Talk:Patriotic Nigras

Article for Deletion

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Patriotic_Nigras_(4th_nomination)

-Recommended deletion, as this is a troll organization, is not notable, and lacks significant sources after months of edits. Da Killa Wabbit (talk) 01:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I see sources all over the place. Are you saying that those sources (Wired Magazine, New Scientist, and the group's own website) aren't legitimate sources of information? Also, I'd say that they are extremely notable, given that almost every one of the several hundred thousand SL users know of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.253.211 (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The notability outside SL is the issue. A similarity could be drawn to creating a Wikipedia article for a WoW guild, the notability in-community might be there, but outside of the community involved, it is irrelevant. In addition, this is clearly a troll group and WP:DENY easily applies. Da Killa Wabbit (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:DENY clearly doesn't apply, because this Second Life troll group sticks basically to SL and YouTube, not on Wikipedia. Denying the Patriotic Nigras a page just because they're trolls on Second Life is like recommending deletion for the Colorado balloon incident article because Richard Heene was mostly motivated for achieving fame. Furthermore, the group is entirely notable and does have significant sources. --Ssj4goku111 (talk) 14:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems strange that GNAA is deleted par ordre de mufti while this isn't. I'm not buying the verifiability line. GNAA was deleted because the lemma itself is offensive and putting up an article about it would only be a continuation of the troll. So why not here? Or conversely, why not articlify each and every racist troll out there?--87.162.43.121 (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You provide the reliable sources for the GNAA, and then we can talk about writing an article on them. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Da Killa Wabbit is most likely oppised to this article due to beliefs and opposed to the ideals of the PN, disregard him, he is making a biased opinion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Callanrockslol (talk • contribs) 15:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

- According to Section A7 Of the Criteria for Speedy deletion an article that is about "a real person, individual animal(s), organization or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" is subject to speedy deletion. I cannot see how a group of internet trolls is a significant group of people that has any difference to anyone apart from those they disrupt online. This group conducts itself in many cases illegally however has had no major or notable effect on any online community otherwise it would have become duly noted by such organisations they conduct against. For example the group Anonymous I would consider to be worthy and within the guidelines of Section A7 as it has had a noticeable effect on a group or organisation that has expressed in media and relevant formats this, however is not reflected by this group. In comparison the "Patriotic Nigras" is a small, attention seeking group of people who are getting just that from an unnecessary article. comment added by olowe2011 (talk —Preceding undated comment added 18:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

CSD A7 tag

The PN are a very well known group. They had an interview in the New Scientist magazine a while back. - Icewedge (talk) 07:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Note that the OVER NINE THOUSAAAAANNDDD! is a *Chan inside joke,a nd not an actual estimate on the number of accounts operated by PN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.6.189.254 (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, thank you for catching that, I have reverted it back to what it was originally. Icewedge (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

work needed

I think with work, this can be taken up to featured article status. The first thing the article needs are some good pictures plus more length. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

More like removed. Talk about WP:NOT. And while we're at it lets hope that the PN can get a life some time. Bunch of retards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.144.54 (talk) 17:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The information on the Patriotic Nigras page serve as code examples and are reported to be of more help than the 'advanced' scripters who often refuse to help or charge extravagant amounts for a simple scripting tutorial. Are reported to be? Reported to be by who? This whole line just reeks of POV trash. Prio (talk) 05:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Internet Terrorists

I'm sorry, but I'm tired of the coming here and changing the article to call them "internet terrorists". Are you saying they're the equivalent of Osama Bin Laden, and they got bombs strapped to them while they run into the US Embassy? The term griefers is enough.

Quite honestly, depicting griefers as "internet terrorists" is like depicting the school bully as Osama. Just stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.118.41 (talk) 05:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur that they are best described as "griefers" rather than "internet terrorists", although I am not sure such a view deserves to be called.Icewedge (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:TERRORIST, you need reliable sources for that adjective. (also, the name is already taken by Al-Qaeda members who use internet to communicate and to make propaganda) --Enric Naval (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggested Merge

Suggest a merge with the article Residents this topic does not need a separate stub article. --— MrBucket^T/_C 17:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Dead Link

The link to PN's website seems dead, maybe remove it

The website is now located at www.patrioticnigras.com— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgbuford (talk • contribs) 14:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Continued use of false citations

Recently User:Jgbuford has been adding information to this article covering the recent (2012-2013) activities of this group. In order to make this material appear as if it were supported by citations he has taken some of the existing citations and slapped them on. It looks nice from a distance, but if you actually read the citations you find that they do not cover the claims Jgbuford has added. Why? Because these citations are dated 2008 and 2009. Logically it is impossible to use them to cite information covering 2012-2013 because this period would have been 3 to 5 years the future at the time of their publication. I initially reverted this addition because it looked like a clear hoax. When I was reverted, I added cleanup tags so that readers would be alerted to the fact that this information is not in fact cited by any sources despite the appearance that they were. This was also reverted. I have written to Jgbuford twice and also to the IP account he is using to edit war but I have received no response. I am now writing this in anticipation of filing an edit warring report. I have restored the cleanup tags again (this makes my third addition of these tags) and I urge Jgbuford to communicate rather than revert. Failure to do so may result in editing restrictions. -Thibbs (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Insertion of content plagiarized from Encyclopedia Dramatica

User:Jgbuford/User:68.11.129.178 has now taken to inserting huge blocks of material about the Patriotic Nigras copied wholesale from Encyclopedia Dramatica. Not only is plagiarism like this forbidden on Wikipedia, but the quality of the information falls woefully short of the standards expected here. It is redolent with non-neutral terms like "furfag" and racist links like anchoring the term "derkaderp" to Muslim, and the level of shock humor is intensely juvenile. Humor in general is really something that serious encyclopedias avoid. The article can be expanded and if User:Jgbuford/User:68.11.129.178 is interested in making helpful contributions to the article then there are certainly ways he can provide positive help here. One of the most important issues that needs to be considered is that of sourcing. None of the Encyclopedia Dramatica material has any sources. It was all concocted by editors who were acting as primary sources. I urge Jgbuford/68.11.129.178 to at least skim through some of Wikipedia's core policies like WP:V and guidelines like WP:RS. I've continued to restore the properly sourced versions of the article but I want to stress that the article isn't in its final form and it can easily be changed as long as the basic rules are followed. I'm very willing to work with editors who want to make appropriate changes here. If Jgbuford/68.11.129.178 has questions about what may be appropriate or inappropriate, then this talk page is the place to ask. Failure to discuss these edits and resumption of the edit warring will likely result in editing sanctions. -Thibbs (talk) 11:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I User:Jgbuford authored most of the content on Encyclopedia Dramatica article, therefore this is not plagarism. This is my proven work. If this article falls out of Wikipedia standards, then this article should be deleted entirely from Wikipedia. 68.11.129.178 to the IP account is not my ip, thus you have fasley acused me of another user who too finds you wrong and out of line for your actions.

Given that @Thibbs: is a whitelisted user with over 16,000 edits, no deleted edits and zero warning history I find myself struggling to believe that he is a vandal as you @Jgbuford: have accused him of being. You, a non-whitelisted user with at this time, 37 edits... The page move was entirely unnecessary, and the page didn't need protection. It now does in order to prevent a breach of WP:3RR. I would recommend that before doing your nut and going off on one requesting protection here and shouting vandal there you simply talk to the conflicting editor and try to resolve it amicably. Take my advice, or dont, this is simply my personal thoughts and comments on the matter. Best regards to both of you. KiraChinmoku 12:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Jgbuford, I don't understand why you say that if the article requires proper citations then it must be deleted from Wikipedia. It was existing perfectly fine as a well-sourced article until you came along with your attempt at making it hilarious. It is exceptionally evident that you and 68.11.129.178 are at least working in tandem here. No serious editor would imagine that Wikipedia is the place to be calling Muslims "derkaderps". -Thibbs (talk) 18:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

@Jgbuford Unsourced trivia (putting it politely) has no place in a serious encyclopedic article. Please refrain from adding it unless you can find reliable third-party sources showing the material you want to add is significant. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Non Accredited Link / Inactive

I have removed the link to the website shown on this article for two reasons: (RE:http://who.is/whois/http://www.patrioticnigras.org)

1. According to WHOIS Records the sites status shows as inactive. Inactive links are not used on Wikipedia Info boxes.

2. There is no reference sited to show that this is the Official Website for the Patriotic Nigras. All material on Wikipedia should have reliable sources and references. See Wikipedia:RS

--Olowe2011 (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

1. You're misreading the whois info. The site is active. Ping me if you want more info.

2. You seem to be correct so I've added it as an external link

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thumbs up, thanks --Olowe2011 (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

According to academic author, Maria Bäcke, this is the group's official website. I've restored the active website. -Thibbs (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Also note that there is no prohibition of links to inactive websites. The intention of the website field is not to promote the organization, but to provide encyclopedic information for readers. An old inactive URL can prove to be a very important source of further information when used together with the Internet Archive. -Thibbs (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

For the record, this is not the first time Olowe2011 has tried to remove this website. For more information see this prior discussion. I am concerned by the appearance that this may be a backdoor effort to censor the content of this article, but I assume goodfaith for now. -Thibbs (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Add a reference to Maria Bäcke confirming this to be the official website and re replace the link, Wikipedia has a strict standard on showing references and sources. ThisSource you provided does not confirm this to be their official website only shows it as a reference to her writing. --Olowe2011 (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Additional- NeilN is an experienced rollback rights user so i'm sure he knows what he is doing. A reference in another text is not a reliable source of information. Attempting to claim this to be their official website would require a source to actually say it is their official website, not quote the website as existing. --Olowe2011 (talk) 18:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to edit war with you, Olowe2011, but you are wrong. The quote from Bäcke's book published by Continuum International Publishing Group is this:

“ In SL, well-known griefers such as the Patriotic Nigras, http://www.patrioticnigras.org/, aim to destroy the game experience by taking down sims or create (scripted) explosions for targeted groups such as the Goreans or Furries. ”

–Excerpt from Page 133 (ISBN 978082643680).

It is quite clear that this website is listed as the official website and not as just some random website Ms. Bäcke discovered on the internet. Do you have any sources suggesting that this isn't the official website of the group? Perhaps you have a source suggesting that another website is really the official website? Please furnish contrary sources rather than removing the one that academic sources suggest to be the group's website. -Thibbs (talk) 18:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

There is a link to this site in the external links section to this article. Again a single source quoting a website is not a reliable enough source to make an assumed claim of fact. In this case you are trying to claim this is their official website based upon a quote from a book that doesn't explicitly say this is their official website only cross-references it as a website in existence. I can find various research articles relating to Macdonalds fansites posted across the internet that use similar domain names to the official one however this alone does not make them the official Macdonalds website. --Olowe2011 (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

A plain reading of the book quote shows that Bäcke is listing the official website of the group she is discussing. Think about it objectively. Do you think an academic author would ever write something like this:

• "In London, fast food establishments such as McDonalds, http://www.mcdonaldsfansite.org/, provide citizens with food on the go."

That is not how sources are cited in academic writing. That is how official websites are presented. Again, do you have any sources contradicting this obviously reliable source? -Thibbs (talk) 18:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no where in that text that explicitly states that is their official website. It quotes it as a website but it does not say it is their official website. Is there any references apart from that one line in a book written by her that can prove this website is indefinably owned and operated by members of the Patriotic Nigras organization?--Olowe2011 (talk) 18:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that it's not just "quote[d] as a website". Presented immediately inline with the group's name like that amounts to a statement that it is the group's website and not just a random source of information on them. What leads you to think that this isn't the group's website? Do you have a source that refutes this? If you don't then I'd go with a plain understanding of the single reliable source rather than your non-academic opinions. We can let others weigh in on what is the plain meaning of Bäcke's claim if you are convinced that she's just listing a random website instead of the official one. -Thibbs (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Additional- You are making a presumption that this is their official website based upon the text you have quoted which is vs Wikipedia Notability guidelines (as seen here WP:GNG.)--Olowe2011 (talk) 19:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

End- The article was already edited to reflect the website link in the external links section to the article, where it belongs by another editor. I do not see where the problem is because the link is still included in the article just not added to falsify a belief this site is operated by the organization the article is about based upon a source you claim to reflect it as their official website despite the fact it doesn't state it as their official website. I am going to leave the edit as made by the other editor, as there was no issue. Any further comments on this I will ignore because I don't think its worth further discussion. If a broader opinion needs to be reached on why this link should be included to reflect their official websites domain name then other editors should be involved to come to that conclusion. As of yet the inclusion of the website in the external links section is an appropriate place for it to be as it is an external link. --Olowe2011 (talk) 19:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

That is the plain meaning of the sentence, Olowe2011. Here is another source authored by The Alphaville Herald's Mark P. McCahill that is even more explicit. Your claim that this article doesn't meet GNG was already put to rest after your failed AfD attempt for this article. You're welcome to try again, but so long as the consensus is that the article's topic is notable, we shouldn't be trying to remove/censor the group's website. I would like to see outside views on this, but if it's just your own opinion on the matter versus the views of reliable academic sources then I side with the RSes... -Thibbs (talk) 19:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should the Patriotic Nigras Website link be included in the article?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the website of a known trolling and hacking group be included in this article and does it or could it present a serious security risk to Wikipedia viewers and editors and therefore should be removed? Olowe2011 (talk) 10:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• Significant - Since reviewing the actual website I have found many references to Second Life and Linden Labs. These are copyright to Linden Labs and such legal notices and documents exist to verify this. The trademarked and / or copyrighted material is displayed without permission on the website link shown in this article, making it in violation of WP:ELNEVER. Find Linden TOS here. The following items on their website clearly violate Linden Labs rights:

• The use of the Name Second Life which is copyright to Linden Labs and should only be used in set circumstances and in accordance to their ToS

• The use of an unauthorized third-party client found here which clearly violates Linden Labs rights by circumnavigating their Servers security and attempting to make unauthorized changes to their technical server structure which is copyright infringement as they have no given authorization to use Linden Labs owned servers or tools in their client.
• Various other copyright infringements that can be found by browsing the website.

• • A name cannot be copyrighted, nor can a "short phrase". Trademark protection of a name cannot validly prohibit use of that name to discuss or refer to the trademarked product or service. DES ^(talk) 00:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Creation of tools to interact with a product is specifically exempted from the DCMA restrictions. Tools used solely to breach security may be a violation, but that is not a simple or straightforward legal question. DES ^(talk) 00:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • "Various other copyright infringements" is not persuasive without specifics. DES ^(talk) 00:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• Remove Link I believe that inclusion of the website link in this article could threaten the security of editors and users because those who are said to operate the website are known for hacking and invading computer based systems. Olowe2011 (talk) 10:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
• Remove per nom and it doesn't matter -- any reader wishing to find the site can easily google it. NE Ent 10:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment, Has the ability to easily google it ever been a valid reason to remove any RS-verified information from Wikipedia? -Thibbs (talk) 12:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
• Remove, There is an argument that most users of modern browsers and OSes have some security at their end; this argument is pretty well nullified by (1) this organisation's goal to exploit holes in security and (2) 30 seconds spent looking at our traffic analysis. Ironholds (talk) 11:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
• Include, (1) The guidelines on this issue are clear. WP:ELOFFICIAL unequivocally supports the inclusion of the official website of the organization. Because concerns like that we see from User:Olowe2011 are fairly common, specific instructions note that "These links are exempt from the links normally to be avoided" In case there is still confusion, the first line of WP:ELNO in bold states "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject..." WP:ELNEVER simply doesn't apply as the website has neither been demonstrated to violate copyright nor is it blacklisted.
  (2) The question of whether or not the group is a "known hacking group" should be resolved through evidence, not just on Olowe2011's say-so. There is plenty of evidence that they are a griefer group and that they use scripts in the SecondLife program to cause mischief. I do not see any evidence that they are a hacker group or that they have ever targeted anybody apart from social gaming websites like SecondLife and HabboHotel. If there is any evidence that the website contains malware, malicious scripts, trojan exploits, etc. that could harm Wikipedia readers then these should be presented here.
  (3) An obvious and easy compromise is possible as well. As at the article on LulzSec (an actual hacking group), we could simply link to archived versions of the official webpage that are provided by the Internet Archive (a non-hacking group). I can personally vouch for the safety of links to the Internet Archive.
  (4) This RfC (coming after an unsuccessful AfD, an ELNO-based removal, a claim that the URL doesn't in fact reflect an official website, and an AN/I request) represents User:Olowe2011's 5th attempt to remove this URL or otherwise detract from this article. I don't think he is acting as a neutral party here. -Thibbs (talk) 12:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment, Listen, Thibbs I am not making this a personal attack against you and I expect that you don't keep making remarks about me and keep on the actual topic at hand. I have made the simple point that this group is designed to find loopholes in security therefore why would it be safe to expect Wikipedia readers and editors to potentially visit the site of a group known for hacking and exploiting websites. It's a simple, clear cut opinion based on fact. An AfD has nothing to do with the removal of a link based upon its potential to cause harm to the Wikipedia Community, these matters are unrelated. I have no involvement with the group Patriotic Nigras and I'd ask you to use common sense to deduce the fact that what I am saying is for the good of the community and there is absolutely no harm that could arise from the removal of this potentially dangerous link. This RfC is to generate an opinion based upon community consensus. I'm not attacking you or trying to nullify your credibility based upon historic events unrelated to the matter at hand. Everyone has the right to create an AfD and it was it's 4th Nomination, I'd rather you stop attempting to use this to discredit my contributions. Thank you. --Olowe2011 (talk) 12:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Additional, To be quite honest I really don't seem to get along with you and would rather have limited or no involvement with you. So I'm going to ask once for you to stop mentioning me in your responses unless it is actually required and try to remain impartial and keep to the topic at hand. I.e if you have something to say make it about that topic not about me, thank you. The reasons for this is because I cannot seem to understand your reasoning and cannot make positive contributions with you, even after making attempts to be civil. I'm not trying to censor you and it's nothing to do with me if you have an opinion on a matter that I have raised, But i'd honestly prefer if you kept on topic and made statements directly related to that matter. If you have complaints about me or are concerned about bias ect could you bring this to the attention of Administrators or follow a dispute resolution process. Thank you. --Olowe2011 (talk) 13:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
    • It's not credible to imagine that all of your efforts against this article represent unrelated historical incidents. I think an obviously biased nomination is worth taking note of. As we can see from the linked AN/I thread, incorrect assumptions about your degree of involvement here has provided the basis of at least one editor's comments already. -Thibbs (talk) 13:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
• Include per Thibbs. It's not exactly a surprise for a reader to end up on the PN web page from this article. I also feel we ought to marshall at least some evidence PN engages in the sort of activities we're looking to protect readers from before we remove the link. Protonk (talk) 13:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
• Include per Thibbs. Having such a link cannot be a "security risk to Wikipedia" as there is no way for a malicious script to reach out magically through a link and affect Wikipedia's servers. It might, possibly, be a risk to Wikipedia users who choose to click on it, but anyone who has read the article and chooses to click the link to a site of self-proclaimed "griefers" knows or ought to know what the risks are. Wikipedia is not censored and it is not our business to protect our users from risks that they may choose to take. If this group is notable enough to have an article then the links is appropriate, indeed almost mandatory. DES ^(talk) 14:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
• Include. Some good reasoning is offered by Thibbs. I would emphasize the lack of any evidence that the site is harmful to those who visit. If some evidence could be offered I would happily reconsider my position. JodyB _talk 14:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
• Include per DES. If we must, add the URL in non-markup form but really, I see no reason to do even this as no evidence has been provided that the site is infected with malware. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeilN (talk • contribs)
• Include. Thibbs has it right, though I will say if (and this is a big if) we were talking about a current attack page that could crash someone's computer (like GNAA's Last Measure), that attempts to get users to download malware, or that otherwise poses a threat to our readers who click through it, I would absolutely support removal (and I think that should actually be proposed as a change to WP:EL, because I cannot believe the mandatory link policy was intended to mandate linking to a harmful webpage). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I think WP:EL works well as written. The thing to do if a website is actually harmful is to get it blacklisted. Then it falls under WP:ELNEVER which is an exception to WP:ELOFFICIAL. I fully support blacklisting harmful/malicious websites (but only on some kind of evidence that they are harmful/malicious). -Thibbs (talk) 15:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
    • I'll go further. Blacklisting obviates the need to weigh ELNEVER against ELOFFICAL. We probably shouldn't be using policies to make ad hoc security decisions for the site or a user and the blacklist (along with some minimal obvious common sense) allows us to avoid doing that as editors. Protonk (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
• include link: given no evidence of actual harm and only vague theoretical assumptions, and the countering of those assumptions below from the "clear" assessment by McAfee's Site Advisor, there is no reason to vary from the standards of including the official website. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
• Include link unless and until there's explicit evidence of harm. In which case I'd still be in favour of including a link, but it would be far weaker favour. DESiegel has already completely rebutted the nomination points, so I won't repeat. —me_and 10:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC) (minor correction on 13:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC))
• Include link per WP:NOTCENSORED!!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
• Include This is just baseless. Copyright and trademark don't work that way. It looks like someone has a grudge against them. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 00:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
• Guess I'll have to go with remove link or else replace with an archived version that's known to be safe, per User:Thibbs and User:DESiegel. I say per Thibbs and DES even though they're favoring including the link, because their arguments are so weak they make the case for the opposite position. Thibbs, it's flat-out nuts to maintain that WP:ELNO's bolded exception "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject..." applies to "Sites containing malware, malicious scripts, [and/or] trojan exploits". Right? You're not arguing that the link probably doesn't contain these things (you do get to that later). You're arguing that even if it did we should link to it if it's an official site. That's... crazy. Are we really going to have append the opening of WP:ELNO to read ""Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, unless it will damage the reader's computer..."? Ya think maybe that folks who wrote that rule kind of assumed that they wouldn't have to spell that out. We can spell it out if that'd help.

As to DES, just... um. "It might, possibly, be a risk to Wikipedia users who choose to click on it, but anyone who has read the article and chooses to click the link to a site of self-proclaimed "griefers" knows or ought to know what the risks are. Wikipedia is not censored and it is not our business to protect our users from risks that they may choose to take. DES, that's not how we roll here. "Computer broke? Cry me a river, and next time be a little more careful using the Wikipedia, n00b" is not how we treat our readers. Furthermore, it's not a good idea to start taking that attitude toward our readers, for a number of sound reasons. Do you want to me spell them out for you? I can if you need. We have a wide variety of readers here and not all of them are as savvy as you might think. Setting traps for them is not helpful to our mission, we are not engaged in a herd-thinning operation here.

I think it's safe to say that both of these arguments are not even wrong; they fail to even be proper arguments on a fundamental level. "Screw the readers" can't really be refuted but it can be ignored, and I trust that the person closing the discussion will do that. Since many of the other "Include" comments were "per Thibbs" and "per DES" we can discount those too, at least to the extent that it is these points that are meant, and this puts the issue in considerable doubt at least.

However, Thibbs does make another, separate point, that the link probably poses no danger. That's a reasonable argument, and if it's true then there's no problem. I don't know the answer to that, and I'm not familiar with the organization, but I'm a little leery of including the link, because :

1. Although you'd think it would be a bad business model for the organization to damage the computers of their visitors, I'm not entirely confident that they're operating in the sphere of rational business models, or what their deal is. If what is called "lulz" is enhanced by some sort of maliciousness to the general public (I don't know if this is true or not, but it might be), they would have the motivation to attack our readers' computers.
2. And they apparently have the skillz to do it if they wanted to.
3. And the cavalier attitude of Thibbs, DES, and the per Thibbs/DES commentors does not inspire me with confidence that they're really taking this as seriously as we ought to.
4. And we want to err on the side of caution here.

If, and I'd think only if, the person closing the argument is satisfied that the danger to our readers is very low, not significantly above that for ibm.com or any other site, would it be possible for her to allow the link to remain, regardless of headcount. I'm not sure how she could be satisfied of that, but maybe there's some objective way.

Finally, if the link is removed, as Thibbs usefully points out, it should be OK to link to an archived version. Seems to me that this might well be the best solution. Herostratus (talk) 13:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Herostratus this is not a "Site containing malware, malicious scripts, [and/or] trojan exploits". In fact it has been certified safe in a way that few of our external links have, read above. However, I maintain that the link should remain even if it were not merely supposed (on no evidence whatsoever) to be harmful, but were known to be so. Tour argument (if it can be dignified with that name) that 'we don't provide links that might harm some readers' is completely incompatible with the principles of Wikipedia, in my view. It could be transformed into a precisely similar argument against linking to, or including "not safe for work" images. After all if someone clicks on one of those, that person might well get fired, which is a far worse outcome for most people than having a computer infected with a virus or malware. And clicks that might bring up such an image have no particular warning or indication, whereas here the very nature and content of the article provides all the warning a user ought to need. (However if it were proposed to put a warning notice beside the link, which I think it would be paranoia in the absence of any evidence whatsoever of any malicious code or exploits on this site, I wouldn't make a fuss over the matter.)

I might add that I'm seeing no new arguments here, and I hope an uninvolved closer will deal with this matter shortly. DES ^(talk) 14:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I basically agree with DESiegel here, Herostratus, but I wanted to point out a few additional items as well because I think you overlooked them in your review of the guidelines. First of all, we are speaking about an official website of an organization so the most directly applicable portion of WP:EXT is WP:ELOFFICIAL. The text of ELOFFICIAL is exceptionally clear that official websites "are exempt from the links normally to be avoided, but they are not exempt from the restrictions on linking" (emphasis added). Your interesting speculations about what the writers of the guidelines must have really meant by that is needless in this case. Why? Because even if you were correct in the assumption that this website was a virus-source (which is of course a demonstrably false assumption) then the solution would be to get the link blacklisted. If you read through the "restrictions on linking" (i.e. WP:ELNEVER) you will see that blacklisted links are exceptions to ELOFFICIAL. There is no need to carve out redundant exceptions for virus-riddled trojan-hosting websites because these are already suitable for the blacklist and the blacklist excepts them from ELOFFICIAL and bars them from Wikipedia. I know I'm repeating myself here because this was already discussed above, but I not sure how it can be made clearer. Your characterization of this common-sense interpretation as "flat-out nuts" suggests to me that you've failed to grasp the fundamental logical structure of the guideline. -Thibbs (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Furthermore -

1. There is plenty of evidence that they are a griefer group and that they use scripts in the SecondLife program to cause mischief Common Sense would tell you that Linden Labs (Creators of Second Life) would not program scripts into their programs that are intended to be used to cause mischief. There are no Official Scripts that Linden Labs has authorized that can be used for the activities Patriotic Nigras partakes in. Patriotic Nigras use illegally modified scripts and clients to get around the security features used by Linden Labs. This is generally classified as exploiting security. Therefore the group participates in the exploitation of IT security features which is why directing Wikipedia's users to an official website created by them could put them at risk.

2. This RfC (coming after an unsuccessful AfD, an ELNO-Based removal, aclaim that the URL doesn't in fact reflect an official website, and an AN/I Request) Represents User:olowe2011's 5th attempt to remove this URL or otherwise detract from this article. I don't think he is acting as a neutral party here Firstly the AfD was for a completely different reason and was based upon this article when it had very limited references / sources. Secondly after the ELNO-Based removal claim was made the link was removed and replaced. Thirdly the URL doesn't reflect an official website was another issue based on completely different reasoning, I only thought about the security implications after doing further research on the Patriotic Nigras groups activities therefore raised it as an AN/I Request. Fourthly, the AN/I Request was made so that I could get administrator advice on if the link represented a direct threat to the Wikipedia Community and if it did what could I do about it. Another editor advised me to post this thread as an RfC to get better user consensus on the issue at hand so I followed their advice and here I am. --Olowe2011 (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• In re: 1, I'm sorry, no. That's just laughable. Common sense tells us linden wouldn't 'program scripts...intended to cause mischief'? They do...exactly that. A core feature of the world is the ability to program objects basically arbitrarily. Somehow it follows that because they exploit this functionality that is 'generally classified as exploiting security' and therefore they exploit IT security therefore we can't link to them. Is there evidence PN writes or uses browser exploits or targets groups outside of SL? Protonk (talk) 13:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd still consider users of Second Life members of the Internet Community and Humans. I don't see that just because the group has been known to effect members of a particular service means they are any less likely to effect members of the rest of the world wide web. They are already shown to have exploited the security of users on internet services, regardless of what they are. If this is what they are known for and you have a link on a Wikipedia article to the official website of those people you are putting readers and those who use Wikipedia in danger. It could also be considered that certain content on their website promotes unlawful activities. There is more harm that can come from allowing Wikipedia users to direct themselves to this link than good. Also as shown in this article PN uses modified Second Life clients that take extended technical knowledge. You also have to get around security features in order to create this kind of program. If they are able to do it to a well known commercial company they can do it to anyone else and the risk is high. --Olowe2011 (talk) 14:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
    • That's not evidence. That's a chain of inferences. Do you have any evidence that PN writes or uses malware for the browser or that they'd do so on their own website? Protonk (talk) 14:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Nope, I do not have any defiant evidence that proves the Patriotic Nigras to be using their website to attack users of that website. I base my concerns on the fact the whole purpose of the Patriotic Nigras is to find exploits and cause internet users problems, I personally would say that visiting their website and them having your IP address poses a risk in itself however there is also a chance they could be using exploits in line with their general cause. On personal terms I wouldn't want to refer people to a website I know is operated by people known for finding exploits in related services. I accept the view that just because they attack people on one service does not automatically mean they will do using their official website to do the same. I suppose our opinions differ and that is what Wikipedia is about. If you guys feel that just because there is no set evidence to say that their website can exploit vulnerabilities despite the fact the whole group is formed around doing just that but using a service not based on their website then I guess that is your views. I just hope no-one will get harmed by using their website and coming up against an exploit due to finding the link here on Wikipedia. --Olowe2011 (talk) 14:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
        • While the absence of evidence of exploits on their website (as opposed to in their doings on Second life) is a significant reason to include the link, I would go further. Even if there were clear-cut evidence that their site did include malicious code, I would still advocate linking to it, albeit with a warning note. It is not up to Wikipedia or its editors to decide what risks its users should take. Anyone who chooses to visit a possibly malicious website, knowing that it is the site of a group devoted to internet mischief and malicious conduct, should be free to do so, and we should not try to hinder that in a misplaced attempt to protect that person. DES ^(talk) 14:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
        • this isn't a difference of opinion. You're making a claim that because PN griefs people in SL, they can (as in have the capability to do so) and will (as in will use that capability) distribute malware via their site. That's a testable claim and it needs at least a modicum of evidence. I'm asking for some evidence that a capability and willingness exists. If you'd like to cast this as a difference of opinion you're of course welcome to do so, but don't be surprised if you don't find a lot of agreement for that stance. Protonk (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
          • No you are right, its me saying I believe that there is no sense in linking a website owned and operated by a group known for exploiting weakness in internet based services, its something the whole article reflects. There really isn't much more to say apart from the fact I don't agree with the links inclusion based on what I see as WP:Common Sense. I believe it is up to those who wish to keep the link to give reasons for its inclusion. As such you guys remain liable for the links inclusion, thanks. --Olowe2011 (talk) 23:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The standard per WP:EXT is that external links can be included, not that they should. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link. So saying "there's nothing wrong with it" isn't a valid argument -- ("Not censored" doesn't apply here.) It's essentially a toss-up; I concur that we're not here to "protect" readers from clicking on bad links but we're also not required to provide them and we're certainly not harming the reader's ability to find and visit the site if they want. NE Ent 15:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not essentially a toss-up. The guidelines under WP:ELYES explicitly say "Wikipedia articles about any organization ... should link to the subject's official site." (emphasis added). Perhaps "should link" and "can normally be linked" indicate that we can sometimes ignore the guidelines by local consensus, but there should be a solid reason to do so and there's clearly at least a presumption in favor of including official links like the one under discussion here. -Thibbs (talk) 15:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• FWIW, currently (see timestamp) running McAfee's Site Advisor on http://www.patrioticnigras.org/ gives "This link is safe. We tested it and didn't find any significant security issues." Arjayay (talk) 15:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, that's useful data. I'd change my vote if it mattered. NE Ent 15:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• You're a peer so your !vote matters just as much as any of ours do, NE Ent. We all have equal voice here (with possibly a grain of salt taken for !votes from me and Olowe2011 since we're "involved parties"). -Thibbs (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks; it doesn't matter because of my status (or lack thereof); it doesn't matter since it's a close to wp:snow 8-3 count trending "include." Regardless of which part of the somewhat incoherent self-contradictory Wikipedia:External links we cherry pick, wp:consensus is a guideline trumping pillar. NE Ent 17:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:ELOFFICIAL says, in pertinant part:

"Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself. These links are exempt from the links normally to be avoided, but they are not exempt from the restrictions on linking."

None of the listed restrictions apply. I think "Not censored" does apply here strongly, when the intent to remove a link is because of the nature of the content or supposed content on the page linked to. Removal in such a case is a form of censorship. We should "give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself." That is the reason for inclusion. The reason for not including an official link would be that it doesn't in fact describe itself and isn't useful to a reader interested in learning about the subject. Or if the link violates WP:ELNEVER, which this does not. I think any "burden" of making a case for inclusion has been well sustained. DES ^(talk) 15:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

According to that argument, Wikipedia should remove links on every hacking group article (and to every U.S. government site for that matter) because "OMG, they could do bad things with your IP!" FUD isn't a reason for overruling common sense. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• Significant - Since reviewing the actual website I have found many references to Second Life and Linden Labs. These are copyright to Linden Labs and such legal notices and documents exist to verify this. The trademarked and / or copyrighted material is displayed without permission on the website link shown in this article, making it in violation of WP:ELNEVER. Find Linden TOS here. --Olowe2011 (talk) 23:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • A trademark holder cannot prohibit mention or discussion of a product, nor use of a trademark to identify the product. Any attempt to do so in a "terms of Use" or similar statement is void and of no effect. The protection given to a trademark holder is against use that might be confusingly similar, or that might trade on the reputation or good name of the product or holder. In short, if the page is claiming to be Linden labs, or to be endorsed or approved in some way by them, or in some other way is being deceptive by making people think that something not provided or endorsed by the trademark holder is so provided or endorsed, then this may be an unlawful infringement of the trademark. Otherwise not. As to copyright, you mention "references to Second Life and Linden Labs" references can not in general be copyrighted. Is there any actual text or images from Linden Labs posted without permission? If not there is no copyright issue and so no WP:ELNEVER issue. DES ^(talk) 23:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • wow, you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel here, aren't you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• • • The use of the Name Second Life which is copyright to Linden Labs and should only be used in set circumstances and in accordance to their ToS

The use of an unauthorized third-party client found here which clearly violates Linden Labs rights by circumnavigating their Servers security and attempting to make unauthorized changes to their technical server structure which is copyright infringement as they have no given authorization to use Linden Labs owned servers or tools in their client. Various other copyright infringements that can be found by browsing the website. I mean realistically this looks like one of them things Linden Labs has to make an official notice to the Wikimedia Foundation on one of its articles directing to a website that clearly violates a multitude of their rights... Which is embarrassing but so be it.--Olowe2011 (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

pretty sure that falls under fair use for parody and satire. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

What's now embarrassing is your absolute desperation to get rid of the link. I thought at first you were acting in good faith but now it seems you have some personal crusade. If you really believe that Linden Labs has absolute control over how the term "Second Life" is used then the Fair use article should be a real eye opener for you. And why are you poking around on the website since you "personally would say that visiting their website and them having your IP address poses a risk in itself"? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• I know how to use a proxy for starters and I have security features on my PC to prevent virus infection whereas some do not. The point I have made is completely factual, there is a number of material on the Website of the Patriotic Nigras that reflects breeches in both the Law and Linden Labs copyrights. The violation is not in them using the name Second Life it is in them MISUSING the name. For example the inclusion in their own logo that clearly states Ruining Second Life since 2006 this is not fair use of their copyrighted name as its intention is to cause malice towards the owners of the copyright licence. The fact there is also a link to a program for download on their website that uses materials licensed to Linden Labs with explicit requirement for authorization before use. The creators of that program have not sought permission for their inclusion of this software. Putting this simply the website does breech Linden Labs copyright and it's inclusion is a clear violation of WP:ELNEVER. The software link in which can be downloaded also represents a security risk for those who download it as you are required to enter your personal Login information to access it and it contains scripts designed to circumnavigate security features. It is not a real eye opener for me and I believe that the cause to remove this website link is much greater than to keep it. --Olowe2011 (talk) 09:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

  There is a fundamental difference between copyright and trademarks. "Second Life", as a phrase, is a trademark, not something subject to copyright, and has very different protections as such. PN do not appear to be trying to represent themselves as Linden Labs or as being supported by Linden Labs, and so I see no evidence of trademark misuse. (And trademark misuse is not in WP:ELNEVER anyway.) Can you point to a specific example of breaching copyright? —me_and 11:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

  If I choose to, i can create a web page with the title "XYZ Widgets -- The worst Widgets Ever Sold" and the XYZ Widgets logo (substitute any real product in your mind) even though "XYZ Widgets" and the logo may be a registered trademark, and this will not infringe XYZ's registered trade mark. There have been numerous court cases on this point, when companies tried to use t4ademark protection to shutdown negative comment. The rule is clear, unless I am pretending to be XYZ or falsely calming to be authorized by XYZ or in some way falsely trying to take advantage of XYZ's good will doing that is perfectly legal under US trademark law. As to copyright, copyright law simply does not protect book titles, product names or other short names at all. There IS no copyright on "Liaden Labs", "Second Life", "Coke", "Kodak", "Disney", "The Three Musketeers", "Harry Potter" or any similar name or title, although some of them are trademarked. DES ^(talk) 14:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

  Anyone else find it odd that Olowe2011 claims to be a lawyer and yet we have to explain very, very basic and common sense precepts to him? I mean, "this is not fair use of their copyrighted name as its intention is to cause malice towards the owners of the copyright licence" - where to begin? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

  Lawyers do specialize. But since s/he was not claiming particular legal expertise in this discussion (I had no idea that Olowe2011's talk page declared the user to be a lawyer), the validity or inaccuracy of that claim is really not relevant here, let us debate content and policies, not personalities. DES ^(talk) 21:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

  The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Patriotic Nigras. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://nexisonline.wordpress.com/2009/07/17/re-shoopedlife-fucking-broken/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)