Content deleted Content added
Line 410: | Line 410: | ||
::heh, indeed! Editors have decided what [[WP:EL]], [[WP:RS]], [[WP:SPAM]] look like, and editors have also decided that redirect sites are not to be used on Wikipedia, that commercial spam can result in blacklisting, and editors can also decide that pay-per-view sites are generally not to be used, and can be pre-emptively blacklisted, and that then on a case-by-case basis some documents can be whitelisted. Blacklisting a site is not an administrative decision, it is an administrative action, backed up by our (editor supported) policies and guidelines. Now we have never discussed whether such sites should be blacklisted, but we have already decided that certain content shall not be linked to (heh, that is why we have this blacklist). I am here now asking our editors, whether administrators can perform the action of blacklisting pay-per-view sites just by nature. It may be that the editors disagree with that proposal (believe me, I know the pro's and con's), but there is no administrative decision here. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 22:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC) |
::heh, indeed! Editors have decided what [[WP:EL]], [[WP:RS]], [[WP:SPAM]] look like, and editors have also decided that redirect sites are not to be used on Wikipedia, that commercial spam can result in blacklisting, and editors can also decide that pay-per-view sites are generally not to be used, and can be pre-emptively blacklisted, and that then on a case-by-case basis some documents can be whitelisted. Blacklisting a site is not an administrative decision, it is an administrative action, backed up by our (editor supported) policies and guidelines. Now we have never discussed whether such sites should be blacklisted, but we have already decided that certain content shall not be linked to (heh, that is why we have this blacklist). I am here now asking our editors, whether administrators can perform the action of blacklisting pay-per-view sites just by nature. It may be that the editors disagree with that proposal (believe me, I know the pro's and con's), but there is no administrative decision here. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 22:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::If you truely want community consensus on this, then we need to expand the solicitation past just this page. Since this issue has community-wide implications, we should advertise it community wide. I'm not sure how to go about this yet, but it looks like the discussion is narrowing down into a few questions. [[User:Gigs|Gigs]] ([[User talk:Gigs|talk]]) 19:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC) |
:::If you truely want community consensus on this, then we need to expand the solicitation past just this page. Since this issue has community-wide implications, we should advertise it community wide. I'm not sure how to go about this yet, but it looks like the discussion is narrowing down into a few questions. [[User:Gigs|Gigs]] ([[User talk:Gigs|talk]]) 19:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::Here's my attempt at a neutral summary: [[MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/RfC]]. It's not live yet so don't start commenting there, but I'd appreciate editing of the "Arguments" section, especially if anyone thinks I have mischaracterized a position. [[User:Gigs|Gigs]] ([[User talk:Gigs|talk]]) 20:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:I do not know if pre-emptive blacklisting of pay-per-view sites is warranted, but once such sites have started being spammed here (particularly when even a small number of external links or [[WP:REFSPAM|REFSPAM]] is added by [[WP:SPA|SPA]] accounts), I support blacklisting the site. That is, block the site early; do not wait to reach that common-sense conclusion after a lot of effort reverting spam and conducting a pointless debate (''would people really get multiple Wikipedia accounts just to add links in the hope of earning money?'' – '''yes'''). It is impractical to debate the pros and cons of every link to a large site where people have an incentive to spam (such debate would often have to cover many hundreds of links). What we know is that it pays people to spam links to examiner.com, it has been spammed, and it is blacklisted – that is as it should be. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 07:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC) |
:I do not know if pre-emptive blacklisting of pay-per-view sites is warranted, but once such sites have started being spammed here (particularly when even a small number of external links or [[WP:REFSPAM|REFSPAM]] is added by [[WP:SPA|SPA]] accounts), I support blacklisting the site. That is, block the site early; do not wait to reach that common-sense conclusion after a lot of effort reverting spam and conducting a pointless debate (''would people really get multiple Wikipedia accounts just to add links in the hope of earning money?'' – '''yes'''). It is impractical to debate the pros and cons of every link to a large site where people have an incentive to spam (such debate would often have to cover many hundreds of links). What we know is that it pays people to spam links to examiner.com, it has been spammed, and it is blacklisted – that is as it should be. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 07:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC) |