who don't support it. Although I support some of the ideas in it, I don't fully support it myself. Musical Linguist 14:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
With the utmost of respect, I don't think this is entirely honest. I apologize for any hurt feelings here, but the vehemence of the response coupled with the specific rationales in the opposition !votes indicates that the root matter is very much the candidate's stance on attack sites, not a clumsily worded response to a question. Honesty is vital in the process, and assertions that Gracenote's "lack of sensitivity" is the core issue fly in the face of this. For the record, I think the BADSITES proposal is a fine idea (and am even now being harassed on Wikipediareview (classy stuff, they're posting my wedding pictures for ridicule)). But I still think the candidate has demonstrated the necessary qualities to hold the mop. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
You can't say someone is being dishonest "with the utmost of respect". It's best to keep uncivil speculation and bad faith out of comments, particularly after being told your allegations are false. Jayjg (talk) 15:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
You've alternately claimed that BADSITES has nothing to do with the opposition, then switched to essentially saying "Well, yeah, it does, but Gracenotes brought it on himself by bringing it up". If you truly feel this is an honest dichotomy, then I'd appreciate some insight. Accusing me of bad faith is a bit premature, and a crummy way to disagree with someone. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
To begin with, you're in no position to complain about "crummy ways to disagree with someone", since your previous comment basically called someone you disagreed with a liar. And no, I've pointed out that support for BADSITES was not the reason people voted oppose, and that the opposers did not even bring up BADSITES in the first place, but rather Gracenotes did, and the supporters jumped all over that. It's bad enough you straw man the oppose voters, must you also straw man my statements on this page? Jayjg (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll ask you to practice civility yourself, there's no need to take this tone with me just because we're in disagreement over something. The opposition has repeatedly referenced the candidate's opinion vis a vis the attack sites as their reason for !voting, and this doesn't change, no matter how many times you link to straw man. I'm not quite sure how to interpret your curious blindness in this regard, I hope you can enlighten me without lashing out. Simma down now, we're all volunteers here who are trying to make an encyclopedia, there's no need to get personal. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
When people say they find Gracenotes statements regarding attack sites worrisome, they mean exactly that; they are not saying that Gracenotes must support BADSITES. It is supporters who are conflating the two, not opposers, and that indeed is a straw man. As has been explained, Gracenotes comments regarding attack sites (and he made several) were seen as lacking in empathy and good judgement. It is highly notable that only supporters seem to care about BADSITES, whereas opposers have ignored it. Jayjg (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg, I'm having a hard time finding the old WP:BADSITES, so perhaps you can help me. How exactly does the typical "oppose" position actually differ from it? (Of course, this question also goes out to anyone else who can answer) Bladestorm 20:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
The typical "oppose" position says "Gracenotes statements regarding attack sites seem insensitive and lacking good judgement". WP:BADSITES was a straw man policy that didn't say anything about Gracenotes at all. Jayjg (talk) 21:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Well they should point this out to explain their oppose instead of participating in a pile on vote. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Just about all the opposes have been linked to his interpretation of a policy that has widly been rejected by the community and clearly disputed. I'd say less than 10% of the opposers have backed up their oppose with any reason whatsoever as to why q4 would suggest Gracenotes being a poor administrator. I'm sorry, but "per q4" doesn't cut it for me, this is an insufficient reason to oppose a candidate considering what they are opposing for blatently isn't policy at the minute, RfA is not a vote, but it seems that many of the opposers are turning it into one. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Gracenotes brought up BADSITES, and many people felt that the way he answered the question (and subsequent comments) indicated issues with his judgement. Not issues with his not supporting BADSITES, which I don't see anyone making a condition for his (or any other) adminship. Jayjg (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
No way, this is a simple pile on because people can't be bothered to do research into it themselves, hardly anyone has justified themselves opposing so far, if they question his judgement, they should say they question his judgement, not just point to a question that the large majority of wikipedians would agree has nothing to do with being an administrator. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Ryan, your bad faith is dismaying, and your assertion could be applied equally well to the support votes. Jayjg (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Both "sides," considered as such, have plenty to be ashamed of here. -- Visviva 14:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  1. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Please take your sanctimony elsewhere, it's unhelpful here. Jayjg (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The only editor whose position has been consistently (and quite mercilessly) strawmanned is Gracenotes.--G-Dett 14:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense; the oppose votes are being consistently (and quite mercilessly) strawmanned. Concerns about empathy and judgement are being strawmanned as being about BADSITES. Jayjg (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
That's one reading of the situation, and one that doesn't assume much good faith. Another reading is that the oppose votes are rooted in an unmet demand for Gracenotes to take an absolutist position on "badsites" along the lines of what was put forth in WP:BADSITES, and that this absolutism has presented itself variously (in good faith, of course) as concerns about "common sense" and now "empathy." Of course the opposition isn't citing BADSITES – why would they? it's failed policy – but what they're demanding from Gracenotes is identical to it: a blanket rule. Six of one, half dozen of the other. Where you see strawmen, I see red herrings. In any case if you're going to insist in this business about strawmen, you'll need to show us (and the bureaucrats) the daylight between the blanket rule articulated by WP:BADSITES and the blanket rule Gracenotes' opposers have demanded he take. Without that distinction, there's no "strawman" – just a semantic shell game.--G-Dett 15:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Here's an idea; why don't you let the oppose votes reason for themselves, rather than you continually presenting straw man views of their arguments? Make your own case for support, rather than inventing bad ones for the opposers. That's not too much to ask. Jayjg (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I scrapped this whole thing about "advice" to the bureaucrats from the main discussion page. It's totally duplicate with what was here, and it's totally out of line even HERE. Those people are more then capable enough to make decisions, it's those qualities that made us select them for cratship. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It is undeniable that The current debate at WP:NPA arose from the ill conceived WP:BADSITES, Jayjg. Evidently most of us now agree that particular initiative was ill conceived and it should be put behind us (the Encyclopedia seemed to function without any mention of "attack sites", and BADSITES opened a can of worms). But to state that this has no relationship to the whole BADSITES thing is false. daveh4h 14:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it arose from WP:BADSITES, because Gracenotes talked about it, and because supporters subsequently raised it so often as a straw man. That is the relationship. I don't see opponents raising it. Jayjg (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this discussion isn't the best possible approach to the issue. I read this primarily as an attempt at canvassing. And blaming the supporters in an oppose comment is not a good idea either. Shall we leave it to the bureaucrats now, instead of trying to discredit each others' comments? Otherwise this will become more undignified with each successive comment. —AldeBaer 15:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I should note that the reason why I mentioned BADSITES was to transition from talking about "attack sites" to "attack links". GracenotesT § 16:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Because of some comments made here and on the project page, I would like to explain my position a bit.
On the one hand Gracenotes seems to have a fairly clear opinion on "attack sites" and how Wikipedia should deal with them. He recently referred to people who oppose any linking to attack sites as "the deletionists' cabal". [6], and subsequently stated that it should be ok to link to pages on attack sites, unless that particular page contains an attack. Any other approach would, according to him, be equivalent to creating "a walled garden", [7].
On the other hand, when SlimVirgin asked him about it, rather then further clarifying his position, and possibly arguing for it, he gave a winding, ambiguous, and misleading reply.[8]. Subsequent comments mereley added to the ambiguity.
Gracenotes is obviously entitled to hold any position he likes on Wikipedia policies. That is not at all what this is about. The issue for me was the apparent attempt to obfuscate his position and the seeming lack of respect for fellow editors.
Some Wikipedia editors have been seriously hurt by attack sites. This is a serious issue. When some people ask for strict policies on such sites, we may of course disagree. But their concerns deserve to be taken seriously. These Wikipedians should not be flippantly dismissed as "deletionists". In his answers to SlimVirgin and others, Gracenotes stated that it is a question about applying "common sense".[9] Are we to conclude that those who disagree with Gracenotes lack that quality?
--Denis Diderot 17:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, actually, if they support deleting, absolutely regardless of context, then "deletionist" very much applies. (What else could a person who believes in deleting in absolutely all cases, no matter what, be called?) However, I do have a question. Can you explain the "misleading" part of that statement? Did you mean misleading, as in intentionally misleading? Or did you just mean confusing? Bladestorm 17:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Bladestorm, I support deleting clearly libelous and unsourced statements from Wikipedia articles about living persons, "in absolutely all cases, no matter what". Does that make me a deletionist? Or perhaps, for some strange reason, you have begun to argue like a typical politician?
As for your question, I don't know anything about intentions. From reading that answer most people would be led to infer something different from this. Thus "misleading".
--Denis Diderot 19:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand. There's a difference between saying, "I support deleting all libelous and unsourced statements", and saying, "I support deleting all links to certain cites, regardless of context, even if it's specifically about that site, even if it's to point out a problem with that site, no matter what the reason, beyond all individual consideration, based solely on the principle of deleting it all before even reading." In other words, there's a difference between saying, "I support deleting material that isn't fit for Wikipedia", and, "I support deleting in the total absence of a thought process." I just don't understand how they're even remotely related. (Incidentally, I find your assertion that only politicians believe in thinking before acting to be somewhat... confusing. And possibly backwards.) Bladestorm 19:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The "deletionists' cabal" comment was meant to have nothing to do with attack sites, only with deletionism. GracenotesT § 17:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

In certain contexts "respect for fellow editors" requires a certain care with words. Thank you for making that clear.
--Denis Diderot 19:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
At the time, I had a deletionist userbox on my userpage, so context reinforced that it was an attempt to lighten a serious conversation, but certainly not to the extent of mockery. I don't mean deletionist in the meta wiki sense; rather, in the WP:SCISSORS statement-of-purpose sense. When Gurch redirected my userpage, the userbox is not something that I particularly miss, since that particular userbox can be seen as divisive. GracenotesT § 19:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Just as Jayjg believes in good faith that the support voters are making straw men arguments against the opposers, I believe in good faith (as I'm sure do many others in the support section) that the oppose voters are the ones who have presented a straw man. But what I find unacceptable is the comment at Visviva "Take your sanctimony elsewhere." User:Visviva was trying to help diffuse a tense situation, and an ad hominem attack was uncalled for and, in my opinion, counterproductive. --JayHenry 23:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Eh, I'm a sanctimonious fool. No harm done. To be honest, I don't really understand the depth of feeling (or rather, rage) on either side of this controversy. I can only note that the only contributor to this page who has consistently shown the conduct befitting a Wikipedian, as far as I can see, has been the candidate. And surprisingly so; most people would have stormed off long ago. -- Visviva 03:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Hear hear. Cla68 03:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

My side is pure common sense... it's the other side that's nothing but straw men! *Dan T.* 04:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

That's baloney... it's my side that's common sense and your side that's a straw man! *Dan T.* 04:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
No way! My side rules!!!!! You're a doody-head! *Dan T.* 04:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I know you are, but what am I? *Dan T.* 04:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm rubber and you're glue, and all of that... *Dan T.* 04:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
But my side is still the one that's right, and you know it. *Dan T.* 04:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
It's my side, and you know why? It's because it's the same side as your side... because I'm you and you're me! *Dan T.* 04:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I am? Darn! Then I've just been arguing with myself? *Dan T.* 04:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Yep... but it's about as productive as the arguments that have been going on involving lots of other people... and more efficient, too. *Dan T.* 04:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The Aristocrats. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An interesting accusation

moved to Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks#An_interesting_accusation

[edit] Late to the party

Damn, I missed this one. I would have supported strongly, I once offered to nominate Gracenotes for adminship [10] and nothing has changed since then to change my mind. Not that the tally would matter much, but I want to go on the record. The shame! See below Hiding Talk 15:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

They are actually two different users ("Gracenotes" vs "Grace Note"). --- RockMFR 15:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Very, VERY different users. Goodness gracious. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes... and that's another issue with this RfA. Who knows how many users voted thinking one user was the other? I know at least one of the opposers did, and I have a suspicion a couple of supporters did too – even though it stated clearly at the top that the two were not the same, this was reiterated at several points, and Grace Note actually voted – Gurch 16:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, I've made myself look a complete prick here, haven't I. School boy error and all that. Still, no harm done. Life goes on. You'd think I'd have checked first, but hey, when did checking ever stop anyone doing anything around here. Hiding Talk 16:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, quite. No harm done in this case, but in the case of those who voted, perhaps not. We will see if the bureaucrats manage to spot them, I guess. There is a particular oppose vote I have left a comment on that uses as a rationale events which happened months before Gracenotes became active, but which Grace Note seems to have been involved in to some degree. (Though Gracenotes had registered, he had barely 50 edits made weeks apart and had edited no relevant pages). I may well have overlooked similar things in either section – Gurch 16:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh noes, more unmitigated advocacy, Gurch! Seriously it would probably be a good idea to specifically mention these things to the bureaucrats that are handling this. — CharlotteWebb 03:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Assuming they actually read the RfA before making a decision, there should be no need – Gurch 13:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe not, but it wouldn't hurt to make sure of that. — CharlotteWebb 17:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Morning after the party

Looking over some of the oppose votes, I see some users whom I respect (and in some cases, have never interacted with), which is a bit saddening. To them, and everyone: I'm nearly sure this goes without saying, but if a community consensus can be reached on the "links to criticism/attack sites" issue, I plan on following it. As for judgment and empathy, those are qualities that I possess (or do not possess) as a human being, so I'm not sure that they can be determined solely from my view on this issue: my other contributions, and numerous interactions with other users in various debates contributes, could also be a factor. Whether promoted or not, I hope that my link-oriented (rather than site-oriented) views on this issue will not sour any interactions we shall have in the future. Cheers, GracenotesT § 19:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

For my part, I just wanted to see you clearly distinguish between "personal attacks" and privacy; between mere insults and editors' (at times, vital) interests. I have still yet to see such an effort on your part, although I may have missed it. As such, my opposition is more grounded in protest than concern of admin abuse (and I would not lose sleep if you were to become one). But, to devalue such a protest opposition as "political," "irrelevant," or somehow worth less than more conventional RfA opposition —or, at the same token, reduce it to some policy proposal I've never read— has been a hindrence to communicating this opinion, I feel. El_C 21:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I did mention personal attacks and privacy separately, but not in the sense of directly comparing them. I believe that my re-outline of A4 treats the two as separate entities (the idea of 1 is that the addition of a link to a personal attack can, depending on the intentions of the person that added it, be considered a personal attack), but understand what you mean about the nature of the vote. GracenotesT § 21:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Cool. I'm not, actually, treating "comparison" and distinction interchangeably (in that I'm not that interested in the former); I think that what many in the opposition viewed as insufficient sensitivity was a product of a lack of clarity & lucid exposition on this front. El_C 21:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah. Something that I'm rhetorically bad at is taking a vague question (with a lot of scope) and responding to it satisfactorily. I ended several questions with "please ask if you want more details" for a reason: I'm a fan of direct, blunt questions. GracenotesT § 01:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

One problem I didn't see your approach accounting for was that an attack site featuring a thread without privacy breaches, the next minute can feature privacy breaches (and those get to stay). Tis the nature of certain sites, then, that makes treating them incrementally so problematic. El_C 22:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If you get the nom (and I hope you do) a few words of advice; be humble with those who opposed, try to make efforts to support them where you find you are in agreement (while never compromising your ideals), and talk to them (you will learn far more from your critics). Be vigilant with your supporters; you have got the nod because you are the right kind of person, you do not owe anybody anything... except a civil thank you, perhaps. If a supporter is pushing or breaking the rules then it behoves you to act, I will with you and you must with me.
If you don't get the nom (and you should, IMO) do exactly what I have suggested before and, if you can stand it (and I have not witnessed such AGF fortitude in my time on WP), put yourself up again in a few months time when what seemed to be areas of concern have been measured against the good that you have continued to do. People may still disagree with your opinions but few will continue to oppose if they see your actions are in line with policy, etc.
Anyhow, it has been my privelige to have had a small part in this matter and to have interacted with you. All the best, my friend. Mark (LHvU) 21:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
"Learning from critics" and making efforts to engage opponents instead of attacking them are among the reasons some Wikipedians have for wanting to read, and sometimes respond in, the so-called "attack sites"; applying the "Assume Good Faith" maxim outside the hallowed halls of Wikipedia itself leads them to think that the people on those sites don't necessarily wake up in the morning determined to do evil (to Wikipedia or anybody else); maybe some of them have a legitimate beef of some sort that leads them to their (sometimes extreme and obnoxious) actions. Dialogue with them may be more constructive than vilifying them. *Dan T.* 23:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I see no necessity or requirement to interact with such sites, nor do I see any point in vilifying them. They exist, they publish want they want, people choose to read what is there (and choose whether to believe what they will and to how much) and sometimes contribute, some WP editors may also choose to "engage in discussion" with those parties... Well, great but lets not bring the external debate into WP. They "discuss" WP within their forums, and we discuss WP (including the off-wiki WP "discussion" sites) within the appropriate pages here. The two should remain within their seperate spheres, IMO. I believe that editors commenting in Wiki places need not link, quote, or refer to specific sites or pages in such instances. The implicit acknowledgement of such sites, and their various viewpoints, is sufficient to not need further interaction. LessHeard vanU 09:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
You've crossed the line now from specifically "attack" sites to all sites which engage in discussion or criticism of Wikipedia. Are you really suggesting that no site that criticises, discusses or even mentions Wikipedia in any way should be linked to from here? That is as ludicrous as it is impossible – Gurch 13:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm only talking about a dialogue or interaction with off-wiki sites regarding WP editors critical observations about WP; I see no need for links or references. When the subject of discussion is an attack page or site then I feel the site can be referenced, and linked if need be. My example is that if MyWikiWikiWays.com is commenting on the application of policy, then there is no need to link to that discussion in our own talkpages on the subject. If we are discussing MyWikiWikiWays.com (I may want to claim copyright on that name!), then a link to the site would be appropriate. I trust this clarifies my thinking. LessHeard vanU 15:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
So you're saying there's no need for any links to external sites that discuss Wikipedia at all unless the subject of discussion is that specific site? Right... so now we have to remove all secondary sources from the Wikipedia article? – Gurch 15:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
If it's a noncommercial, informational site, then MyWikiWikiWays.org or MyWikiWikiWays.info would be more appropriate... and why wouldn't it make sense to link to discussions there, in the course of discussion about Wikipedia itself, if you think that somebody made relevant points on such issues there? *Dan T.* 17:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
This is my last comment on this point. I would not mention or link to an off-Wiki site (attack or not) if I was discussing an internal matter, even if I was aware that such a site was also discussing it. I would may make a link to an off-Wiki site, or mention it, if I had been made aware of a matter that I wished to discuss. In appropriate discussions I would find such links useful. In articles pertaining to off-Wiki sites or where off-Wiki sites give relevant viewpoints I would prefer a link. I would rather treat each case on an individual basis. End of my contribution to this topic here. Thanks. LessHeard vanU 12:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Guys this is pointless. Write a proposal and post it on the Village Pump if you wanna change something. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bureaucrat chat is open on Gracenotes's RfA

I have opened a bureaucrat chat on this RfA here for reasons outlined on that page. Please remember that this is open to all to view in the interests of transparency, but it is only for bureaucrats' discussion and any other comments will be removed. -- Cecropia 15:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)