Wikipedia talk:External websites that focus on Wikipedia

Not just a list

When I suggested this page, it was due to some editors concerns over what people do on other sites that might have an effect on wikipedia. This was created to properly address that among the disputing parties and come to a consensus on how to handle it. The most interesting man in the world (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about a section "Effect on Wikipedia" documenting (if they exist) any policy discussions we have had that started on one otf thee other websites? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The unique thing about external websites like WR and its splinter group is that it is technically outside jurisdiction of wikipedia rules. Discussion can be made without fear or reversion or sanction. Some here have a problem and some don't. The question is what is the proper way to address it. I don't know myself and left it for those who have more interest in this and let them figure it out. The most interesting man in the world (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent deletions and reverts

Here we have an interesting set of edits:

Time: 22:11, 27 March 2012
User: The most interesting man in the world
Action: Added link to http://www.wikipediocracy.com[1]
With text: "splinter group of Wikipedia Review, some overlapping participation"

Time: 08:40 to 08:47, 29 March 2012
User: วันจันทร์
Note: วันจันทร์ is Thai for "Monday"
Time: 08:40, 29 March 2012
Action: created a user account[2]
Time: 08:42, 29 March 2012‎
Action: Created user page with 'อาศัยอยู่ในประเทศไทยในรูปแบบที่คล้ายกัน'[3]
Note: อาศัยอยู่ในประเทศไทยในรูปแบบที่คล้ายกัน is Thai for "Living in Thailand, similar format."
Time: 08:47, 29 March 2012
Action: Removed link to http://www.wikipediocracy.com[4]
Edit summary: "Remove notable fails (WIKIA is BUT NOT every)"

Time: 23:02, 29 March 2012
User: The most interesting man in the world
Action: Restored link to http://www.wikipediocracy.com[5]
Edit summary: "something that just started hasn't had time to fail"

Time: 08:20 to 08:24 30 March 2012
User: Dierdun
Time: 08:20, 30 March 2012
Action: created a user account[6]
Time: 08:21 30 March 2012
Action: Created User talk page with 'Talk.'[7]
Time: 08:21, 30 March 2012
Action: Created User page with 'etc'[8]
Time: 08:24, 30 March 2012‎
Action: Removed link to http://www.wikipediocracy.com[9]
Edit summary: "Spam"

Time: 12:37, 30 March 2012‎
User: Guy Macon
Action: Restored link to http://www.wikipediocracy.com[10]
Edit summary: "Not Spam."

Time: 12:43, 30 March 2012‎
User: Dierdun
Action: Removed link to http://www.wikipediocracy.com[11]
Edit summary removed - see below

Time: 14:40, 30 March 2012‎
User: Nikkimaria
Action: Changed visibility of a revision: edit summary hidden ‎(blp)[12]

Time: 15:38, 30 March 2012
User: The most interesting man in the world
Action: Restored link to http://www.wikipediocracy.com[13]
Edit summary: "this isn't a regular article therefore not spam"

This topic is one that is especially likely to attract edits from people who have a beef with Wikipedia, or who are associated with one of the sites on the list and who have a beef with one of the other sites. Here we have two (?) editors who created accounts, deleted the link to wikipediocracy, and haven't done anything else. One of them had an edit summary that was deleted as being a violation of WP:BLP, but the user was not blocked as I would suspect if it was WP:OUTING. Probably some sort of insult directed at me (I use my real name when editing Wikipedia); anything worse would have resulted in a block.

The question is, is the link really WP:SPAM? I think not. It appears to be a legitimate external website that focuses on Wikipedia. I am open to any arguments that it doesn't belong, so please discuss if you disagree.

One minor question: should the entry be indented? That seems to imply that it is somehow associated with the entry above it. Do we know that this is true? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an admin on Wikipediocracy.com, I can assure you Wikipedia Review has no editorial or other control over our site. If you wish to confirm, you can contact me through our site. →Stani Stani 20:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need. I am taking out the indent now. If anyone wants to put it back, they have to prove the connection (and not just that some people who are interested in one web site are interested in another with a similar topic). Thanks! BTW, got any stalkers from Thailand? (smile) --Guy Macon (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: the deleted edit summary was not outing, nor was it directed at you - it mentioned a real person who AFAIK has never edited this page. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was also potentially libelous, so has now been suppressed, per policy - Alison ^❤ 18:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]