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 two 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)

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)

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)