Bureaucrats, checkuser, Interface administrators, interwiki, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Editors (Semantic MediaWiki), staff, Suppressors, Administrators
83,693
edits
Hoof Hearted (talk | contribs) m (Template:TOCright, minor tweaks & wikilinks - no text changed) |
Hoof Hearted (talk | contribs) m (fix redirects) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
I removed the policy template to make this a proposed policy. It would need a lot of change to be appropriate. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 17:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC) | I removed the policy template to make this a proposed policy. It would need a lot of change to be appropriate. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 17:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC) | :It's descriptive, not prescriptive, of WikiIndex practice. Can you provide any evidence that this is not the current practice? [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk: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 [[:Category:Wikipedia|Wikipedia]], I'm a student of | ::(edit conflict with above). {{U|Leucosticte}} reverted my removal of the policy template. Actually, he trained me on [[:Category:Wikipedia|Wikipedia]], I'm a student of {{Wp|Wikipedia:DGAF|WP:DGAF}}. DGAF allows me to implement {{Wp|Wikipedia:IAR|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. | ::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. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 17:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC) | ::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. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 17:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
::::(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." --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 19:36, 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." --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk: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 [ | :::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 [https://WikiIndex.org/index.php?title=Category:Wiki_People&oldid=556 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. [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 19:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
==Not linking, but documenting== | ==Not linking, but documenting== | ||
| Line 92: | Line 92: | ||
::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. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 15:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC) | ::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. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Arcane|Arcane]] ([[User talk:Arcane|talk]]) 16:48, 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. [[User:Arcane|Arcane]] ([[User talk: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 {{ | ::::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 {{Wp|advocacy and incitement}}. [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk: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. | ::::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. | ||
| Line 99: | Line 99: | ||
::::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. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 20:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC) | ::::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. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 20:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
:::::[ | :::::[https://En.Wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boylove&oldid=70544713 This] is the most recent WP article on the topic of boylove. [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk: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.[https://www.boywiki.org/en/Boylover#Boylover_culture] 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.... --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 01:41, 7 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.[https://www.boywiki.org/en/Boylover#Boylover_culture] 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.... --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 01:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
edits