They stopped redirecting last June. Pathoschild removed them from the blacklist, and Raul654 put them back because he has to prove he's a tough guy. It's rather ridiculous, really. After Pathoschild removed them, editors fixed all the links on my bio so that they worked like any link should. Then they all got screwed up after Raul654 put the domains back on the blacklist, and editors were wondering why it was so hard to work on my bio. Someone should take this to the ArbCom. Raul654 is just being a bully. And what is that "per guidance from Foundation" that Just zis Guy is talking about? Does anyone have any idea? It sounds like something Brad Patrick should be chasing down and dropping into the Wikipedia memory hole, lest it end up in court as evidence that the Foundation is a publisher, not a service provider.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_b...pedia-watch.orgwikipedia-watch.orgThey've gone a little bit too far: they publish logs from IRC channels which is unambiguously prohibited. See discussion here. Since they're causing a lot of trouble (remember Everyking's desysopping?), I s'ppose we should blacklist this site mercilessly. Any thoughts? MaxSem 14:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
When I saw this comment, I was like "huh? Aren't they already blacklisted?" And yes, they were - until Pathoschild removed them in this ill-advised edit a few days ago. I have restored them now. Raul654 14:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Pathoschild removed them because Brandt's sites stopped redirecting months ago. Raul654 restored them, calling Pathoschild's edit "ill-advised," and also restored the inaccurate comment that Brandt's sites are redirecting. Therefore, Raul654's edit is based on a lie, whereas Pathoschild's edit is based on the truth. Pathoschild also queried a couple of IRC channels before taking action, and heard no objections. Raul654 acted on impulse, and didn't consult anyone. Now I ask you, who is "ill-advised" -- Pathoschild or Raul654? 68.89.130.94 20:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Per guidance from Foundation, we should not link to sites which directly attack or violate the privacy of Wikipedia editors. This seems like a reasonable rule to me; I guess the reason could be changed for clarity but the fact of it being blacklisted is I hope generally accepted as prudent. Just zis Guy, you know? 11:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)