WikiIndex talk:Prohibited content

Proposal = bad idea

The proposal is trolling. Several of Leucosticte's wikis were deleted, I think inappropriately. This proposal is one of his standard moves. I.e., instead of actually negotiating, argue and debate. Propose something extreme in an attempt to win an argument.

I removed the policy template to make this a proposed policy. It would need a lot of change to be appropriate. --Abd (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

It's descriptive, not prescriptive, of WikiIndex practice. Can you provide any evidence that this is not the current practice? Leucosticte (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict with above). Leucosticte reverted my removal of the policy template. Actually, he trained me on Wikipedia, I'm a student of WP:DGAF. DGAF allows me to implement WP:IAR, and I've done it with high success. Wikis are fun, if we don't care. If we care, well, that can get difficult

Needless to say, I reverted. It's not a policy because I Say It's Not, and the community will overrule me if it chooses. I trust communities, even when I don't.

Not worth providing proof. Waste of time. No documentation was provided of so-called "actual practice," a couple of deletions by a single administrator does not establish actual practice. --Abd (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

If they're advertised on the central community forum and allowed to stand, that pretty much establishes consensus. Leucosticte (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure. If. Not allowed to stand. Q.E.D. --Abd (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

So basically, it can be harder to promulgate a written policy than to impose the practices that create a de facto policy. Any user can revert a change to a policy page, but only a sysop can take the sysop actions that policies reflect. So we have a situation in which there are unwritten rules that don't give users fair warning of what to expect. Leucosticte (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikilandia. However, except on a very small wiki (smaller than this one), a single sysop cannot establish the community practice that can then be codified as policy, and the community may choose to review those actions, etc., etc. Or there is no community, which happens on small wikis. It even happens on large ones. --Abd (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, in this case it was three sysops who established a community practice since our wiki isn't quite small enough that it would've happened with the support of only one. Leucosticte (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

No, Leucosticte *interpreted* their actions as setting a community practice. We are now trumping that with discussion. How Wikis Work 1A. --Abd (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Once upon a time, Leucosticte knew discussion wikiquette. He's either forgotten it or doesn't care. Above, he wrote "two sysops." Because he is now interpreting a preliminary opinion from another sysop as an "establishment of a practice." he changed it, just now, to "three," which then acts to make it appear that succeeding comment was silly. That's his MO, in general. Changing a comment after there is a response, a basic wiki no-no. Strikeout, bracketed emendations with a small text signature, that's all fine, extra notes, fine.

My point was that discussion trumps arbitrary, ad hoc, sysop decisions, usually. The discussion that has existed so far has been heavily influenced by impressions. Created by L. So we'll see. This is a page for the establishment of policy. Policy also requires application and interpretation. There are procedures for that, mostly not established on WikiIndex because the level of conflict was low. Procedures can make it all much easier and more predictable. But wiki oldtimers then complain about "instruction creep" and "bureaucracy." But the future arrives anyway, one way or another. --Abd (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Policy drafting

This policy will need improvement before it could be considered. While I like the idea of barring sicko material and self spam, the draft has been written in a stilted manner by L to indicate how ridiculous he thinks it is. 173.255.192.138 18:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

So rewrite it. Leucosticte (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

ChildPorn.info

ChildPorn.info was a site that provided fairly neutral informative content about child porn policy debates, without linking to any child porn sites or otherwise facilitating or condoning illegal activity, and it got deleted. It's evident that listings of sites that cover those types of issues in a neutral way won't be tolerated on WikiIndex. I disagree with what the anon said, that Wikipedia covers pederasty and similar topics in a neutral way. Those articles are definitely biased against pederasty and so on, describing those behaviors as child sexual abuse. That's the reason why a listing for Wikipedia is allowed here.

The policy as drafted doesn't really reflect actual practice, since it only notes that advocacy (as opposed to neutral reporting) of illegal activities and of the efforts to legalize them is banned. Leucosticte (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

While policy should reflect actual practice, actual practice on a case-by-case basis does not establish policy. L. has swallowed the Wikipedia tropes, which exist to serve the dominant clique on Wikipedia. Wiki policy is both normative and as-practiced, and studies of actual practice can be used to modify policy, and actual practice ideally reflects community consensus as to norms. Both. If actual practice is ignored, user time is wasted creating content that will be deleted or worse. If community consensus is ignored, enforcement of actual practice will be spotty and unreliable. --Abd (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Self-promotional wikis

What about self-promotional wikis; weren't there objections raised to listing them on WikiIndex as well? Leucosticte (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Can of worms. --Abd (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Self-promotion I think you're missing the point still. Whether that's my fault or yours, I'm not sure. The problem is with a pattern of behavior, Nathan. You create a bunch of sites willy-nilly discussing all of the minutiae of your life and thought, then promote them here in as many places as you can. When you don't want them discussed anymore, you ask for them to be deleted. You treat this site as though it's a platform for you. Koavf (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

(ec with below) And then as if it is a platform for others to attack him, which is much of his goal. However, that's a user behavioral issue, Koavf. The issue here is wiki inclusion/exclusion policy. His behavior is irrelevant. (Nathan, when he is running in troll mode -- he is capable of other than it -- always misses the point, or, probably more accurately, ignores it. It's part of the pattern.) Here, he is bringing up "self-promotional" because you acted with respect to his behavior. He will use whatever arguments he can find, the basic goal being "Nathan gets to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, and, on top of that, gets to fantasize publically about what he *might want* to do, and if it upsets people, hey, they are idiots. It's just an opinion." --Abd (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

All of which was in accordance with the letter and spirit of the rules, which said it was okay to create listings of one's wikis, and also that the author could have the pages deleted upon request. Also, WikiIndex is partly a wiki about wiki people, and I've even seen instructions urging people to write about themselves on WikiIndex. I don't know how a rule could be written that would draw a clear boundary between the kind of self-promotion that WikiIndex has embraced from the beginning, and the kind of self-promotion you're objecting to. Leucosticte (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Not linking, but documenting

I think we should have an all or nothing policy. Even with a no linking policy on certain wikis, we would still give them attention and plenty of people would try to go to them, even if they are malicious. Plus with spam self promotion by narcissistic loner admins, they'll still use WikiIndex as a dumping ground for their nonsense even if they can't link directly to it; the name of the wiki in Google would be enough. –maelstr0m 173.255.192.138 20:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiIndex has traditionally allowed "narcissistic loner admins" to have their wikis linked, if they are wikis. This is a category being made up to attack a specific user, never mind that he invites it. --Abd (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

My views on what is prohibited content

After examination of the policy, I mostly concur with it, but would like to make the following changes and caveats:

• Sites that provide material legal in some areas, illegal in others (like Wikilivres) - I have patronized them myself, and they explicitly point out what is legal and what is not and to be mindful of the legality of using their material in the user's legal jurisdiction, and I believe all links for sites like this should stand, but their pages should contain similar legal disclaimers.
• Sites Promoting Child Molestation and/or Pornography (BoyWiki and Newgon Wiki for example) - I'd put my foot down. There is absolutely no reason to give them a page at all. Even if the content on the wikis is not illegal per se, they are advocating criminal behavior as normal and providing ways to hide such acts from the law and shielding those who commit such acts. I see no reason to give such places a haven to promote themselves.
• Doxing sites: This something of a slippery slope, and while certainly teetering on illegality, any information that could be gleaned publicly as "dox" does not seem to fit illegal definition territory, but I do agree any site that provides private information like SSN numbers, credit card information, and so on should not be promoted. Arcane (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Arcane. The two wikis mentioned are essentially dead wikis at this point. They did not promote pornography, and "child molestation" suffers from some boundary problems, and the history of this is clear: discussing it is, in itself, highly disruptive. It's a slippery slope when we take a "moral" stand for something like an index. There are differing boundaries and opinions, and people in one part of the world imagine that the whole world agrees with them. Bottom line, debates over what is and what is not "beyond the pale" can tear a wiki apart, I've seen it. We don't have this issue with the phone directory! "Doxxing" may not be illegal, and the policy does not claim that it is. The more relevant issue is "attack sites." Generally, we have indexed them, to my knowledge. My own opinion is that indexing anything is fine, unless the indexing is such as to directly support illegal purpose. For example, a wiki that hosts copyrighted content with the intention to defeat copyright, that's illegal to knowingly link to, even. As to what is borderline, process should be set up to make decisions. The policy should give sound guidance that applies to most cases, and then refer to process where it's more difficult. A basic policy that allows indexing, say a Holocaust Denial site, -- I consider this highly offensive -- can avoid disruptive debate. Indexing is *not* approval. --Abd (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

A phone directory would have to make a decision about whether to list controversial organizations like NAMBLA, or controversial people like David Thorstad. (My guess is that the latter might prefer not to have a publicly listed street address and phone number anyway.) Also they would need to decide what kinds of advertisements to allow. I'm not sure what "two wikis" you're saying are dead, since there are three mentioned above, but BoyWiki would probably fall in the "Active" category. Leucosticte (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I see. Yes, it's a live wiki. And what I see leads me to conclude that Leucosticte is using BoyWiki as he uses all wikis. Leucosticte is not an admin there. He is not even a major user, but his content is the edgiest I've seen there. He's pushing that wiki toward confrontation. Boywiki is for "boylovers," which is not a sexual category, the wiki is explicit. By the way, as far as sexual content is concerned, Wikipedia is far more "adult."

BoyWiki does not meet the criteria for prohibited content. One may possibly, by searching, find content there that is problematic, but that is true of many wikis. The wiki does not "solely to provide content that is potentially dangerous and harmful," the present wording, which I will also change. --Abd (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Would anyone care to place a friendly wager on whether the BoyWiki page will be restored? Leucosticte (talk) 04:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Naw, I don't take candy from babies. People who believe they are right make wagers, it's supposed to prove something. What it proves is testosterone and bull-headness. Which, of course, has nothing to do with being right or wrong, it's ME, right or wrong. And does restoring Boywiki have anything to do with the topic here? Boywiki may be a test of the policy, and wikis are not bound by policy; the goal is to harmonize practice and policy, for efficiency, and that can take years. Policy cannot require any administrator to do anything, another basic wiki principle. So if the deletion is contrary to policy, but no administrator is willing to restore, it is not restored. --Abd (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Controversial sites

[1] Leucosticte put this in, I reverted, he replaced it:

Also, listing sites that advocate legalization of activities that most of the public currently deems immoral could offend some readers and harm WikiIndex's reputation.

My edit summary removing it was:

(This is attempting to enter Leucosticte's favorite territory. He knows that this would prohibit linking to academic sites. That's the trap he sets up.)

And Leucosticte, reverting, had:

(Undid revision 186925 by Abd (talk) academic sites are a non-issue because they are usually databases behind a paywall rather than wikis)

Actually, I had in mind Wikiversity. Wikiversity is not, as a site, going to "advocate legalization" of anything, but it may well cover such. And, indeed, people will complain. There are differences across cultures, such that what one culture accepts, another thinks it monstrously offensive. There is popular opinion on some issues, and then there is academic study and opinion. On one of Leucosticte's favorite topics, there are web sites that collect academic papers that support unpopular views. There is a vast gulf between academic opinion and popular opinion. Are we going to censor that? The issue of whether or not a site is *advocating* or merely documenting or discussing, can be knotty to disentangle, and, again, experience is that if these discussions are necessary for operating the wiki, disruption is likely.

In the WMF family of wikis, Wikipedia has a strict child protection policy:

Wikipedia regards the safety of children using the site as a key issue. Editors who attempt to use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships on- or off-wiki (e.g. by expressing the view that inappropriate relationships are not harmful to children), or who identify themselves as pedophiles, will be blocked indefinitely.

It is possible that as many as a third of experienced users do not actually support that policy, but experience is, again, that attempting to discuss it leads to massive flame wars, where people get very upset -- in both directions. My own response is to notice the indirection, "inappropriate," inappropriate according to whom? Dutch users, Texan users, what? However, nobody debates the policy because as set up, it's not so much of a problem. As well, there are academic studies claiming that the reputed harm of some kinds of "inappropriate relationships" has been exaggerated. I am *not* agreeing with those studies, and, remember, I'm a father, with seven children and six grandchildren. What I do know is that the entire topic is one that is almost impossible to discuss rationally, it tore RationalWiki apart.

The WP policy is reasonably acceptable because it is not to be implemented visibly, on-wiki. There is no public discussion. The policy is quite clear, and users who have violated the policy by accusing others of the "offense" have been blocked. (And then they complain, on Wikipediocracy, that Wikipedia "tolerates pedophiles." Total mess.)

Leucosticte got himself blocked on meta for attempting to discuss global child protection policy. The blocking admin was actually protecting him, but L. came here and immediately created a bio for that admin. MZMcBride. I tagged that for deletion, Leucosticte removed the tag. Had Leucosticte been allowed to continue what he was doing on meta, a global ban would have been likely, I know that community well. What Wikipedia has learned is that even discussing the topic is highly disruptive. So our own policy should avoid setting up conditions for such discussion. Nobody discusses the phone directory, whether a porn shop should be allowed to have a listing. Or a pedophile, for that matter. If they have a phone, a listing. I'm suggesting that if they have a wiki, a listing. The listing may be minimal, and, again, the whole concept that WikiIndex exists to "discuss the wikisphere" is a problem. That requires an active community, supervised or facilitated, and I don't see that this is regular here, vide Leucosticte making that non-deletion decision. Because that page was relatively harmless, I didn't make a fuss about it.

When disruptive users are allowed to disrupt, other users leave. If the wiki management doesn't care, well, it doesn't care about the future of the wiki. --Abd (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

"Wikiversity is not, as a site, going to 'advocate legalization' of anything, but it may well cover such." That sounds more like a description of Wikibooks, which comes the closest of any Wikimedia project to having true academic freedom. I wasn't too impressed with the outcome of the discussion at Wikiversity talk:Ethics for pages concerning illegal or physically dangerous activities or with the sysop actions on that wiki that led to that debate, viz. the deletion of the suicide content. I also wasn't too impressed with Sidelight12's blocks that occurred in response to debate concerning the child protection policy, and his revision deletions, the latter of which remain in effect. I think you overestimate how much latitude there is for presenting useful information on all topics.

It sounds like "wiki management" is active and on your side, although they may have taken awhile to arrive to the scene. Leucosticte (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Whenever decisions or status does not match Nathan's position, something is wrong with wiki administration. It's a given. I took one major stand on Wikiversity, in one of the rare deletion discussions, where I was overruled. The discussion was lengthy and a ton of outsider comment arrived. As part of that sequence, I created alternate content that still stands, that was actually superior to the deleted page. The deciding administrator was faced with policy in one direction and apparent consensus in the other. He figured out a way to rationalize the consensus as being consistent with policy. That was one administrator's assessment of consensus. It did not change policy. Faced with the same situation, I would again request undeletion (and, note: the page was promptly undeleted for discussion.) Now that I know exactly what are the issues on the other side, I'd handle it differently.

Nathan, you trolled a marginal probationary custodian into taking strong action against you. He was warned and he ignored it. What was of weight was undone, what was not important was left. You had violated WMF policy, as I recall, on "outing." You named an editor who was apparently banned for violating child protection policy. You were warned (and you did not continue). On the suicide pages, you did nothing block-worthy, but you were blocked. That probationary custodian ended up wheel-warring with the only active permanent custodian. Bad Idea. The outcome was predictable. Who arranged that outcome, Nathan? I'm not an administrator on any WMF wiki, though I've been one on Wikiversity. Three times, actually.

They are on my side because I'm on theirs. I was blocked for two years on Wikiversity. Why? I knew what could be done, and I didn't do it, I chose not to pursue appeal and waited until the wiki moved on. And it did. And it was trivial to get unblocked, I didn't have to ask for it, I was asked instead.

There was a user who was one of the founders of Wikiversity. He's blocked. Why? It's pretty simple, he could not get over the sheer injustice of it, so when he was unblocked, he used the opportunity to constantly complain at great length, with obsessed comments that were very difficult to read. I tried to help him, he attacked me as well. I think he will eventually be unblocked, periodically I revisit the issue with him. Wikiversity is, for academics, a dream wiki (and he's an academic).

Wikiversity is not perfect. There are "difficult topics." And there are users who make it a point to pursue them. They attract flies. Real universities decide where to draw lines. As you know, a real university supported its professor on one of the hot-button issues, because the issue of academic freedom was clear. Wikiversity will do the same. You were not prohibited from creating content on Wikiversity; rather, you were given an opportunity to create ethical standards that would allow it. You immediately gave up because you were not getting your way. You did not take the opportunity to work on uncontroversially useful content. (You used to do that on Wikipedia.) So you went to Wikibooks.

Wikiversity was founded as a Wikibooks project. My understanding was that Wikibooks did not allow original research, and requires NPOV. (NPOV and academic freedom are in conflict, unless there is organizing structure). However, the reality is that Wikibooks does not enforce its own policies. Content you create on Wikibooks, then, may be far more unstable than content created on Wikiversity, if it's created the way that was suggested. All it will take is someone exercised to create a deletion discussion that points to policy. There have been plenty of Wikiversity deletion discussions where the allegations were that the content was bad or wrong or biased. Since I've been active on Wikiversity, few of those have closed with Delete, and deletion discussions have become rare, because there are so many alternatives to deletion.

You, of course, pick topics that are exceptions. Child protection (with arguments that can easily be read as "child molestation is not harmful"). Suicide methods (with detailed instructions, sources of drugs, etc.). Other difficult topics on Wikiversity are "descriptions" of Wikipedian behavior that are really attacks on individual Wikipedians, but which are covered under the euphemistic "Wiki studies." (This then is a bit like WikiIndex). There are only a few bans on Wikiversity, and they have come out of that. I managed to get two of these unbanned. One still is unbanned (and his meta ban and global lock were eventually undone). The other insisted on pursuing his grievances against individual Wikipedians, and, in fact, I was blocked for reverting his outing edits -- by then he was blocked again so he was evading the block. Revert warring! Irritated an admin no end, so he blocked. Then lifted it as "no longer necessary." Wiki people are *human.*

I was able to document wiki behavior in several cases. Those documents stand. One was the subject of a requested deletion. It was kept, and the reason is that I followed strict guidelines I set for myself. I did not claim that Wikipedia administrators who did such and such were wrong. Just that they did it.

The admin who blocked me is still a bureaucrat at Wikiversity. And almost never does anything, and he never did actually oppose my Wikiversitan agenda, he just hated the walls of text. He's a sound-bite kinda guy. My agenda there is a full realization of the goals of Wikiversity, and it has high consensus.

So, here, what is the goal of the wiki? Your participation is raising that question, so my hope is that it will be resolved. It's been murky, with mixed motives. I don't think the founder has a clear idea, himself, that is why you can see conflict in what is being proposed, and what he's approved of, or has personally done, before. This is an old wiki. There is a fork in the road. --Abd (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

As far as Abd is concern, Nathan, I find him to be eminently more sensible and reasonable and more willing to comply with requests for courtesy and procedure, and while you may find these stumbling blocks, I do not. As for being on his side, I'll confess I'm more partial to granting his views consideration because he isn't as belligerent about them, but no, every word he types does not have my total blessing. As for views on prohibited content, my chief concerns are Wikiindex's reputation and legal liability, and while one could argue sites like Wikisource and Wikilivres have potentially illegal content depending on your country, they admit as much and urge the users exercise due legal caution, which is why I'd have no trouble with them being given pages or discussed. Sites that discuss the normalization of child porn and pedophilia are fine in a neutral context, but they tilt heavily in the interest of illegal acts when they start arguing for it, and since I don't believe it is ethically or legally sensible to provide links to sites that argue for the incitement of criminal acts minus any caveats about exercising legal restraint, and having seen BoyWiki and Newgon Wiki, they are only concerned with help pedophiles hide themselves from the law, which is why I would oppose them without question. Doxxing sites like Encyclopedia Dramatica are legally gray, but from what I've seen, their policy is only to allow publicly available content, and while they do provide links to private dox, they make it clear it's entirely at your own risk and to my knowledge delete it and revisions with it from pages, as well as having a zero tolerance for child porn and bestiality, which is why I would argue a site like that still deserves a page. Arcane (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that BoyWiki and Newgon Wiki "are only concerned with help pedophiles hide themselves from the law". Newgon Wiki has one page devoted to computer security tips. The other pages are about research, debate, outreach, etc. BoyWiki is largely about boylover culture and history. Also, I think you're missing the distinction between advocacy and incitement. Leucosticte (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

This is how Leucosticte operates. He's technically correct. He sets up situations where a normal person will state something that is not factual, based on easy and very ready impressions. Leucosticte has never, for example, hosted child porn, but he created a page on Nathania that was obviously designed to appear as such, to people who do not know the legal definition of "child porn." Then, when people react, as is totally predictable, he has plenty of reason to believe that he is right and almost everyone else is wrong.

I am not going to discuss Encyclopedia Dramatica here, beyond saying that routine content on ED is far more offensive than anything I saw reviewing BoyWiki yesterday. My position is that ED is a wiki and should be listed, with warnings.

However, if you just look and react to what you think "boylover" would mean, I can easily see why you would think BoyWiki was highly offensive. This much is clear. "Boylover" is not a term for sexual preference. On the other hand, some with a pedophilic male sexual preference might call themselves "boylovers." Many "boylovers," apparently, to the contrary, condemn unlawful behavior, including sexual contact with children. Some may not. Leucosticte has shown no sign of being either kind of "boylover," his agenda is always disruption and debate, especially where he thinks standard thinking is wrong. --Abd (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

This is the most recent WP article on the topic of boylove. Leucosticte (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Why does L. link to a 2006 version? Because the current version is a disambig page. Someone who is not careful can miss that. It's easy. I missed it at first! That 2006 article was unsourced. The question would not be what someone on Wikipedia thought 8 years ago, and as to general usage of the word, but how the web site itself defines it, and it does.[2] What I find amazing here is that Leucosticte is attempting to stir up animosity toward the site, by associating them with pedophilia, while, on the site, he's portraying himself as their friend. Remarkable. Here is not the place to make specific community decisions about specific wiki pages. "Prohibited content" is not going to be a specific list of wikis -- though such might be compiled. Hah! indexed.... --Abd (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)