Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

External link required

{{editprotected}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous consensus, rulings, practice

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

ArbCom rulings^[1]

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

• Links to attack site
  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm still waiting to hear any good reason we shouldn't be linking in this article... preferably one that seems at all logically consistent with common practice across the entire site or the principles of this project. Neutrality, anyone? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Deadline

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

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

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

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

Old history now, and resolved, I hope. You unfortunately edit from a range whose main contributor is a very problematic vandal. The range was hard-blocked after many, many attempts to soft block and address exceptions. Such cases are not left because ArbCom are "some kind of almighty gods", but for a much more basic reason - it's a norm to check with a blocking admin before unblocking, and more so, on a complex block with "history" that not many admins understand fully. You were unblocked shortly, and were (I think) either the first or second beneficiary of IP block exemption a few weeks later, pushed by ArbCom as well, which solved the problem. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Decision

This just in from the ArbCom Clarification request :-

"Arbitrator views and discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:PROBLEMLINKS states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Links to ED^[2]

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

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

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

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

Fuckin' mindblowing isn't it..

• Outing sites as attack sites
  

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

• Encyclopedia Dramatica as an outing and attack site

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In my eyes, it will be a blow to the credibility of this project if we don't have the link; that said, the site is on meta's spam blacklist, last I checked, so as far as I know the text link is the only easy way to link. My current position is that this is a content decision outside of arbcom's authority; absent a clear declaration from arbcom that their prohibition is still in effect, it's quite clearly dated now that we have an article (never mind they already amended the MONGO remedies, saying the community can resolve the contents of this article on our own). We don't follow rules "because they're rules," here, we follow them because they're a good idea at the time and because they match the circumstances. Circumstances have changed, now, so it's time for the rule to catch up. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Using an URL to bypass the spam filter is inappropriate. Say the word fuck was technically banned on a forum - the moderators won't let you get away with saying shpx. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Failing to include the URL in an encyclopedia article about the web site would be inappropriate. "Fuck" can be banned in a forum. A forum's role is to provide a place for discussion, and the moderators can decide to censor that. The URL cannot be banned from Wikipedia. Wikipedia's role is to provide information, and Wikipedia is not censored. WODUP 03:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The ArbCom seems as deadlocked as the rest of the community on the issue, with one arbitrator saying it's up to the community to decide whether to link and inappropriate for it to be imposed by ArbCom fiat, another arbitrator saying that the link ban should be maintained, and a third saying he agrees with both of them. This seems to result in a "clarification" that's "No Consensus" (pending the other arbitrators commenting, if they ever do). If it ends on such a "hung jury", it basically punts the decision back to us here, with no "argument from authority" to impose one rule on us. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)