The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Over whelming consensus opposed with reason being that its not the purpose for which the Spam-blacklist was created. Gnangarra 02:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose The spam blacklist tool achieves only what it sets out to: it prevents the addition of clickable links. It defeats spammers who wish to send people and search engines to their website; it does not defeat people satisfied with providing non-clickable links. Are we willing to use the abuse filter to prevent this? Or simply amend the blocking policy to block anyone who creates any form of link or reference?

But the problems associated with the non-spam sites added have nothing to do with adding links here; the problems come from having offsite discussions not subject to Commons rules, and from a sort of canvassing/advertising effect (people turning up from reading those discussions). Preventing links does nothing about that, so at best spam-blacklisting is useless. But it's also slightly harmful by preventing legitimate uses, like pointing out things said offwiki for purposes of dispute resolution in relation to people who use the site. Basically, whatever problems arise from the users of those sites, this is not the solution.

Last but not least, this is explicitly an instrument of censorship. This is bad in itself; and fundamentally against what most people understand the philosophy of Wikimedia projects to be (and we don't need COM:NOTCENSORED to tell us that). But in addition, applying it to sites which include legitimate criticism of Commons and Wikimedia is a PR disaster waiting to happen. Rd232 (talk) 09:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose for same reasons as Rd232: this only harms by preventing legitimate uses as well as encouraging more "bad" pages to form as a result: as some go to the spam blacklist more appear to compensate for the vacuum--Interest=phine(talk) 15:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

 Support Wherever useful points are made on these websites, the same points could very well be made on-wiki. Providing links would only expose Commons users to libel, insults, and similar activity, but will not create any net benefit.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

On that basis, shouldn't we blacklist en:User talk:Jimbo Wales? Rd232 (talk) 10:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I personally would not mind. I do not see how we can benefit from links over there. This Commons talk page is of course a different story.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Burn all books! Any useful points they made, we could have made ourselves. If we didn't, then it's probably just insults and similar useless activity, to nobody's benefit. Dtobias (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose – Websites shouldn't be blocked just because one dislikes the content or discussions that it hosts. The spam blacklist should only be used for spam. Some things can't be discussed on-wiki as Ymblanter claims. Discussions are sometimes censored, and users are threatened with blocks. On Wikipedia Review and Wikipediocracy, users aren't threatened with blocks every time they say, "I disagree with the discussion's early closure. I would like some more comments." On Wikipedia Review and Wikipediocracy, one can speak out against an sysop's action without fear. On-wiki discussions are limited. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 11:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose for the same reasons as michael. Plus i don't think i will really improve common's contents. Additionally, this measure (blacklisting urls) don't event reaches it's goal: people can find other ways to refer to of-site discussions.--Je ne détiens pas la vérité universelle (talk) 13:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Je ne détiens pas la vérité universelle, welcome to Wikimedia Commons! --Fæ (talk) 13:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

weak oppose I do understand the rationale behind using the spamlist, but I think it's just wrong because it will not change the root of the problem, just try to mask it. --PierreSelim (talk) 12:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose I worry of the slippery slope, that if the "spam" blacklist is used to stifle free and open access to a couple of useful websites that are not spamming Wikimedia projects, what will be next? Will the filter be applied to pro-SOPA websites that aren't spamming? Will the filter be applied to "family values" websites that aren't spamming? Additionally, I will say this, though it is not to be miscontrued as a "legal threat" -- applying a nomenclature of "spam blacklist" to an organizational brand like a web domain that isn't spamming is practically inviting a legal challenge to that practice, as it easily constitutes defamation. I really doubt Geoff Brigham's time and the Foundation's money would be spent wisely defending this peculiar form of defamatory censorship on a non-profit project that purports to be neutral and open. -- Thekohser (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose I agree with Rd232's point that the problem comes, not from a link coming from Commons, but from the off-site discussions themselves. I'm not as familiar with this issue as others here probably are, but I do wonder if the existence of such off-site discussions points to deeper WMF issues that should be addressed. cmadler (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

 Neutral as I can't understand how this would affect our daily work and for the points, I listed here. But it might be a gradual process, where I see the danger. Much too much fuss for about 3 small sites. -- RE rillke questions? 17:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

 Support of course this will not solve the whole bunch of problems with off-wiki attack sites (nobody claims it), but it will solve at least some parts of the problem -- rogue sites will be moved away from on-wiki discussions as far as it is possible, rogue sites will be less advertised on Commons (personally, I got to know WR and WD only from Commons), without links in discussion rogue sites they will much less destructive for Commons. We can't and we don't need to solve the problem completely, but to remove the nasty things from the main square to a dark backstreet would be a very good step forward already. I suppose that this disproportionally big fuss about this quite trivial thing (addition of two unwanted sites to the spam-list) was created by the WR/WD team exactly because they see this as a real danger for them. --Trycatch (talk) 06:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

 Support Wikimedia Commons is not a platform for advertising other websites. Our scope is well defined, and to claim this is an attempt as censorship is an obscene misinterpretation of the reason why not being censored is important to us. Nobody is censoring discussion that is of benefit to this project or its development. The only reason that the WR / WF fan club and travelling circus has come out in force manipulate consensus (yet again) and to troll this topic is for the LULZ and to bring personal attacks, hounding and dramah from these forums onto Wikimedia Commons. I completely understand and support a whistleblowing process, but there are only good reasons to block sites that are not only coordinating attacks on Wikimedia but are a regular home to those actively working against our joint mission and values. These websites represent a risk for our readers who might follow the links, in particular these sites track the user's incoming IP address and in similar recent circumstances Greg Kohs Gregory Kohs has published these (including domain name analysis) along with his personal commentary. If anyone is keen to safely link to a discussion then they would be well advised to make it available by using the neutral archive website webcitation.org which removes many of these security risks. Nobody has yet found a reason why meaningful discussion about Commons issues should not always be right here on Wikimedia Commons rather than in off-wiki hostile attack forums. The fact that I am not allowed to express my legitimate opinion on-wiki without being subject to allegations about my personal life, off-wiki smears against my good character, harassment from cowards on Commons using single purpose attack accounts and Greg Kohs thekohser himself jokingly(?) calling me a "Fae got", indicates how dramah, not censorship, is the core concern of the travelling circus. --Fæ (talk) 07:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd like you guys just to try to be internally consistent for a while. Using a spam-blacklist to emulate the failed BADSITES policy is dishonest and counterproductive. If commons wants BADSITES, propose it directly. Don't be hypocritical by trying to use the spam-blacklist, which is not intended for anything other than blocking commercial spam. It seems pretty simple. Ocracy dude (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Fæ dramatically expresses his concern about the risk of a site that tracks the user's incoming IP address and then publishes that information with commentary about it. I have seen worse right here on Wikimedia Foundation projects. Currently, there is a brand-new IP block on English Wikipedia that publicly suggests that the IP was blocked because my (blocked) user account was using that IP to vandalize Wikipedia. As far as I know, I haven't edited Wikipedia (much less "vandalized" it) from that IP address in at least 6 months, maybe 12 months. However, about 3,000 people do access the Internet from that address, so -- no problem solely blaming Thekohser for all of their potential misdeeds, right Fae? Once again, I grow frustrated by the continual lack of reciprocity when the accusations start flying from Fae. He's free to criticize and cast aspersions about others, but don't dare point your critique at him -- you'll be labeled a dangerous attacker, or some such. -- Thekohser (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

In other words, you think "whistleblowing" is fine, as long as it's done in "socially correct" ways as judged by the people in power here. The Chinese and Iranian governments feel the same way. Dtobias (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose As someone who sometimes has to close these kinds of discussions, it helps to have direct links to wherever else the issue is being discussed. Whether that is at Jimbo's talk page, other language Wikipedias, or offsite forums. The unfortunate fact is that no matter how distasteful the discussion methods, it's easier to understand what's going on if you can read it all. This often harms the forum participants (e.g. exposing canvassing) more than it helps them, so don't take my vote as either an endoresement or a disendorsement of these forums, just a pragmatic consideration. --99of9 (talk) 07:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose Commons is not censored. That's the winning argument for everything here. Integrating sites with which one intellectually disagrees into a spam list to deter traffic is censorship, plain and simple. Carrite (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The seventh contribution of this user in 2012 and the first since February 14.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

An irrelevant and mean-spirited comment that adds nothing to the discussion. A pretty terrible way to treat a fellow contributor (who, by the way, has added dozens of images to Commons. -- Thekohser (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose - This really sets a dangerous precedent. I'm a Commons admin. I'm also one of a number of independent founders of Wikipediocracy.com (it's not actually Kohser's site, BTW, regardless of some of the talk around here) and am their forum moderator's group leader. The link is clearly displayed on my user page on enwiki for all to see (I'm an admin there, too), and it's there for reasons of transparency. However, due to its being added to the Commons blacklist, I'm utterly unable to add this link to my own userpage. Having this link added to the Commons' Spam Blacklist sends a clear message that Commons actually is censored. Not only is it clearly censored, but it's censored to hide reasonable debate and third-party criticism of itself. Is this the message that Commons wishes to send to the public? I strongly believe that WMF sites (English Wikipedia, Commons, etc) need a site or sites dedicated to independent discussion and criticism. There are things that people cannot say on-wiki, and besides, things can get far too insular and introspective on the projects themselves. The English Wikipedia fought the BADSITES wars years back, and these proposals were rightly defeated then. Adding the sites here serves no purpose other than suppression of links to valid and useful discussion, IMO - Alison ^❤ 10:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose - If you can't stand the criticism then resign or sort out what is being criticised. That's the correct way to deal with it, and not by sticking one's fingers in one's ears and going lah-lah-lah-lah. Now grow the fuck up, take it on the chin and move on. Criticism != Spam. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose - I'm not a fan of Wikipedia Review), but I don't support using a spam blacklist for censorship. Wnt (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose - there is no spamming problem here; it's just censorship (note that I'm a mod on Wikipediocracy). --JN466 13:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose - The links provided by Michael Suarez are very telling. Once all of Commons' admins start acting like adults, then maybe the off-site criticism will subside. Cla68 (talk) 04:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose - Not only is this futile, as trolls can and will easily circumvent such measures, but they disrupt legitimate discussion about these sites and posts on these sites, especially by not so tech-savvy users who may be the victims of attacks there. For example, during the Beta M affair, how would we have linked to the discussions that first motivated an admin to block Beta M, if the site were blacklisted? This measure would only help the trolls. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose - linking is much more convenient than trying to find discussions that are alluded to. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose - Much too much fuss HaB >talk< 21:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Week oppose - As its name tells, spam blacklist should only use for preventing spamming on a wiki. There is another problem that who should have the power to add links on the blacklist? Should we set up a committee to discuss whether a link should be added on the list just for preventing people from adding links to offline discussion? No, it is way to complicated. -Mys 721tx (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose - Using the spam blacklist in this capacity is silly at best. It doesn't prevent the threads from being alluded to onwiki nor prevent these types of sites from continuing whatever they do there. Killiondude (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose You need a spam blacklist on wikipedia because people are trying to sell stuff through that site. But few people bother with wikicommons because fewer people edit here--so there is less incentive to do this. And if people try to spam stuff here, they can be blocked. Also, it may be potentially abused to prevent the spread of ideas that may be unorthodox today...but perhaps orthodox tomorrow. If this was 400 years ago, people may have use it to prevent the distribution of links to any discussion of the study of heliocentrism (Copernicus' theory) whereas today the view that the planets orbit our sun is pretty much accepted. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Commons should not be censored, we should be grown up enough to accept criticism. SpeakFree 22:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment - I'm rather undecided on this matter, I do feel that the particular sites we are discussing are bad for Commons, and I would like to see anyone who uses them banned as trolls, but I accept the greater point that the spam blacklist is possibly not the best way to do it. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose The spam blacklist is for blacklisting spam, not shutting out opposing viewpoints. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 23:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

•  OpposeI live in continental China, where the Internet national administration blacklists objectionable websites (including Internet Archive but not, today, Wikimedia sites). I see as funny to have the same mechanism inside a site dedied to free information for all. If somebody feels wounded by external commentaires about his cherished ego, he can sue the website or the author; free world has judges. --Wuyouyuan (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose This is not the purpose of the spam black list. If someone is purposely linking to offsite in order to belittle someone then the blocking process is the appropriate tool. There are potentially valid reasons to link to the discuss and having a blanket blacklist is not appropriate. Royalbroil 01:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose As per above. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC).

 Comment I think  Oppose Japanese ALL People is  Oppose.But testing server is Agreetments right for people by the people to Do it  Support Viewer Agreetments rights.

Article XXI. Freedom of association, movement and choice of abode are guaranteed to every person to the extent they do not conflict with the general welfare.

All persons shall be free to emigrate and to change their nationality.

w:ja:日本国憲法第21条 --MOTOI Kenkichi(基 建吉) (talk) 05:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose This opens us up to ridicule, sticking our fingers in our ears will not make criticism go away, if criticism is legitimate we should listen to it however painful, if it is not warranted, there is no harm in hearing it.--05:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose That would look like the Ostrich effect. Lymantria (talk) 06:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Rd232. Deryck Chan (talk) 08:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Rd232. Achird (talk) 08:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Those with long memories might remember the mob from en-wp that came after me during my request for CU tools... a group that used secret email lists to discuss "secret" things I was supposedly guilty of, and my interest in contributing here waned rather quickly after that experience. Open discussion on a forum is much better, and being able to link to those discussions from commons will in some cases be helpful in providing background to critical opinions. Using the spamlist is not only inappropriate (it's not spam) and against the spirit of openness, but it's also a way for the community to shoot itself in the foot. Yes, people can get a little rough on those sites, but at least you know what's being said, and can show other people what's being said if you link to it. --SB_Johnny ^talk 11:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support No clickable links are needed. If people are really interested in these forums they can just copy/paste the URL into the address bar. --Leyo 13:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Alison, et al. The precedent set would be too dangerous. -- Avi (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose This isn't a spam problem, so anti-spam tools aren't appropriate to use. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose strongly. I have yet to see any censorship system being effective at silencing or weakening those it opposes. Ariadacapo (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose Offsite is offsite, you can't control what goes on outside the Commons, nor should we have to. Oaktree b (talk) 03:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose As per Oaktree, one cannot control what goes on outside the Commons. Just ban anyone who uses it as trolls. Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 06:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose What you should really be doing about this is making clear that anyone involved in off-site outings or attacks is not welcome to edit here. That's the thing that can be controlled on this site. SpinningSpark 10:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree. That would be the best solution. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 10:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose Wikipedia tried this with WP:BADSITES years ago and their failure is instructive to this effort on Commons. MBisanz ^talk 15:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Gross violation of the purpose of the spam blacklist. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment No matter how you cut it, free speech has its limitations. You cannot, and no one ever could, say exactly what you please. You must respect the civil rights of others. My main objection to discussion on WP is often the "discussers" do not. Badgering, harrassing, bullying via the media, these are against the law. In addition is conspiracy to badger, etc, by a two or more persons. WP, including Commons, is bad enough even with the rules. It is all too easy to get carried away (I know). The worst offenders are the administrators! As persons of power, many for the first time, they do not understand that power MUST be self-limiting. The law has many loopholes. Right now Wikimedia is operating almost entirely in loopholes. It must police itself. If badgering and harassment is not allowed on Commons it must not be allowed to move to another site and be linked in. That is a trick to circumvent the laws. If Wikimedia cannot police itself in the direction of law and order I am quite sure that at some point when all the loopholes are plugged and the laws are applied to the Internet it can look forward to a public accounting. Freedom MUST be the companion of reponsibility. Only then can democracy not degenerate into mob rule. And, frankly, WM often seems to be mob rule to me. You need to disconnect from undemocratic institutions.Botteville (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose If it isn't spam, it shouldn't be blocked as spam. --Albert Noniem (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose spam blacklist has a specific purpose, which this isn't covered by. Casliber (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Strong oppose A blanket block of all links to these sites assumes bad faith. MorganKevinJ^(talk) 02:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose There are a ton of sites like this and many of some them contain both useful information and spam info, if we block all of them. More problems may be found. As a result, I don't agree with this.--Jack No1 (中文/English) (talk) 03:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose (1) The spam blacklist has a specific purpose as mentioned above; (2) While I have not seen the sites for myself, I can not think of them as quite as harmful as they seem portrayed; (3) External criticism (though not personal attacks and outings) may not be a bad thing; (4) Hiding them away from the eyes of the users will not stop them, but could be negative in other ways e.g. nourishing conspiracy theories, bad PR etc. Johan G (talk) 07:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Spam-blacklisting is useless. When the dogs bark it because someones pasing by... besides every discussion ends here.--DDigger (talk) 09:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Commons participants deserve to be protected from personal attacks, libel and stuff. If sites blatantly fail to enforce their users to abide to law and netiquette concerning Commons users, then it’s perfectly OK by me to lock them out as an ultimate resort. Concerning accusements of censorship, I counter:

1. Everyone who wants to criticize Commons is free to post criticism, as long as not defaming anyone personally, on Commons itself, which is the most effective way of improving Commons
2. Establish a regulated process of subjecting sites to blacklisting, e.g. establish a committee and guidelines.

--dealerofsalvation 13:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose Per Alison, Rd232 et alt. --T137(talk) 13:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose This will not work, as sites and perceived abusers change it will have to be continuously updated and this debate reopened over and over again. The small handful of users involved in this fiasco who do something abusive HERE should be handled through existing well-worn policies of talk/warn/block, rather than trying to fix the symptom by blocking an external site as spam when it is merely not to someone's liking, no matter how unpleasant. Anything that happens OVER THERE is simply irrelevant here. If an individual feels attacked they can take up legal action, it is not this site's job to police that for them -- Ultracobalt (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose This would appear to be yet another resurgence of the discredited "BADSITES" concept, which I criticized here. (And, very ironically, WR is presently enforcing a BADSITES/spam-filtering ban on any mention of rival site Wikipediocracy; this sort of blockage is censorious and stupid no matter where it's done.) Dtobias (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose Who cares what happens on other sites. Putting them in our link blacklist gives them legitimacy because we've declared that they're worth noticing, that we actually read their pages to determine whether or not the link blacklist is appropriate, with periodic reviews of their content to see whether the link blacklist is still appropriate. They're not spamming Wikipedia, as far as I know, and if they are then they should be banned as spammers, not because of whatever their content may or may not be. Banaticus (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Strong oppose Our most used licences require linking to an URL the rights' owner (author) specifies. If this address happens to be blacklisted at least less seasoned users have a problem. This means that we have to restrict blacklisting to an absolute minimum, regardless of other considerations.

The proposal is unacceptably vague. If one thinks here is a problem one needs to handle, one should specify it very carefully, such that a possible guideline would address that concern without unnecessary side effects. We should have no reason disapproving discussing Commons on other websites or demanding such discussion to follow Commons' policies. We might find some discussions problematic, but who is to decide what discussions are acceptable?

--LPfi (talk) 08:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Strong support SPAM brack list use to "ALL People Public ENEMY"? no "Refine the SPAMer's cheat trick" because "ONLY TEST SERVER" is go.--MOTOI Kenkichi(基 建吉) (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

 CommentTo be published also, to show the history of attack. Efforts in Japan as there is something like this.Block list of 2ch,忍法帖巻物.That a Public Honey Pod.--MOTOI Kenkichi(基 建吉) (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Support using spam blacklist to prevent links to sites that engage in outing of editors or personal attacks toward editors. We can't prevent the harassment and offsite plotting, but there's no reason we need to have links to it. Gobonobo (talk) 03:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

And where exactly would that stop? Here I cite some examples of the overreach of such policies when they were tried earlier in en.wp. Dtobias (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Support It won't solve more than a fraction of the problem at hand, but I believe we are compelled to act as far as our capabilities allow us. Not acting at all would be admitting we're helpless. On the other hand blocking these sites would at least symbolically declare where we stand, our solidarity with the attacked and that we are willing to defend our position. --Dimi z (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Willing to circle the wagons and muzzle all criticism, you mean? Actually defending against criticism using our own free speech entails letting people see the opposition's arguments in their own words so they can make up their own minds, rather than just putting our fingers in our ears and shouting "La La La I Can't Hear You!", or presenting only over-simplified straw-man versions of the opposition while keeping anybody from seeing the actual arguments. Dtobias (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose RD232 and others make strong arguments. Criticism can be unpleasant -- particularly when we don't think critics are playing fair. Nevertheless, it is important to listen to them. Particularly since we are potentially fallible, have in fact proven fallible. Geo Swan (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus is to oppose sanctions as identification of individuals is easily open to abuse thruough false identities and that we have nothing beyond a superficial means to authenticate the identity. Though while consensus is clear about not applying sanctions the majority of people also recognise that exceptional circumstances (see w:Wikipedia:BEANS) may arise these should be considered on individual merit. Gnangarra 02:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose Whilst superficially attractive, this would just make users of those sites dissociate themselves from their Commons/Wikimedia accounts. This dissociation would make things worse - there would no longer be any accountability for offsite comments at all, since we wouldn't even know who said what. In addition, such a policy/practice would make Commons users vulnerable to sanction for acts committed by offsite impersonators. Rd232 (talk) 09:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree: Identification would be too hard, and then there would be problems with people impersonating other users, etc. --Christofian (talk) 22:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose This would probably mean going too far. There are problems with indetification, problems of different policies on different websites and many other problems which make this proposal impractical. Having said this, I believe that these arguments can in principle be raised at instances as desysop or infinite or long-term block to demonstrate that the individual shows bad faith, but must be treated very carefully and with much caution, and only as a secondary argument in addition to documented on-wiki activity.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Offsite comments can certainly be taken into account sometimes, especially when identification is reasonably secure. Rd232 (talk) 10:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose – The Wikipedia Review and Wikipediocracy provide a forum where users can speak their minds without fear. Discussions on Commons are deleted and sometimes RevDel'led. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 11:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose idem Rd232 abd Ymblanter: e.g. Making an accusation offwiki and then coming here to post just a link is equivalent to making it onwiki to me. --PierreSelim (talk) 12:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose Wikimedia's tradition of open review of ALL legitimate sources of information, whether they're useful for inclusion in our projects or not, would be trampled by this proposal. -- Thekohser (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose except in limited cases. For example, as PierreSelim and Rd232 point out, when a user posts something off-site that would not have been acceptable on-site and then posts a link relatively soon after, particularly where it is clearly the same user, it seems likely that the only, or at least a major reason for the post being made off-site was to circumvent some policy here. cmadler (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Mostly  Oppose What happens off-wiki stays off-wiki. For example, we should not block users for e.g. violating copyrights outside Commons. Exceptions could be made in special cases, for example if a user uses an off-wiki forum to recruit people to upload copyvios or if users post harassment on external websites and then link to those websites from Commons. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose per others.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

 Support for the identification of death threats and other apparent criminal threats of any type against on-wiki contributors, to recognize self-declared or convicted paedophiles and to recognize abusive malicious outing, for example posting details or speculative details of on-wiki contributors' children, home contact details, medical history or medical status, contact details of employers or friends, sufficient details that might enable fraud or identity theft or similar with the obvious intention to distress or encourage real life personal attacks. --Fæ (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you please explain what did you mean under "to recognize self-declared or convicted paedophiles"? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

If user:example posts somewhere off-wiki that they are a paedophile, paedophile advocate or provides statements that they were subject to criminal prosecution for paedophile activity, then I see no reason why the Commons community should be required to pretend that those off-wiki statements do not exist. As to what the Commons community then expects to happen in terms of any sanctions for such user would be a matter of interpreting policy and consensus. --Fæ (talk) 23:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Different countries make different kinds of activities illegal. Here in Canada not only is it legal for those who want a sovereign Quebec to advocate for this, but the Sovereigntists served as the loyal opposition in Parliament. In China every Uyghur who advocates for an independent East Turkestan is treated as a terrorist and risks becoming an involuntary organ donor.

  I agree with Derrick Coetzee's points, and further suggest we should not have any decision arising from this discussion hinge on the legality of off-wiki actions. Geo Swan (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

 Comment I would like to reserve the right to sanction users for offsite Commons-related harrassment/outing/illegality. The proposal is too all-encompassing as it stands, but don't take rejection of this proposal as endorsement of the opposite extreme. --99of9 (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm fully with 99of9's opinion. --Túrelio (talk) 07:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed - not supporting a general offwiki=onwiki policy doesn't mean offwiki can never be taken into account. I was thinking of drafting an alternative that would clarify this, but I found it hard; maybe somebody else would like to have a go. Rd232 (talk) 09:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Much peril lies here. Impersonate others to get them in trouble, they could. Leads to the dark side, it does. Ocracy dude (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose - this serves no useful purpose other than driving people underground and rather there being more transparency, there would be less. I hear a lot of scaremongering about personal medical information, etc, etc but see no evidence to support that any of this has actually occurred on these sites, least of all Wikipediocracy, which is less than two month's old - Alison ^❤ 10:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose - How about what I talk about down the pub, at the supermarket, on a forum other than the main two mentioned? Commons admins do not have the right to decide that what I say elsewhere has any effect here. Actually it's rather ridiculous to even entertain this notion, talk about Big Brother! --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose - Per Alison. Cla68 (talk) 04:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose - I believe enwp Arbcom takes the right approach here. Off-wiki evidence may be used to speak to a pattern of behaviour, but not as the sole basis of sanctions. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose in general - what is said offwiki should be kept offwiki, and I am in general opposed to behaviour offwiki (that is not on Commons) being used as a specific reason to sanction someone, though I accept it can speak to character. My main issue is that some of our best contributors have in the past been banned from other wikis, but work out fine here. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose. Do we really need a policy on this? It's fine to take off-wiki comments into consideration, but you can solve the problem of personal attacks made elsewhere by not looking at them. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 23:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose Runs the risk of false-flag operations by people maliciously impersonating other people. Anyone can pretend to be a username, and there is no way to verify authenticity. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 01:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose Ultra vires.--KTo288 (talk) 06:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose They simply aren't made onwiki, and we cannot discuss as if they were. Lymantria (talk) 06:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose as a matter of jurisdictional principle: we have no jurisdiction over what happens outside Wikimedia. However, Commons editors should be reminded that anything they say publicly outside Wikimedia may be used as evidence when their behaviour in Commons is under discussion. Deryck Chan (talk) 08:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment Not sure whether this is a support or oppose, but taking "off-wiki" comments into account certainly seems reasonable, as long as this doesn't mean imposing the various policies of the wiki community to other communities that choose to follow different rules. --SB_Johnny ^talk 11:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Support as long as it is directly related to Commons. If a user downloads illegal mp3s in his/her free time is not related to Commons, but if some users sneak away to form a cabal on Commons it is relevant. // Liftarn (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support in the case that the user on wiki links to allegations or attacks against another local user, which would be an indirect way to express a personal attack. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 12:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Dcoetzee. We should not ignore what happens off-wiki, but it is not appropriate to treat off-wiki posting as on-wiki posting. If someone's on-wiki behavior violates guidelines and principles to the point that moderation or sanctions are being pursued against him or her, then the off-wiki postings should be acceptable to demonstrate an overall pattern or clarify on-wiki intent, but it is neither appropriate, nor reasonable, to insist that people treat every website in cyberspace as Wikimedia. -- Avi (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose per the impersonation issue, with the caveat that we don't have to ignore off-site comments if they go towards showing a pattern of behavior. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose What I say outside of Wikipedia/Commons is my own business, shouldn't affect what goes on here. Oaktree b (talk) 03:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

 Comment, @Oaktree b, taking "off-wiki" comments into consideration would be fair anough, you can't change your hat every minute, do you? Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 06:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Support as per Fæ Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 07:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
•  SupportAutomatic CommentActivities visualize.))ex. the last upload at 1 week , 2 week - 1 year ,other ---- IS Only activate Switch myself.Automatic.
•  OpposeHandmade  Comment So difficult is. --MOTOI Kenkichi(基 建吉) (talk) 09:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose We have already discussed of that on the French Wikpedia ; my answer was « the life out of wiki is under the laws of my country. » Thus, I vote No. - Bzh-99 (talk) 10:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose I still think there should be some sort of prohibition against exporting conflicts from Commons to other forums for the sole purpose of disadvantaging an opponent, but not nearly this broad or vague. MBisanz ^talk 15:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Individuals are more than welcome to get upset at off-wiki comments, but as far as whether they are actionable or not? In more cases, I say "no". Avi's comment above about off-wiki comments providing context to on-wiki behavior I think is the appropriate middle ground here. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose No. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• leaning  Support - if people are going to comment negatively somewhere online, it is to all intents and purposes public. Hence rendering these comments immune to review only enables personal attacks and battleground conduct. Casliber (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose to a degree. We had a horrible experience with "BADSITES" on Wikipedia, and I'd encourage everyone to look that up before commenting here. That being said, though, there is a significant amount of concern trolling going on, facilitated and encouraged by offwiki discussion (yes, JN, and only maybe slightly less Alison, I'm looking at you), and that should be dealt with. I just don't think this is the best way. Seraphimblade (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose If in doubt, how to prove the offending foreign-site user is identical to some Commons user? --dealerofsalvation 13:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Alison, Rd232 et al. --T137(talk) 13:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose This is a well intentioned proposal that will only become a doorway to keep the fighting between sites and users alive. On EN:WP the granting of admin status can be impacted by what one does offsite (IRC has been used as an example), but only in a process where the accused explains themselves before the action is taken. If the accused here denies connection to the "offending" statement(s), then where will one be? Investigations and more lengthy debates, satisfying only those who want to keep stirring the pot. Worse yet, while not solving the problem, it introduces an additional risk. As RD232 stated, it provides a policy through which impersonators on remote sites can harm people here. -- Ultracobalt (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose It makes no sense to try to force the rules of one site into "long-arm" status where they get applied everywhere else... I don't like it when the U.S. government (or any other national government) acts like it can control the whole world, and the same is true of Wikipedia/Wikimedia trying to impose its rules and standards on everybody else, including outside criticism sites. One of the points of being independent is being able to operate under different standards, not subject to whatever censorship might be imposed by fiat in the other place. On the other hand, when evaluating the overall character of a person, their outside activity is relevant, so it might be cited in discussions about the person's onsite behavior and requests for status changes; it just shouldn't be directly considered a rules violation here. Dtobias (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose What happens out of Commons should stay out of Commons. One should be free to criticise (staying within the limits of politeness, of course, but this is not a thing that Commons - as well as any else WMF project - can ask outside of commons) and not to be called by any given community to respond for something done outside of the same community. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 20:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose What happens out of Commons should stay out of Commons Tetrisforaliens (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Strong oppose We have our guidelines and other sites have theirs. Why in earth should I have to follow Commons' guidelines in unrelated discussions elsewhere? And even when discussing Commons: it is difficult enough to design guidelines that work here, without taking into consideration whether they are acceptable as general rules. Anybody should be allowed to contribute here, without having to make a commitment to some shared values or agree not to criticize Commons or Commons users. --LPfi (talk) 08:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose We have a hard enough time cleaning up our own mess half of the time, how can we try to impose our rules on others. It can only work if people are anyway willing to cooperate and in this case the best solution would be to "lead by example". --Dimi z (talk) 12:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose - we should reserve the right to vent our anger against users off-wiki. Commons has better things to do than police forums. --Claritas (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose - there are enough bad wiki policies here, no need to infect the rest of the world. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

consensus is to support greater emphasis on this essay, many acknowledging that it is or should be standard practice for all. The strengths of this discussion indicates that the community considers that this essay is more than just an essay. With that community may want to open the door for further discussion on its future. Gnangarra 05:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

 Support Polling is just a playground for a handfull of people. --Heinz-Josef Lücking (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

 Support Commons:Polling is not a substitute for discussion summarises practice: discussions should generally be decided by arguments, not by weight of numbers. This should be emphasised more often when users who are not regular Commons contributors participate in a discussion. For deletion discussions, {{Wikipedia DR}} can be used to highlight this. Templates that warn of offsite highlighting in other contexts may be helpful. Rd232 (talk) 09:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

 Support This is the only way to prevent canvassing, or, to be precise, to make it useless. Obviously the person (usually an admin) who closes the discussion should not be in a COI position.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

 Support – !votes shouldn't be judge by their popularity, by who the !voter is, or by how the !voter discovered the discussion; !votes should be be judged by what the comments contribute to the overall discussion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 11:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

 Support Per the reasons cited above. -- Thekohser (talk) 13:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

 Support (mostly) -- infrequently polling is necessary, and in those cases it is appropriate to discount (to some degree) votes from new users, single-pupose accounts, and the like. But in most cases it is the strength of an argument, not the number of voices shouting it, that should carry the day. No matter who or how many people say otherwise, 2 + 2 is still 4 and calling a tail a leg will not make it one. cmadler (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

 Support while it is often difficult to finally judge about a topic. Especially on controversial points. -- RE rillke questions? 17:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

•  Support - of course - Alison ^❤ 11:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

 Support Goes without saying. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Support, but I should point out that all these  Supports mean nothing, since this is not a poll. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Support Of course. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 01:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

•  SupportMost definitely, a hundred bad opinions should not over rule a single good argument.--KTo288 (talk) 06:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Neutral - voting is sometimes inevitable in multilingual projects such as Commons where participants occasionally have trouble communicating with one another. Deryck Chan (talk) 08:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose Literally speaking, you are asking whether it should be emphasized as appropriate. Even if I think it's appropriate under few circumstances, I still logically must believe that it should be emphasized as appropriate. I might even think it's never appropriate, and still have to agree that it should be emphasized as appropriate--it's like the argument that it's okay for the Boy Scouts to require that an atheist follow his duty to God since the atheist thinks that his duty to God is a null set.

So if I assume the question means what it says, then it means nothing, but I am logically compelled to support it. Of course, questions do mean something; problem is, I can't figure out what. So I'll have to oppose until I can. Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose Selbstverständlich -- Avi (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Support as per KT0288, a hundred bad opinions should not overrule a single good argument... Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 06:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Good job.
•  Oppose Harassment.--MOTOI Kenkichi(基 建吉) (talk) 09:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment 何？如何してCOM:NOTAVOTEは"Harassment"？如何いう意味ですか？ -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 05:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  CommentEven though humans have thought a good idea at all there is to be a threat. As a dissenting opinion in that sense will look like this. Does God have? Like the answer.儘管人類已經想到一個好主意，在所有有威脅。作為一個在這個意義上的反對意見，會是這個樣子。上帝有嗎？答案一樣。尽管人类已经想到一个好主意，在所有有威胁。 作为一个在这个意义上的反对意见，会是这个样子。 上帝有吗？答案一样。全てにおいて良い考えと思っていても有る人間にとっては脅威になることが有る。その意味で反対意見としてはこうなります。神はいるか？ の答えの様に。--MOTOI Kenkichi(基 建吉) (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Yes, this is a true statement. MBisanz ^talk 15:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Neutral yes it's true, but I note it's only an essay, not a rule, and discussions involving significant numbers of editors almost always have a quantitative rather than qualitative conclusion...Casliber (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support MorganKevinJ^(talk) 02:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Even if it is an essay, not a policy. As per Ymblanter, Michaeldsuarez and Rillke. Johan G (talk) 07:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support But exceptions may exist in extreme cases. --T137(talk) 13:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support This should just be default behavior for discussions and managing content. While not a "rule" it's an excellent "cultural norm". Better yet, relying on civil processes such as NOTAVOTE makes canvassing pointless, per Ymblanter, therefore merely a sideshow if it does occur. I'm a little less clear if this particular proposal is meant to be in lieu of all the other ones or in parallel. Asking for NOTAVOTE support is a bit like asking do we support cute fluffy kitties. Ofcourse we support cute fluffy kitties. But does supporting the obvious solve the problem as stated in the RfC? I'm not sure how that will connect. -- Ultracobalt (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Rainald62 (talk) 00:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Agree completely. A person's vote tells us nothing about the validity of the reasoning behind his opinion.Rchurt (talk) 00:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

this discussion focused on the option as being a fall back position dependent on a prior discussion result but there was no weight behind why its an acceptable alternative. Those opposing discussed whether it actually achieves its intention, the burden placed on resources and necessity for the creation of policy. Consensus is for opposing this proposal Gnangarra 05:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose There is no need to use the abuse filter for general warnings. --Heinz-Josef Lücking (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

... if a link to "such a site" is added and emphasize that on-wiki discussion is the most transparent and preferred way.

•  Support (as a warning, not actually preventing edits) -- RE rillke questions? 17:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Good thinking :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support As a back-up option if the spam-listing has not been supported.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment – Can someone please draft the message? I wouldn't vote for a message without having an idea about what it would look like. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose I believe that everybody should be allowed to make their own decision what rely and what not rely on without any filters. Any info at any site could be reliable (supported by evidences) or unreliable (not supported by evidences). --Mbz1 (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Question How are these sites different from any external site in that regard? if we are assuming that links are being added here because they are relevant to the project itsef, then a link to, for example, Slashdot is no different than a link to Wikipedia Review. Any site with multiple contributors (or comments) will have a range of opinions. There appears to be an implicit assumption that certain sites should be treated differently than other sites because they are in some undefined way "bad". Unless this filter also applies to the WMF blog, this has nothing to do with ensuring fairness or neutrality, but is simply an attempt to reinforce the idea that some sites are unpopular with a small, but vocal number of Commons editors. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • "How are these sites different from any external site in that regard?" — They have a very limited scope. And this scope focuses WMF projects, especially Commons. Their scope is made by their name. -- RE rillke questions? 19:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
    • So does the WMF blog. I presume that people are linking to sites here because they are relevant to Commons, so it is unlikely that the linked articles or discussions are outside of the limited scope of Commons itself or issues very relevant to Commons (eg copyright issues) even if the site is not generally about that. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose - thanks for coming up with a new idea - but... this is completely illogical. The person adding the link to an onwiki discussion doesn't need telling that onwiki discussion is preferred - they're already contributing onwiki and wouldn't be adding the link if they didn't appreciate this. Nor does the person adding it need some sort of disclaimer about the "reliability" of what is linked to - if they come up with a link, they already know about those sites. In any case nobody believes that anything on those sites has any more reliability in the sense of en:WP:Reliable Sources than any comments on the internet; what matters is evidence given, arguments made, etc; the only exception is that in some contexts, the comments themselves are evidence ("X said Y - here's the link"). All of which said, I've taken this idea in what I think is a more plausible direction, below (#offsite discussion link template). Rd232 (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I am not convinced that all people would be aware that these sites do not belong to Commons or the WMF and that the administrator could change forum-postings as he like. -- RE rillke questions? 16:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Rd232. --Avenue (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support per Ymblanter, but I prefer spam-list. --Trycatch (talk) 06:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose what amounts to establishing Commons Thought Police. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Malcolm. Ocracy dude (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Rd232. This makes no sense - Alison ^❤ 11:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose – If they're trying to link to a Wikipedia Review or a Wikipediocracy thread, that means that the offsite discussion already exists. This won't prevent the offsite discussion from existing, and it won't prevent that discussion from continuing. Also keep in mind that the person attempting to link to the offsite discussion isn't necessarily the initiator of that discussion or even a participant of that discussion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Neutral I don't believe Michaeldsuarez's argument, as it's clear that this is supposed to encourage the user to use onwiki discussion in the future, not for the present discussion being linked. On the other hand, I maintain that most such incidents of linking are probably going to be by people who did not originate the thread offsite, but simply wish to refer to it (not necessarily to support an argument, but perhaps merely because it's explaining an influxx of socks, etc.). As such I think this could potentially be useful in some cases but usually not. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support, as a minimum fall-back option since the spam-blocking is unlikely to receive consent. This makes full sense as even a superficial view of WR/Wcy threads clearly shows that — in effect — there's not much moderation. --Túrelio (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose What happens off project is off project, I'm confident of editors ability to think for themselves.--KTo288 (talk) 07:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)06:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support What happens off project is off project as long it does not interfere with the project itself. Discrimination, false facts, wrong assumptions, ... meant to be attacks against our users, by linking "external sources", to "link in/include" external content, should not be tolerated. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 12:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose While an interesting outside-the-box idea, I don't think the gains outweigh the costs. Every abuse filter puts a strain on the servers. The benefit of the filter needs to outweigh that cost. When it comes to pattern vandalism, for example, the strain on the server is outweighed by the enormous time savings to the volunteers not having to track and revert the untold number of infantile vandal edits that are now stopped by the filter. In this case, however, chances are that the person posting the link knows the provenance of said link, and would post it regardless of any "pop-up" warning if he or she felt it germane to the discussion. So we have no gain and some cost, which is why I oppose this for now. -- Avi (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose per rd232. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose. You're misunderstanding what abuse-filters do. Deryck Chan (talk)
•  Support Made for you.
•  Oppose Illegal for me.--MOTOI Kenkichi(基 建吉) (talk) 09:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose An inferior and misguided use of a limited resource. MBisanz ^talk 15:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Rd232. I really don't like this idea; it just doesn't seem like a particularly good solution. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Neutral (shrugs) strikes me as unnecessary micromanagement - the spam-blacklist won't pass anyway so moot. Casliber (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Assumes bad faith. MorganKevinJ^(talk) 02:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support It's really necessary because some websites provide fake info instead of some true info and mislead people. These website shouldn't be used in Wiki Project.--Jack No1 (中文/English) (talk) 03:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Neutral I do not think it is the right thing to do. Mostly as per Rd232, though rillke has a good point. Johan G (talk) 08:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support as per Niabot. Alexpl (talk) 10:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Rd232, Avi et al. --T137(talk) 13:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose creates another layer of management. How will the message read, who will keep updating it as sites and perceived abusers change, etc? Iffy sites may also have both legit and nonlegit stuff, policing of which will require continual putting noses where they don't belong. Assume people are adults when they click on external links, instead of trying to babysit this one. -- Ultracobalt (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Rd232 and Ultracobalt. --LPfi (talk) 08:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This developed consensus for a be bold approach which has already been taken, there is question as to it being effective in addressing the underlying problems. Gnangarra 06:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Neutral - I'm not convinced this is really necessary, but it could be helpful. I think this approach is certainly a better version of the Abuse filter notification idea, since it doesn't just address someone trying to add a link (who probably doesn't need to be told anyway), but everyone who reads the discussion with the link in it. Rd232 (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Neutral - It's standard practice on some websites to include such a page whenever an external link is clicked, so there is some precedent. This may indeed help some novices who are confused about the situation and think these sites have some official affiliation, or are otherwise reputable. On the other hand, I think most users with some Internet experience know that random forums cannot always be trusted. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
• Just be bold. Deryck Chan (talk) 08:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Unlike the abuse filter, this puts negligible strain on the server, does not require Wikimedia to decide which sites are affected (it is the posting editors choice), and forces neither use of the template not reading the linked disclaimer. This should not be dependent on an RfC. Just make the template, post somewhere about it, start using it, and encourage others to do the same. -- Avi (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support I think so more better than commons life.--MOTOI Kenkichi(基 建吉) (talk) 09:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
• Well, here's the template {{Offsite discussion link}}, and a page for it to point to: Commons:Offsite discussion. Rd232 (talk) 00:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Weak support Probably a good idea, but could potentially make discussions about Commons slowly move offsite in some respects. Having people aware that those sites are not Commons and in general should be disregarded, as per Commons:Offsite discussion (draft?), is probably a very good idea though. Johan G (talk) 08:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose This does not resolve the problem when off-site discussion threads being linked to not only discuss the behaviour of Commons contributors but also make claims about their sex lives, call them niggers, faggots, nazis, frauds, paedophile supporters and out them including contact details for employers, home addresses, phone numbers, medical history and so forth. When such off-site claims are accompanied by anonymous on-wiki threats, sometimes criminal in nature, it is even more surprising that victims are not supported by Commons policy to avoid linking to abusive material. Some readers may feel this is an exaggeration, but if you examine the history of contributions of some of the sites mentioned here, there are examples for all of these situations. --Fæ (talk) 08:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Neutral As Dcoetzee e Rd232. But this isn't real solution. --T137(talk) 13:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Neutral I see no problem with such a template, as long as using it is not mandatory. If the linked help page is good, it might be useful in some circumstances, but I do not see it being a real solution to anything (and requiring the template would open a can of worms). --LPfi (talk) 08:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support - good to have the option. Re: Fæ, obviously we wouldn't wrap discussions which were libellous. --Claritas (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Neutral This is a somewhat silly solution in that nearly every external link is improved with annotation (page name, date, etc), but we don't require such annotations. Also, if it's optional, which is what I would support, it will not be used by those who do not see a problem with off-site discussion, who are probably the people most likely to link to such discussions and not see a problem doing so. MBisanz ^talk 19:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

consensus is that any such issue raised can be dealt with by implementing current policies it therefore unnecessary to create further policy. Gnangarra 17:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Support Of course i support this idea. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 20:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose I see what you're getting at, but the wording is hopelessly vague ("substantial value"? to the discussion on the external page, or to the Commons discussion?). And really, if it's obvious enough that the link is provided maliciously, then we don't need anything written down somewhere to act on that. Rd232 (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

  • To the Commons discussion of course. No, it is not always clear and that is a problem and common practice. In recent discussions the links where inserted @random or off-topic, but contained further down allegations against users involved inside the Commons discussion. Such links should be removed and there should be a warning that this page shouldn't be linked again. Of course this doesn't count for external comments issued after the link was made (common sense in practice), but still a removal of the link would be appropriate in this case. (Either a source is good enough to divide between useful content and trash, or it isn't worth a cent anyway)

    PS: Since it are usually groups of users with same goals on external pages, this makes actually sense. It is easy to let one write down allegations and attacks and let the other link them. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 22:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

    • "It's not always clear" - well exactly, and trying to make written policy for unclear situations is a recipe for disaster. If it's clear, we can act anyway. If it's not clear, we need to use judgement about context and user history, and no written policy will help us do that - but it may well hinder us in some way by trying to prescribe something inappropriate. I really, really hate it on en.wp when people cite en:WP:CREEP in discussions - but I think it may actually apply here. Rd232 (talk) 22:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
      • To keep it simple: I meant with "It's not always clear" the practice to link to one section of a page with the hidden implication, that is clear, to also show an additional part of the page that contains the actual attack. A good example would be the link to the sock allegation against Saibo, that was totally out of place (off topic) and contained personal attacks just some lines above. Such links should be removed, except you like drama. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 22:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
        • It's not really an example if you don't provide a diff. From what I can retrieve from memory and a search, there was a link as part of a direct request to you to comment on the Saibo/Niabot alternate account issue (here). That's supposed to be a "good example" of malicious linking? Or are you talking about something else? Rd232 (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
          • Yes it is. The content of the link, presented in the , starts with a personal attack against me and other users. Then the next comment is a pure allegation with no evidence whatsoever, mentioned in an unrelated discussion and then put onto my talk page as an reaction. Always nice to read that you are "kiddy fiddler", "enabler" or something, when the link is posted by a well known participant (Michaeldsuarez) on such off wiki pages. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 07:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
            • Well, it's certainly an excellent example of a loss of perspective. A made a claim of sockpuppetry offwiki, the claim was alluded to onwiki by B, and C asked you to comment in the onwiki discussion, and provided a link to A's claim by way of context. Regardless of the personal attacks A included with the claim, this is not an example of a malicious provision of a link to an offsite discussion. Rd232 (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
              • I'm not surprised to hear that from your mouth since it is well known that you support such activities. But it is surely just coincidence that A, B and C are actively involved inside this kind of off-wiki discussions, knowing very well what was written. You really should stop to play to be blind on both eyes. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 13:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support and if the wording is vague, I suggest Rd232 propose something more substantial considering his experience as a Wikipediocracy contributor. --Fæ (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm sure you spend more time reading it than I do - so why don't you try. Rd232 (talk) 22:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Sure, thank you for your confidence in supporting my opinion, I guess this overrides your previous opinion above. I'll go for it as it is. If an admin that were not someone who is also writing on the same site were the one making a decision to remove such a link or sanction the person involved, I think we can all fully trust their judgement. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
• (Edit conflict) Neutral I agree that people shouldn't insert links for the purpose of spreading information about a personal attack; that in itself would often count as a personal attack. However, I think that ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼'s proposal is a bit vague. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  • It is intended to be a bit vague. Otherwise you won't have a little bit of room to use common sense. But it should dictate a reference/orientation for such a decision. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 22:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose – Despite substantial evidence, people here denied the obvious and screamed, "No evidence! No evidence!" during the Beta_M incident. Even when allegations are sound, people here will claim otherwise and attempt to censor the link. I don't believe that most people truly have the ability to judge how "substantial" a link is, and almost anyone would abuse an opportunity to censor. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  • If there is proof, it is related to actual debate and does not contain personal attacks against users who had open questions, then anything should be fine. The latter one wasn't the case, starting this drama. Here is a perfect example of yourself (WR), putting in unrelated bullshit into a discussion and then linking to the external page, full with allegations and attacks against me and other users. Good job. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 07:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
    • See my comment above. Just because an offsite claim of wrongdoing is accompanied by personal attacks by one person does not mean that someone else linking to that claim in order to ask for a response to the claim is doing so maliciously. Rd232 (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
      • If the person that posts the link or references the discussion is actively involved in _that_ discussion, then it is hard to believe. Or you have typical problem of choosing the wrong friends. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 14:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
        • I participated in the larger discussion, but I didn't participate in the tangential speculation about your account and Saibo's account. I didn't play any part in the creation of the rumors about your account. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
          • I don't need to repeat my previous last sentence again, right? --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 14:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Would you prefer not knowing what other people were saying about you behind your back? By alerting you, I provided you with an opportunity to defend yourself and to refute their claims. If I hadn't done what I've done, the rumors about your account would've persisted. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
      • It served no purpose. Let the rumors be rumors, but let them stay away from me or other contributers. Thank you. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 14:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose. Michaeldsuarez' point is well-taken. --JN466 02:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Neutral OK this proposal gets more to the spirit of what I think is wrong, i.e. enforcing individual culpability on abusive posts. In this regard an external link should be treated no differently than text itself, and only counts if it is posted HERE. Stuff discussed OVER THERE, if not linked, is irrelevant. If behavior HERE is adjudged abusive then the standard talk/warn/block/ban trajectory can be followed. It isn't perfect but compared to the other proposals for external site bans (unworkable) or external site patrolling (out of scope) or external site collaborating (laughable), this one has promise if it can be made un-vague. If no one likes this then I dunno what to do. -- Ultracobalt (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Neutral I wouldn't link them though. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)}
•  Oppose you can't censor everywhere Tetrisforaliens (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose This can be handled with common sense. Of course adding links to attacks made elsewhere can be seen as making those attacks on-site, if the link serves no other purpose - but whether it does is up to common sense, so a rule adds nothing but lawyering. --LPfi (talk) 08:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose I don't think that an additional rule or policy is necessary since I believe that currently the regulations allow to handle this matter. With other words it would just add bureaucracy without improving the situation. --Dimi z (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Censorship. I'd make the exception if the offensive comments where made by the same editor who inserted the link, however. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Good idea in theory, but in practice common sense should already cover this; if it doesn't, adding a vague rule-thing that would still require common sense to apply effectively won't help matters anyway. -— Isarra ༆ 19:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Piotrus. SkyBon (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose - no way to define "substantial value" and given the level of bullying and admin-power abuse here on Commons, it would just serve as a way to censor legitimate criticisms and an excuse for even more bullying. I suggest people focus on fixing the problem at the source - Commons culture, atmosphere and wacky power structure, rather than try to silence criticism of these dysfunctions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • As if insults on WR or WC would help to improve any culture or atmosphere. From which planet you come from? I'm from Earth. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 13:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Problem is, as you should be well aware of, being from Earth and all, that some users cynically label any kind of legitimate criticism of their actions as "personal attack" or "insult". That's why your proposal is plainly ridiculous, and ill motivated.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

You should be well aware, even if you are not from earth, that there is quite a difference between criticism, even personal criticism and simpleminded malevolent attacks against others. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 15:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but it's stupid to let the person being criticized have the authority to determine what is legitimate criticism and what is "attack". They're not exactly going to be impartial and the temptation to abuse one's power quite substantial. Hey, even without this proposal we see it happening all the time. The bullying would be even worse if it's legitimized by something like this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes this should not happen and the person that feels attacked should point out the problem at the legitimate discussion pages to have another uninvolved admin to review the case independently. With "independently" i mean that ideally such a case should not allow any canvasing. Only the involved users speak for themself in offense or defense. Canvasing and lawyering should be removed immediately. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 17:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose I was there in the action, To pursue allegations of corruption and user account management Personal attack is made Be blocked. There are examples of the record.This.Than problem-solving as a result Ascertain the facts alleged Give the impression. In addition, the Led to abuse of administrative authority.--MOTOI Kenkichi(基 建吉) (talk) 06:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

 CommentAn adversary of the Wikimedia cases increase ... Exsample) Blocked user's out site comments -google translated , It's Originals. And Develop into a court case (Bluff) . <- View at your own risks. --MOTOI Kenkichi(基 建吉) (talk) 07:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC) add a Develop into a court case (Bluff) -google translated/ that user block case ,so difficult and burned , more large problems.--MOTOI Kenkichi(基 建吉) (talk) 07:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

To manipulate emotionally consensus by slander, anonymous examples of external sites, personal opinion. Have evaluated the expulsion of the game like a block.Ex) 2ch Anonymous site(ja)-- I think Rigging of the main site. ,2ch Anonymous site(ja). -- I think Rigging of the sub site. and other.->Resault Google:Motoi Kenkichi Wikipedia block(ja),Google:Motoi Kenkichi Wikipedia block(en).--MOTOI Kenkichi(基 建吉) (talk) 08:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus is attempts to work with other sites to address concerns raised on those sites about contributors here is a good thing. Even if its not something that the community here can address with policies or practices, individuals under taking such efforts do have community support. Gnangarra

Is Thekohser or anyone else who runs/moderates offsite forums about Wikimedia interested in collaboratively developing/improving some minimal public groundrules for discussion on their site to ensure that the most egregious violations can be prevented? (P.S. Remember publishers, you have some legal liability for the content hosted on your site.) --99of9 (talk) 07:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

•  Support if they are willing. --99of9 (talk) 07:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support - and noting that the exodus of much of Wikipedia Review to a new site (Wikipediocracy) makes this less implausible than one might think. At least some of the people involved seem to want to tone things down on the new site and moderate it more strictly. Some clarification of what that means wouldn't hurt. A clear appeal mechanism for Wikimedia users to request moderation without needing to sign up for an account would also help - and be a rather good sign of good faith. (Such a mechanism could also avoid people getting into the situation I find myself, where having signed up for an account in order to request moderation and defend myself I'm now attacked regularly as being part of the problem.) Rd232 (talk) 08:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Rd232, you seem perfectly comfortable with contributing to these websites right now, and using your admin tools in matters directly related to the same travelling circus and the issues they create. As a matter of record, how would you expect such websites to deal with faggot "fae got" related comments about Wikmedia Commons contributors as we have seen by Greg Kohs thekohser in the last few hours, and what specific practical sanction would you expect Wikimedia Commons to apply if they refuse to deal with these problems? I note that Wikipediocracy in their own policy claims to be intolerant of homophobic comments, however I would be very surprised if Greg Kohs thekohser gets any meaningful sanction on the website he owns for calling me a faggot "fae got". Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

    By the way, the policy from Wikipediocracy states: You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-orientated or any other material that may violate any laws be it of your country, the country where “Wikipediocracy” is hosted or International Law. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned, with notification of your Internet Service Provider if deemed required by us. The IP address of all posts are recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. This policy is completely meaningless if not enforced when hate speech such as "faggot" bolding the words "Fae got" is casually used as part of a personal attack. --Fæ (talk) 09:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

    Those posts were out of line. I have removed them, and posted an apology. (The word faggot was not used, but a fairly transparent wordplay evoking the word was, and this is unacceptable. There should be no repeats.) Greg likewise has apologised for the taunt. He still has beef with you, and you with him, but perhaps we can work those issues out in a way that does not involve public name calling. Regards, and allow me to apologise to you here as well. This nonsense has to stop, and it will. --JN466 11:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

    Apologies from me as well... I didn't pick up on the wordplay (or font-play) until I saw your post above. --SB_Johnny ^talk 12:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

    Apologies from me too. I saw the post, but I was not familiar with the word "fagot" and did not understand what the play of words means. --Mbz1 (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

    And apologies from me, too. I'm a forum mod on Wikipedocracy and would have removed them immediately. I'm just back from vacation today, though :/ - Alison ^❤ 11:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

    Let's make a few things factually clear. Yesterday, I pointedly asked Fæ to cease using my real name to disparage my reputation, and if that had any traction, I intended to ask him to stop name-calling ("traveling circus") the members of the website I helped launch. He deleted that advice as an "advert". It was not an advertisement at all, so he was using word play to taunt me. SB Johnny replaced the comment, encouraging Fae that if he wanted to remove it, use another edit summary. Fae was defiant, and he removed SB Johnny's restoration with the exact same edit summary -- "remove advert". Russavia has now rev-deleted other content from Fae's page and locked it down, so clearly we are not allowed to critique Fae on his Talk page, but he is allowed to make libelous, fabricated critiques wherever he pleases. To wit, above, he stated that I called him "faggot", when in fact, nothing of the sort happened. I said, "It looks like Fae got upset with my post to his Talk page." I put in bold the words "Fae got", as a tongue-in-cheek wordplay poke at Fae, because he called careful and polite critique an "advert", he insists that we are not allowed to use his real name on Commons, yet he continues to drop the name "Greg Kohs" in multiple places on Commons, multiple times. "Greg Kohs" is a film director in New Jersey, so I'm sure he's just loving that his name is now associated with "faggot", thanks to Ashley Van Haeften's bumbling over the phrase "Fae got", and his urgency to call me publicly by a name that I don't really use professionally. (Are we allowed to say those three words, Ashley Van Haeften, here on Commons? If not, go ahead and strike them, as I have struck above Fae's reprehensible lie and misattribution to the wrong person. I, for one, am tired of Fae's preening like a peacock in the warm heat of the drama he generates.) I see right through it. Anybody else? -- Thekohser (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

    I think everybody, including Fæ, could do his part to reduce the amount of on-wiki drama we are seeing here. Some of it really does not belong on-wiki, but is a matter for you and him to sort out privately, if you can. (And Fæ is of course welcome to join Wikipediocracy if he wants to reply there.) --JN466 14:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

    I would love to have a polite and informative conversation with Fæ, in whatever venue makes him feel comfortable. I'm available by Skype (video or audio-only), e-mail, telephone, Google Chat, or just about any publicly-viewable website that welcomes open discussion. I promise that I will refrain from even one iota of personal attack. -- Thekohser (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

    Are you striking "Greg Kohs" because it's actually "Gregory Kohs", as in your current tagline in the blog post currently on the front page of wikipediocracy? Rd232 (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

    Yes, it's mostly for that reason. I try to avoid cross-confusion with "Greg Kohs" the film director, so I attempt (though don't always succeed) to publicly use the name "Gregory Kohs" as a distinction. In special cases, though, when online pseudonyms are belligerently aggressive that I am not to call them by their real name, I prefer that they not use my real name, unless it is in a complimentary tone. (I know, that's a biased rule, but if they think they get to make their rules about "outing" people who already "outted" themselves, I get to make my rules about how my real name is and is not used within their pseudonymous playgrounds.) -- Thekohser (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

    , – Just so everyone can be aware, stating "Greg Kohs" instead of "Gregory Kohs" really does cause confusion for some people. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Fæ, quite a few WP administrators were participating in Wikipedia Review at the time when I was there. That included such notables as Lar (who commented in threads frequently) and Newyorkbrad‎ (on occasion). WR users were there for a wide range of reasons, and your generalizations about the off wiki forums are a form of stereotyping. Nevertheless, I did find the general attitude, and the moderation, on WP rather reprehensible. (I am sure they will not be surprised when they read this because I made my criticisms plain at the time.) I suppose Wikipediocracy is similar. But it is not my job, nor is it the job of Commons, to act as thoughtpolice; and the importance of free speech outweighs many objections to the content of the speech (on the basis of the principle "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
    • One reason Wikipediocracy was set up was a shared understanding, among those moderating Wikipediocracy now, that the moderating policy in Wikipedia Review limited the quality of discourse. So over time, you should notice a difference. Lastly, Wikipediocracy is open to anyone interested in debating Wikimedia projects: present members include Wikimedia admins, checkusers and oversighters, as well as present and former en:WP arbcom members. I hope we will continue to attract members of this caliber. --JN466 13:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
      • With Eric Barbour as a global moderator there I'm sure quality of discourse will improve with lightening speed. Here's a thread that could use a little work, for example --- wikipediocracy(fucking censorious blacklist)/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=261--TungstenCarbide (talk) 03:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment – I've alerted both the Wikipedia Review and Wikipediocracy to this petition. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I've also alerted Mistress Selina Kyle: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mistress_Selina_Kyle&diff=70046701&oldid=68323115. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
• I'd like to know whether a stronger moderation policy on wikipediaocracy, as Jayen has said will occur, will result in a more intelligent moderation policy on commons. As can be seen here , Fae has associated his real name, Ashley van Haeften, with his account on the WMUK. It seems a perverse and wrong approach to rev delete any edit that makes this connection on commons. He is the acting general manager for Pete's sake. Ocracy dude (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support - I can't speak for the mod team on Wikipediocracy, but I don't think this should be a problem - Alison ^❤ 11:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support per Alison. --JN466 22:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment – Every page of the Wikipediocracy forum now possess a hyperlink to mailto:supportwikipediocracy.com entitled "Email Support Staff". I hope that this is satisfactory. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Moderation of malicious activities like outing, intimidation, and unsupported accusations are absolutely essential for any forum, and doing so could really make such a forum into something useful. I really have no idea if they'll listen to us though. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment Any expectation that Wikipediocracy or Wikipedia Review are going to take a firm stand against outing, intimidation, and unsupported accusations is a pipe dream. We don't even take a firm stand against those things on Commons, so how can we expect that from them? In this very thread we have Thekohser trying to intimidate Fae by accusing him of libel (which would get him banned from en.wiki). But of course we don't have a legal threats policy on Commons, and no one really seems to care about such abuses here. Kaldari (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I would like to respond to Kaldari, in that I wasn't "trying to intimidate Fae". I was stating a fact that for Fae to say that I called him a "faggot", when I did not, is in fact a libelous act. Kaldari, how would you feel if I stated here that you called me an "abuser" above, and that you expected a "piped ream" for me? Can we stop the silliness now? -- Thekohser (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose How would we feel and react if a group of users and wikipediocracy came to a group decision to enmasse ask for a change of policy here that better reflect how they think Commons should be run, not very kindly I would think. If any individual becomes a member of another community with the full intention of being a member of that community rather than with an agenda to "help" Commons, than by all means in a personal capacity act and post as you please, however we would not tolerate outside intereference with Commons, nor should Commons sanction such interference at other sites.--07:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose to this as a Commons policy on jurisdictional principles. Deryck Chan (talk) 08:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment WY is still a work in progress, but (thanks in part to this discussion) the "complaints department" has been cobbled together and should be working fine now. OTOH, it's never going to adopt behavioral policies (CIVIL, OUTING, etc.) that are as strict or complicated as the ones here on commons (much less those on en.wp). --SB_Johnny ^talk 11:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose I'm not willed to read external trash just to inform a unresponsive host/admin to remove the trash. Doesn't improve anything. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 12:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose Again, Commons should not be sticking their nose where it does not belong, this is not an advocacy group. Individual users want to go offer help offsite, fine. Wearing your "Wikimedia Commons" badge offsite trying to influence others should not be tolerated. "The views are my own, not those of the Wikimedia group etc nor do I represent them as their agent..." Leave your badge and gun at the office so to speak. Oaktree b (talk) 03:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Support of course, try that first … --dealerofsalvation 13:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Oppose on jurisdiction. I'm not opposed to the "make nicey" concept of collaboration, but it's naive to expect it and in the end an unnecessary errand, as external sites may run their operations as they see fit.-- Ultracobalt (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support I support this. Today I found out that yahoo had used my photograph in an article without crediting me, but have used other snaps [14 others], all from the Commons and have credited the original authors. I know my comment sounds dumb, but I'm still saying it. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

consensus is that this is outside of the communities ability to address. Gnangarra 09:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Requests_for_comment/offsite_discussions&diff=70049483&oldid=70049384

This is a petition requesting that the Wikipedia Review and Wikipediocracy create disclaimers for themselves. The disclaimers should state the the Wikipedia Review and Wikipediocracy aren't owned by, operated by, licensed by, or in any way officially affiliated with Wikipedia or Wikimedia. There should also be a disclaimer stating that posts and threads can be modified, moved, or deleted. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I think every tree in the US should be labeled with both their common and scientific name. This is a problem that someone must deal to avoid the serious risk of trees being misidentified. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

, , – I'm simply trying to resolve one of the issues Rillke listed as being a basis for his or her support of the blacklisting. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

"Blacklisting"? What bitter memories that word has for many in the US who are old enough to remember. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

 Support Can't hurt to clarify these things. I think it's pretty obvious, but then disclaimers are mostly there for the once-in-a-blue-moon situation of someone not recognising the obvious... Rd232 (talk) 09:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

 Support for the same reasons --Christofian (talk) 22:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Support Doesn't hurt to ask. I don't think this proposal is a huge deal either way. cmadler (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment – http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=4424#p4424 – I don't believe that Wikipediocracy will adopt disclaimers. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• • Disappointing...to me this could be as simple as adding a single sentence on the "Mission statement and welcome to the public" page (http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=15). At the bottom of that page it says "This discussion board is operated by a cooperative with no intention to profit. No one individual will ever control the editorial policy here, and those who support it financially have no more say in policy discussions than those who do not." It might be as simple as, after the word "cooperative", inserting ", unaffiliated with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation," or something similar. cmadler (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Have you read "Our Mission and You" on the site's home page? --JN466 17:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose Unless WMF is going to put a disclaimer we're not associated with WR/WC on its sites. Too silly for words -- these sites are obviously not Wikipedia (url, look and feel). Nobody Ent (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Nobody Ent, welcome to Wikimedia Commons! --Fæ (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

According to Fæ and Ymblanter, one needs to be an active member of the community volk in order for one's !vote to count. Fæ is politely and subtly telling you that your !vote won't count towards anything. Newbies aren't welcome to speak out openly; no immigrants allowed :( --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Tut tut (finger wagging) if you must accuse people of being Nazis have the courage to do so openly, anyway an accusation that only card-carrying members who have paid the dues having a vote would be a better metaphor than one based on blood.--KTo288 (talk) 10:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Considering Michaeldsuarez's history as a supporter of a website that defames gay people with descriptions such as "faggots" and black people with "niggers", the thought of claiming that somehow I am abusing people's human rights, by welcoming them to Commons, is truly bizarre. --Fæ (talk) 10:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

wikipedia:Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Fæ#View_by_certifier_Nobody_Ent – Don't play dumb. Nobody Ent is one of your enemies (for lack of a better word) on enwiki. Although you appear to be welcoming him or her on the surface, there's a deeper subtext to it. In addition, I support Encyclopedia Dramatica because I support free speech, including speech that you or I might dislike. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

So, you support defamation, libel and hate speech under the claim that this counts as "free speech". Nope, that's a weird and false interpretation of what free speech really means for the rest of us. As for that failed RFC, I do not keep track of all the names, I'm not the Nazi U-Boat Captain from Dad's Army parody of hatred you would like me to be. --Fæ (talk) 13:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Be reassured this is not a vote-although consensus does mean taking into account the mood of the community at large, I have faith that closing admins will take into acccount reasoned and thought out arguments from where-ever and whoever they come from.--KTo288 (talk) 10:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Neutral These sites are obviously not affiliated with Wikipedia, just as walmartsucks.org is obviously not affiliated with Walmart. Such a warning may be useful to a few very confused users, but I think most of them will get it. In any case we have little influence there. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose I think if someone got the two confused, they're probably dumb enough to select themselves out of the gene pool soon enough, which would make it a non-issue. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 23:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Neutral if they want to set a disclaimer ok, but it's not our choice. --PierreSelim (talk) 06:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose-Ultra vires--KTo288 (talk) 10:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)07:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Neutral - isn't it pretty obvious? Deryck Chan (talk) 08:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

   Support I don't think that it is obvious for all readers. I would like them to change their domain name. --Leyo 13:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose I don't care. That is outside of our project and we can't enforce anything. Why even include such a question inside this rfc? --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 12:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  • This is a peition. It doesn't include Commons enforcing or imposing anything on Wikipediocracy. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Outside of the scope of a WMF project to impose or even request such a thing of another website. Tarc (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Really, if you need a disclaimer to figure that out, a disclaimer probably wouldn't help anyway... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

 Neutral Their choice, but I don't see how we can force them to do so. Oaktree b (talk) 03:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• This is a petition. This doesn't include the use of force. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose If I was the one to operate such a site, then I’d consider it reasonable to include such a disclaimer, but I don’t see a point in forcing or even just requesting another site to do that. --dealerofsalvation 13:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Agree with Niabot and Tarc, this question is well out of scope. Other sites may run their operations as they see fit, without hubris from us on how to do it. If those other sites become a den of iniquity, on their heads be it, not ours... -- Ultracobalt (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose - if you can't see that they're third-party sites... --Claritas (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

struck per your request. Please let us know who has your permission to comment on what, it would make life a lot simpler. Rd232 (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, a wise decision. As for who would be uninvolved, common sense applies. We have seen people attracted by your site notice who have said they had never heard of these attack websites before, it should not be impossible to expect a summary or close by such an individual. You might be surprised to know how small a proportion of our Commons community ever pays much attention to websites owned by "MyWikiBiz" or "Garrett E. Moore" when their supporters are not trolling Commons by adding links to abusive material. --Fæ (talk) 15:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It was obviously not intended as a close - it was just my view of what the RFC I started has achieved so far, and asking what else could be attempted. Unstruck, since you've signally failed to take the obvious opportunity to say "well that wasn't necessary, I'm not trying to stop you saying what you want to say". Oh and You might be surprised to know... - I doubt it; I was a Wikimedia admin for years and got by ignoring Wikipedia Review just fine, but in 2012 I saw some comments about me I felt I had to respond to, and shortly after that Wikipediocracy was set up, and I was given an account automatically and used it when there were further comments about me. As for your repeated false claims about site ownership - you really don't learn, do you? Rd232 (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

What a pity your un-striking of this summary. Rather than silly sarcasm, I read this as a genuine attempt by you to address your position in being both a Commons trusted user so involved in off-wiki attack websites and yet taking such an active part in both creating and closing down attempts to have open discussion about possible policy change.

My "claims" about site ownership are easily verifiable fact. This search http://whois.domaintools.com/wikipediocracy.com is a public legal truth that any reader can check. --Fæ (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It has already been pointed out to you that registration of a domain is not the same as ownership of a website. I don't suppose pointing it out again will stop you repeating the false claim again. Rd232 (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

"a Commons trusted user so involved in off-wiki attack websites" - this is a direct personal attack, a deliberate accusation that I go around attacking people offsite. Strike it, or I'll see you at COM:AN/U, because I've seriously had enough of your attitude on this topic. Rd232 (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Fæ, I am rather surprised to see that you have linked to the WHOIS information for Wikipediocracy.com. When I posted on Wikipedia Review the public WHOIS record for a site that you owned, there was an immediate attempt to have me banned from English-language Wikipedia, despite the fact that including the phone and address information was an oversight on my part and was very quickly corrected by a WR admin with my complete agreement. If it was wrong for me to have posted your WHOIS info then, is it not equally wrong for you to link to Greg Kohs' WHOIS info now? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

WHOIS info is in the public record, and shouldn't really be considered the disclosure of private information in any case, no matter which side of the argument does it. Some registrars offer privacy of registration if the registrant chooses to use it. Dtobias (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The point is the double standard. Fæ wanted Delicious carbuncle site-banned for much the same thing Fæ himself has just done. The other day, Mattbuck, a Commons admin, referred to an off-site forum member in the title of a barnstar he was giving a fellow editor as follows: Let's Make Ottava Even More Paranoid That There's A Conspiracy Against Him (High-five) Barnstar. I also see a Commonist referring to posters at one of the sites as "crazy idiots" here on this page, while complaining that someone on one of these forums called him a name. The lack of self-awareness is, frankly, a little disturbing. --JN466 01:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

If we want to pry into people's off-wiki activities, I can also offer a link to the Twitter account of a Commons admin who regularly posts abusive tweets about other Wikimedians, recently for example referring to various people as a "bande de cons" ("fuckers" or, more literally translated: "a gang of cunts"). I see tweets as quite comparable to forum posts. --JN466 03:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jayen466. I hope you can appreciate that there is a big difference between discussing a block or ban for someone who, by their actions, [rephrasing after legal threats: their actions being to post my home phone number and address in public on Wikipedia Review less than 20 minutes after a threat was posted by a Wikipedia Review reader (based on the wording of threats) on to Commons] was facilitating a direct personal threat of blackmail against me and my husband, to my actions on this talk page. As for someone's abusive tweets, I suggest you complain in the right place, this RFC is being diverted all over the place as it is. I have complained myself about abusive tweets from trusted members of our community, and because I complained to the right people, in the right way, their offensive behaviour did change. Unnecessarily re-posting "cunts" here may be amusing from Father Jack Hackett but seems a bit beneath you if you want to present a real case. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 04:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the threat (I believe that you're referring to the one made by "98SA447") was made at 06:47 AM, while that WR post was made at 7:07 PM. Unless you're referring to something else, that's a 12-hour difference, not a 20-minute difference. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

On a site where we have an unfiltered video of sex between a dog and a (woman dressed as a) nun, and much else besides, I hardly feel it necessary to type c*** and f***. Not even newspapers do that any more. These are honorable and venerable parts of the English language. The point is, there is no difference between you linking to Greg's phone number here and what Delicious carbuncle did, except that you did it on-wiki. Regards. --JN466 04:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what Greg's phone number is. The domain registration is current and references MyWikiBiz and the contact number for that organization. If you cannot appreciate the difference between a case that involves making direct threats against the person and one that does not, or for that matter have the decency to respect matters relating to the safety of me and my husband, then there is no point in continuing our dialogue. --Fæ (talk) 04:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you now saying Delicious Carbuncle made threats against you? I believe you said otherwise in the past. If not, then just bear in mind that both you and he have no way of predicting what anyone will do with anyone's contact info that either of you posts. Regards. --JN466 04:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Please be careful answering this question, Fæ, since your words so far strongly suggest that I am in some way complicit in threats made against you and or your husband. If you do not strike your statements or provide some very clear statement that you do not believe I am involved, I will have little choice but to follow this up. I suggest you do this as soon as possible. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.