Requests for comment/External links to pages censored in other projects

The following request for comments is closed. Older than 30 days.



Pasted form [1]:


Paste end.


My apologies for the all the commotion I might be causing. While looking for some other material I run into what seems to be a significant number of blogs in Portuguese about the Portuguese Wikimedia projects, namely the Wikipedia. I could have made a personal list of those, but within the spirit of Wikimedia, assumed that it was better to share this information. I have read of some blog or blogs being unwelcome at the pt.wiki, but had no idea of which ones. Now I know at least one. Giving the length of the material contained in the blogs that I already found, I had no time to read all of it. They didn't seem to contain anything below the standards of the pt.wiki discussion pages. This is not the pt.wiki. This is Meta. I'm still finding out about the rules here. As before, I think this is hardly a matter for a request to block, but rather a request for comment where, if I may be so bold, I'll post a copy of the other user statement and my own.

The outstanding questions are:

1) Is it important for the understanding and better knowledge of the Portuguese Wikipedia governance issues what has been written about it in blogs, including those by editors of that Wikipedia?

2) Is it forbidden to include in Meta links to external pages, including blogs, that have been censored out of any other Wikimedia project? Although this might be easy to enforce, isn't it a bit primitive since anybody with half computer skills may find those pages? Apparently I found one of them without even being looking. :-)

3) Since the above rule might still have some exceptions, is the link to the blog under contention allowed or not under current Meta policies and which ones?

3.1) If forbidden, do those rules include any mention of its existence and/or clues to it's location on the Web?

Personally, and as a result of a life long profession, I'm only concerned with the Wikimedia vision, mission, values, and strategy. If decisions concerning small details do not conform to those, they are highly reproachable and all of us need to be aware of that.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado

Vapmachado 23:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe that this discussion (in Portuguese) is directly related to the "offending" blog and includes some interesting information and points of view of the user above, who removed the external link from one of my user subpages. Vapmachado 02:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
That discussion has been going on since July 22nd, related to facts that occurred at least since July 1st. It involved five users, including two administrators. The user above only posted to that discussion on July 31th, after his actions here on Meta.
From that discussion I concluded that whatever "offending" material it contained, it has already been removed from that blog. The arguments now are quite convoluted and I will not dare to attempt to summarize them here, at the risk of being drawn into that discussion which is by no means a clear cut case.
Therefore, and independently from the comments produced here, there is no justification whatsoever for removing that particular blog from the list, and I would appreciate if the above user deletion is reverted.
Sincerely,
Virgílio A. P. Machado
Vapmachado 22:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. Blog no longer blacklisted. [2] Link has been restored. [3]


Comments to the outstanding questions above are still very much welcome. Vapmachado 02:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)