Wikipedia talk:Attack sites

This poll and its talk page are a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.

This proposed policy was nominated for deletion on April 7, 2007. The result of the discussion was Speedy close..

So, where can we go from here?

I'm not going to be the one to restore the "rejected" tag, but I have to say that I see no movement to take this forward from a state which clearly lacks and is not going to achieve consensus. To wit:

1. In the section "What is an attack site?" the identifying marks are all controversial. The question of what constitutes "harrassment" is not agreed upon; the right to anonymity outside of Wikipedia is not agreed to; and the "legal threats" and "defamation" points have led to unresolved discussions of these matters.
2. The focus on Wikipedia Review has been rejected. The clarification of the arbcom remedies in the MONGO case makes it clear that they do not authorize the deletions that this proposal was invoked to justify. It also implies that there is no existing policy to enforce, other than the specific remedy against Ecyclopedia Dramatica.
3. Nothing has been done to the article text to address the concerns about overly broad definitions.

So far the only points I can see a consensus for are

• that the remedy against Encyclopedia Dramatica is acceptable, and
• that linking to specific revelations of Wikipedia user identity can be forbidden.

Neither of these seems to me to call for a policy change, and what we're left with is a draconian authorization for enforcement of deletions of material whose character we cannot define. Right now there is no consensus about what an attack site might be, much less whether it can be banned from mention in Wikipedia; and it seems to me that there is a hidden concensus that external investigations into the behavior of editors is germane to RfAs, RfMs, and indeed any place where evidence concerning the behavior of editors can be taken into account. It seems to me that we are not going to be able to write a rule for distinguishing what is appropriate from what is not; indeed, there is a hard core of resistance to even trying.

Therefore I don't see any reason for waiting around. Adding more voices to the existing positions isn't going make a consensus appear, and the article itself has only been edited to attach reference to the arbcom clarification, which as it stands is a step back from approval. Mangoe 13:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I want to ask just one question: do you find it acceptable that we allow the linking to sites that maliciously attack individual Wikipedians, and attempt to disclose their real-life identities? If you don't, what should we do about it? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It can be acceptable sometimes to link to the sites, although it's generally not acceptable to link directly to the attacks, except in very specific circumstances. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Good. Can we then codify that into a guideline, or expand WP:NPA to include this? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Why would we need to do that? Current policy/guidelines already reflect this, so we don't need any changes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

They don't. Where do you see that they do this as a blockable offense? - Denny ^(talk) 15:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The last bullet point here deals with this entire issue fine. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

They do, actually. WP:NPA states that "Posting a link to an external source that fits the commonly accepted threshold for a personal attack" is not acceptable, so where's the problem? Why do we need this? Linking to personal attacks (and revealing personal non-public information is certainly a personal attack) is already disallowed and can lead to blocking per our no personal attacks policy. --Conti|✉ 15:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Existing policy says all there needs to be said about linking to attack content. We have received a comment from ArbCom that WR is not exclusively devoted to attacks. We had a straw poll above that speaks volumes. Could we just move on? —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 15:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

If I may file off all the "leading the witness" parts of your question: If someone on an external site uncovers the identity of an editor so as to raise questions about the propriety of the editor's edits or other Wikipedia actions, it is 100% appropriate to cite that in discussion of that editor's behavior, no matter how rudely the cited material is phrased. A policy certainly could be established which makes participation conditional on not making such revelations outside Wikipedia (which is not to say that I advocate doing so), but since Wikipedia is in the real world (yes, I'm going to get around to writing that essay) editors are simply going be stuck with responsibility for what they do here. Wikipedia cannot do anything about such "attacks", and frankly I have to say that even meritless complaints about being banned (and there are lots of those out there) are not ipso facto "attacks". Those who took the trouble to look at WR saw that one of their running battles is with the very administrators who appear so frequently as defenders of the ban against WR; these admins are accused there, on a regular basis, of abusing their powers in order to WP:OWN articles and complaints about other editors. I have no idea whether their identification of SlimVirgin is correct, and it doesn't seem to me very relevant in the end; but it's obvious that they have a legitimate interest in finding out who she is. And as for some of the collateral damage accusations: if you are editing anonymously in order to protect you from a requirement by your employer not to, you are engaging in risky behavior. It may not be nice for someone to reveal you, or it may be entirely appropriate if for instance your editing creates a conflict of interest with your day job. But either way, to edit against the direction of your employer is to put yourself in harm's way.

So as far as doing anything about it, there's little we can do except ban people like Brandt. Well, and perhaps take more aggressive measures to reduce the perception of administrator abuses. We can't control what happens on these other sites, so I have to say that we cannot take actions here that essentially result in us taking some responsibility for their contents. Mangoe 15:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

ah, wrong, so wrong on so many different fronts I don't know where to begin, Mangoe. Who gives a rats arse if they are trying to find out who Slim Virgin is in real life...my guess is they are about as close to that as they are to figuring out who I am. We can do something about those attacks, and that includes ensuring this proposal is adopted to keep that kind of stupid speculation and harassment off wikipedia.--MONGO 16:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

But we can already remove links that contain such information per WP:NPA, right? --Conti|✉ 16:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I am convinced this needs to be codified as a seperate page, but that doesn't mean that I agree with the wording on this subject page. I just wish everyone would calm down and either get this worded right or we can reject it...whatever happens, happens.--MONGO 16:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate a more material response than "wrong, so wrong", but as I recall the justification for censoring these "outings" was to prevent stalking actions. Frankly, I think we need to eschew use of the word "harrassment" because it seems to mean anything that the target deems unpleasant. To take the canonical example, tattling about the target to the target's employer re Wikipedia editing isn't harassment, even if most of the time it's rude. And if the tattler is doing so because he believes that the employer should be enforcing a ban on editing, in line with the tattler's principles, it is a matter of moral obligation. Mangoe 19:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

User page personal attack against users here

This is clearly a personal attack on users who oppose Denny Ciolt on this page. Is this use of a user space in iorder to attack those who disagree with him acceptable? SqueakBox 15:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

He is allowed to express his opinion, but I would prefer to see him remove those comments. In addition, he, myself, Jossi, NewYorkBrad and a few others have opposed having this proposal tagged as rejected, and I am not happy about the editor who has twice replaced the rejected tag and referred to the opposition to this as "trolling". I am therefore once again removing the rejected tag.--MONGO 16:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, am for rejecting this as a policy proposal. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 16:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Denny also described this as trolling when he replaced the tag [1]. I think we should definitely not have the reject tag yet. Even though I support rejecting the proposal doing so prematurely will not, IMO, help the cause of seeing this proposal rejected. Lets give it another few days? Or at least have a poll about when to close and what is the consensus (I dont think voting is evil), SqueakBox 16:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably a reaction to WAS4.250 commentary here--MONGO 16:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this starting to sound like a fight among young siblings, full of "He started it!" "No, she started it!" "MOMMMMMMY... he's teasing me!" "Don't listen to her... she was teasing me first!" *Dan T.* 17:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I hope everyone will calm down over the next week, SqueakBox 17:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I will remove the comments as some claim to be offended by my opinion. Also, to reject OR accept there needs to be clear consensus OR historical basis in usage. Mangoe and WAS 4.250 both need to confirm and accept they as either admin or editor have no special rights in any way. WAS's tone in particular is troubling... he seems to think he is special in some fashion. - Denny ^(talk) 16:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Everyone needs to stop edit warring over this, I have asked for page protection so we can discuss this...why can't we stew on this over the weekend and make a decision on Monday?--MONGO 16:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that contemplating over the w/end and coming backl to debate this fresh on Monday would be for the best, SqueakBox 16:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant ideas, Mongo - both the page protection and the taking a break. Risker 16:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Can everyone please remain civil, especially in edit6 summaries which are not easily removed. And can we work out the reject or not issue on this page and not the project page itself. Thanks for removing the material from your user page, Denny, I for one appreciate it as I consider myself to have high moral standards and do oppose the proposal, SqueakBox 16:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I just think we should either figure out the best wording for this or reject it. I just want to remind everyone that NOTHING on wiki is in stone, so we don't need to critique each other...let's just stick to the issue at hand. I'll try and draw up a new wording section by section and add it here and if we decide to make this a guideline, then fine and if not, well, then fine. If it is rejected, it will still exist and if things change in the future, we can once again see where everyone stands. I'm not convinvced we are getting all the feedback we need from all viewpoints about this proposal...so all I am asking for is a little more patience. For the record, I am shooting more for a guideline at this point than a policy.--MONGO 17:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well advertising it, eg at the Village Pump and one of the admin pages would be helpful, IMO, as more input from other editors would certainly be welcome, SqueakBox 17:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Summary of ArbComm Clarification

Given that the initial author of this essay/proposed policy was the person who requested that ArbComm clarify its previous rulings with relation to attack sites, it seems unreasonable to exclude the response of the ArbComm at this point. Several editors seem to be removing it. Please stop. Right now this document belongs to the entire community, and edit warring to remove entirely relevant material with which one personally does not agree is not helping the position of those advocating continued debate. Denny, if you prefer to revert this back to a personal essay and withdraw it from review as a policy proposal, I guess you could include what you want in your own personal work. Risker 16:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. You can't just dismiss an ArbCom response because you don't like it, Denny. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 17:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I suport the inclusion of this material. Denny, when I said unexplained blanking here I meant that you should explain the blanking on the talk page not just in an edit summary. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be clear, Denny is not the only one who has removed this paragraph; at least two other editors have as well. Nonetheless, it reflects poorly that the ArbComm clarification requested specifically with respect to this matter is not included in the proposed policy. Risker 17:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

Including 'some attempt to engage in legitimate criticism' does not remove the attacks and harassment any more than the occasional spelling correction makes a persistent vandal a useful contributor. Rather than add an insightful critique, they need to remove the attacks. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Go and tell them. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 18:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

How about if we just don't link to them and see if they figure it out? Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

They appear to claim that if people weren't criticising us from their site they would be doing so elsewhere. Which makes sense, there is a need out there to criticise wikipedia (or WR wouldnt be as polular as it is) and it looks bad if we just censor that completely, it just doesn't serve wikipedia at all, IMO, especially when we dont censor what IMO are more virulent sites like Jew Watch. It makes us seem shrill and intolerant which I dont think will in any way benefit this project overall, SqueakBox 00:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Page protected

Alison has protected the page for a week, so that gives us time to come to a full consensus on this issue. I'll probably be removed from this for a couple days as I try and figure out the best way to word this. I know many have expressed that they want this to be rejected and those points aren't misunderstood, but I feel it is premature as this thing is not even a week old and there have been a number of voices that oppose rejecting this as of yet. Let's either make this work or reject it, but keep our discussions on wiki, not on the mailing list, or IRC. Thanks.--MONGO 17:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree that this is the only place to discuss this issue and that the proposal hasnt reached consensus to be either rejected or accepted at this point, SqueakBox 17:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur, additionally I admonish all good editors to fully observe the various conduct policies that are in place, particularly WP:AGF and WP:NPA, which don't require off-site links to violate. Best regards to all,--Academy Leader 18:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm skeptical about the chance for consensus support for this proposal, especially given the Free Republic issue (how do we handle sites which have attack content on their forums, but which are also clearly notable enough for Wikipedia pages?), but I agree that it's premature to mark it as rejected. Also agreed that there's been a lot of assuming bad faith going on. JavaTenor 18:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, too. But let me annotate that a lot of assuming good faith has also been going on. More than in some other debates. It's probably too early to congratulate each other, but we're not completely on the wrong track, either. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 18:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That's true, I didn't mean to imply that we were off track... my suggestion had more to do with "going forward" than "where we've been" in this debate. Best, --Academy Leader 18:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world is now available for your review

I've managed to create a first draft of this essay. As its subject is germane to the current proposal, I would appreciate reviews and revisions. Mangoe 18:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't see how that has anything to do with this. Editors have a right to edit harassment free as much as possible, therefore deliberately linking to websites that posts attacks and harassment shouldn't be allowed. I am trying to think of possible exceptions to this basic premise, but haven't considered all approaches yet. Your essay seems to indicate that we can't hide from attacks, but that doesn't mean we have to tolerate them either.--MONGO 19:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

What do "harass" and "tolerate" mean here, anyway? Are you planning to have the foundation sue Daniel Brandt for his revelations? 'Cos if you are, it doesn't take much legal acumen to figure out that the suit would fail.

The point of the essay is to point out limits to the possible. Within the context of this proposal, my position is that blanket bans of links to the supposed attack sites are no better protection from harassment than bans of links to pages with clearly circumscribed content deemed offensive. And even then, the determination of what gets deemed offensive is exceedingly fine. For example, in their identification of an cabal, a lot of what gets said has the character of a personal attack, by any even vaguely reasonable standard. But a lot of it is also in the form of investigative findings, of admittedly varied quality. So here's the question: does the identification of (not to put too fine a point on it) you, SilmVirgin, and Jayjg as members of this cabal count as harassment? And while I'm at it, am I prohibited from linking to threads documenting their "cabal" accusations because parts of it are undeiably offensive? Whatever the answer, the criticism of your behavior isn't going away, no matter how rudely it is phrased. Mangoe 20:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I should write an essay entitled "Don't Write Essays That State The Obvious." Of course, such an essay would state the obvious, so I guess I shouldn't write it.--Mantanmoreland 21:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there seems no limit to the obliviousness to the obvious in this world. Mangoe 21:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No, there are limits, but we are oblivious to them because they are so obvious.--Mantanmoreland 21:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom clarification

Why is the arbcom clarification being removed? It's the most pertinent statement we have from the Arbitration Committee on this matter, and was specifically requested by the author of this proposal. Cherrypicking statements to make your it appear that your proposal has support that it doesn't is a very bad idea. You can't simply dismiss it because they didn't come down on your side. Frise 19:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Also discussed here[2]. Risker 19:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This is meant as a direct question. I want to know the reason why, from the people who are doing it. Frise 19:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Further clarification can be found here.--Mantanmoreland 21:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

They appear to contradict each other. — MichaelLinnear

No kidding?--Mantanmoreland 21:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

What? — MichaelLinnear 21:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

By which I meant, "yes, they do."--Mantanmoreland 21:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

OK — MichaelLinnear 21:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

My bad. The question mark was confusing.--Mantanmoreland 21:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible that some members of the committee are starting to think that their original decision was too extreme, set a bad precedent, and was an unwarranted act of judicial activism in an area where policy-by-consensus is preferred to edicts-by-fiat, so they're backing off it? *Dan T.* 22:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, Fred Bauder might be, he says, "Sites which make some attempt to engage in legitimate criticism such as Wikipedia Review present a different situation and should probably be addressed, not by a blanket prohibition, but on what is being linked to." However, Jayjg then says "It is quite appropriate to "generalize" this principle [total ban] to the case of Wikipedia Review..."— MichaelLinnear 21:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As Michael said, a highly respected, senior member of Wikipedia and arbcom member has endorsed the decision to remove hate sites from Wikipedia. The process toward this being fully ratified is only just begun, but has made great forward strides! - Denny ^(talk) 22:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

JayJg is not an Arbcom member. Frise 23:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Fred Bauder in his official capacity, speaking for the Arbitration Committee' said something different Denny. — MichaelLinnear 23:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thus, we have a former ArbCom member supporting the old ruling (and its extension to other sites), while a current ArbCom member opposes this. And there is also a newer ArbCom ruling where they upheld the ED link ban (but not unanimously this time), but explicitly voted down an extension of the ban to other sites. So the "process" taking place is in the direction of backing down from the overly strict original ruling, not extending it. *Dan T.* 23:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yet another sign that this "proposed policy" is rapidly becoming a "rejected policy." — MichaelLinnear 23:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll also point out that the "highly respected" member is highly disrespected over on the Unspeakable Site, though you'll have to look for evidence of that yourself. It's not clear that we've advanced to thepoint of making a link the the site stick. Mangoe 23:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that there might be a slight conflict of interest here? — MichaelLinnear 23:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, yeah, there is. Mangoe 00:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Things that need to cease in this discussion

• The Passive-agressive behavior. Please read this article and make sure you don't exhibit any of these signs.
• The Appeals to emotion, especially in edit summaries
• The accusations of disruption, trolling, and other misdeeds in edit summaries
• The ad hominem arguments and related deliberate misrepresention of other peoples' positions

Perform an honest evaluation of yourself and make sure this doesn't apply to you. Please be aware that most people here aren't stupid and see right through this type of behavior. It does nothing to help your argument. Quite the opposite, actually. Frise 19:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think homicidal, suicidal and schizophrenic behavior is even less desirable, and fortunately has been absent from this discussion.--Mantanmoreland 21:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Weird reply, if I may say so. Frise asks for a self-check of our behaviour. I take it you're not so much into all that Human self-reflection stuff? —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 21:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. I am totally wrapped up in myself. I was just attempting a note of levity. I think the discussion has been quite civil, and that we don't have to be quite so heavy about it. The essay has been protected for one week, after all. --Mantanmoreland 21:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a great idea; why don't we just cut off the source by rejecting this proposal? Then we all win. See #1 at #What is the purpose of this page?. Milto LOL pia 23:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear! But it might be interesting to see this train wreck go on for another week or so.--Academy Leader 00:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha, as much as I love rubbernecking at an utter debacle like this, it's probably better to draw this fiasco to a close. — MichaelLinnear 01:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA? Frise 01:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Because I'm cold, cruel, evil, and I love to gloat over the fallen corpses of rejected policies. :P — MichaelLinnear 01:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

A bit of Google OR

Here's a bit of Google OR. See, we are already number two on their Attack sites search phrase. How is this helping protect the privacy of wikipedians? SqueakBox 23:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ironic indeed. Combine this with Miltopia's points it just goes to show how incredibly ineffective and counterproductive this proposal has been. — MichaelLinnear 00:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox, you're being such a pessimist. Why can't you see the wisdom in linking to past instances of harassment, thereby giving anyone ignorant of the situation a full look at the harassment and attack pages created about Wikipedians, and exposing the victims' identities for all to see? Recognition rocks! Milto LOL pia 00:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Well if Wikipedia itself eliminated all signs of past harrassment most arbcom cases would collapse, dont you think? And would we not be better off debating this flaw in our system, SqueakBox 00:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Miltopia, calling someone a pessimist isn't going to help. Unless I'm mistaken,SqueakBox, your proposal is covered under WP:BEANS?--KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 00:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* I was being sarcastic, sorry. I think SqueakBox pretty much has the point right on. Milto LOL pia 00:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I bet we've given tons more publicity for the so-called "attack sites", and attracted much more interest in them, by this whole big debate than those sites ever would have received from a few inobtrusive links, in non-attack-related contexts, if they had been left alone. This whole debate is a big violation of WP:BEANS. *Dan T.* 00:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said several hundred lines earlier, the only reason the Unspeakable Site caught my attention was as a result of an edit that User:DennyColt performed under the aegis of this back when it was still a lowly essay. Mangoe 02:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand SqueakBox, you might have uncovered the objective. Frise 01:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

When will people learn that when you pass special rules against something, you empower it? Prohibition empowered organized crime. The war on drugs keeps drug lords in business. The war on terrorism has inspired a new generation of terrorists. Passing special rules against attack sites will make them more visible, and engender more attacks, and generally steepen the drama gradient between here and there, thus leading to more problems.

Our job here is to be very, very boring, and write an encyclopedia, not to seek justice or anything else. If we just do our boring job, the pain and drama will go away, but throwing energy at it like this is so counterproductive, and so many steps removed from what we're supposedly here for. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

But all news becomes old real quick. If this is promoted or not, either way, it will not do the opposite of what it is intended to do for long. All this is is a codification of existing practice...we have been removing harassment from wiki for a long time...this simply is something to point to when we do remove the links and someone says, hey, why'd you do that...it also ensures that those who come here for the sole purposes of posting links to harassment can be blocked without some long argument ensuing on AN/I or elsewhere. What we need to do is identify what an "Attack site" is and I'm trying to come up with a working definition.--MONGO 07:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that you're working from the best of motives, MONGO. I guess we just disagree about what's likely to be effective. Under current policy, is it really so difficult to stop someone from making personal attacks? Does it really happen that we're having trouble blocking people who need to be blocked, because we lack a proper definition of "attack site"? I would think the block should occur because of the harassment itself, not because of the site linked to. Trying to catch harassers because of the URL they link to seems weirdly indirect to me.

Maybe you're right, and maybe taking a hard line against certain URLs is the best thing we can do, but I'm not seeing it. I really think that making special rules about "attack sites" is likely to steepen the drama gradient and bring about unintended consequences. If someone asks me why I blocked someone or removed a link, and I point to WP:BADSITES, then they're one click away from this talkpage, and from endless discussions about why people disagree with this guideline, etc. If I just explain to them politely and clearly that we routinely remove personal attacks, and point them to the very stable policy WP:NPA, I think they've got less to argue with.

All that said, I support your idea of giving this page a good faith rewrite and deciding quickly whether we want to promote or reject it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes I support a good faith rewrite as well as we cant undo what is done. Then hopefully a swift but widely debated conclusion, SqueakBox 20:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

If it's Draconian, people will be opposed to it. If it's passive, it'll be instruction creep. I'm not sure if there if there is a point in between those, with something of this nature. Gracenotes^T § 20:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we at least settle this one question?

Can I put the reference back in this article that was scrubbed on the basis of this proposal? Mangoe 02:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're not an admin, not until it's unprotected. *Dan T.* 02:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Even if you are an admin you really shouldn't, not while it's protected. — MichaelLinnear 02:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant the reference in the talk page here. Mangoe 02:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless you have more to say on the topic, it might be better to consider the discussion closed. I don't think a stand on principle would facilitate further discussion with those who are adamantly opposed to WR. The link is still retrievable to people who are curious about it via the history tab. If you insist on principle message my talk page and I'll find and restore the link (once) to keep you from getting blocked. But unless you have more to say on it I don't think this would be an appropriate course of action now.--Academy Leader 03:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a bit of a paradox here. If the discussion is truly closed, this is because the proposal is dead, and thus nobody should be authorized to block anybody for violating such a nonexistent policy. However, it would also be mostly pointless to revert a link within a dead discussion page, except perhaps for historical interest. On the other hand, if the discussion is still "live", this could be an indication that the proposed policy still has life in it, and might perhaps become enforceable; however, that is the situation under which having the link might be necessary to a vigorous debate of it. It can get as paradoxical as "This Sentence Is False". *Dan T.* 03:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but I didn't intend to get quite that metaphysical. By "discussion closed" I just meant that no one seemed to be commenting anymore on the topic under that heading [3]. Though we could say that the discussion there was violently terminated, or shifted in focus, by removal of the link, I don't think restoring the link would be a good idea in moving forward and "closing" the larger argument, in "winning the war," so to speak. (But I appreciate your thoughts on that!) Academy Leader 03:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I can see not restoring the particular reference in question, but we seem to be hung up on whether or not we can actually refer to the website in assessing it. Mangoe 04:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Which means, even in apparent defeat, this proposal is still having a chilling effect on discussion. *Dan T.* 04:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it might be interesting to post diffs from the WP history log with the reference on it, to see what happens. But I would say unless you need to make a point using the reference in question, don't do it, as they've already "proved" your point re: overzealous enforcement of (proposed!) policy and suppression of free inquiry.--Academy Leader 05:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Just you wait... I expect to see "blocked per WP:PANDA" as a block reason soon... Gracenotes^T § 20:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Do remember that if you feel a block is unjustified that there are ways of complaining, eg the arbcom. All questionable admin actions can be taken to this august body and perhaps a somebody's being blocked on this issue could be used to gain clarification on what admins are and arent entitled to do, SqueakBox 20:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

← So: don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point: wait for the disruption, and then make your point! Sorry, I'm feeling a bit facetious today. Gracenotes^T § 20:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

For every Wikipedian's review, I've assembled the diffs re: removal and reinsertion of the reference in question.

03:43, 12 April 2007 Kzrulzuall (talk · contribs) reverts Dtobias (talk · contribs): [4]

03:37, 12 April 2007 Dtobias (talk · contribs) reverts Crum375 (talk · contribs): [5]

03:10, 12 April 2007 Crum375 (talk · contribs) reverts Mangoe (talk · contribs): [6]

03:08, 12 April 2007 Mangoe (talk · contribs) reverts SlimVirgin (talk · contribs): [7]

03:07, 12 April 2007 SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) reverts Mangoe (talk · contribs): [8]

02:56, 12 April 2007 Mangoe (talk · contribs) "restores cite" removed 10:32, 11 April 2007 by AldeBaer (talk · contribs): [9]

10:32, 11 April 2007 AldeBaer (talk · contribs) "removing link to attack site" posted 14:05, 10 April 2007 by Mangoe (talk · contribs): [10]

03:24, 11 April 2007 Crum375 (talk · contribs) "removed link to attack site" posted 03:04, 11 April 2007 by AldeBaer (talk · contribs): [11]

03:04, 11 April 2007 AldeBaer (talk · contribs) duplicates (still live) link to identical reference initially posted 14:05, 10 April 2007 by Mangoe (talk · contribs) (there was no edit warring at this point.): [12]

14:05, 10 April 2007 Mangoe (talk · contribs) initially posts linked reference: [13]

Academy Leader 23:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

If this is the kind of blindly quixotic audacity with which people are going to enforce WP:BADSITES (if it becomes policy), that seems like reason enough to at least be rather wary of it. Gracenotes^T § 02:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't enforcing the policy. My edit summary states what I was trying to do... and I think it worked to a mild degree... --Kz^{Talk• Contribs} 02:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to your edit, nor to most of the list of edits; mediating is a good thing, methinks. Sorry for any confusion. I was merely noting that enforcing a non-rule item when its status is disputed leads me to fear its enforcing if it were policy. Gracenotes^T § 02:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

What if they deserve articles?

I'm sure that at some point, ED (or some attack site) will garner coverage in some reliable source. If we have a policy against linking to attack sites, what is supposed to happen? Just tell the readers "We don't like this site so you can't go to it"? -Amarkov moo! 20:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Well we could change our primary goal from being the encyclopedia of everything to the encyclopedia of everything that isnt critical of us. Perhaps somebody could ask Jimbo to change his memeorable quote about our primary goal? SqueakBox 21:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You mean, as a ferinstance, if some day the proprietor of one of these sites is arrested for cyberstalking? That is certainly within the realm of possibility and I guess it would warrant a mention. --Mantanmoreland 02:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well IMO the day a wikipedia editor gets arrested for wikstalking is the day we'll all feel safer, SqueakBox

Write your congressman! ;)--Mantanmoreland 03:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is when ED gets notable enough that some bored reporter decides to cover it, which I believe is likely to happen at some point. Then, by our standards, it deserves an article, and nobody's explained what to do about it. No, restricting coverage of things which criticize us isn't a solution, because that excludes pretty much everyone in the mass media who ever has mentioned us. -Amarkov moo! 04:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh, bored reporters: the bane of the deletionists' cabal. Gracenotes^T § 04:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

As ED is now, if their articles remain similar, we won't likly have an article on them ever, just as we don't on WR or the hivemind pages.--MONGO 04:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

So you are saying that, even if they do get sourced, we still won't have articles on attack sites? Not being judgemental here, it's just kinda important that people who support this policy realize that's a necessary effect. -Amarkov moo! 04:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't predict the future, but as it stands now, it would likely take more than a few news sources to make an article on ED possible and that goes with the couple others I mentioned. Though consensus may determine whether we ever do or not, past dicussions have generally been centered around more than just whether these types of websites could be referenced.--MONGO 04:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur that it is unlikely the more obvious sites that meet the "attack" definition will become notable enough for an article for some time, though I shudder at the thought that this page might be attracting enough attention to get some of those bored reporters curious about them. Unfortunately, not all sites that meet the description used in this proposal are the obvious ones. I myself can think of two sites that would meet the description, and are also used quite heavily in project space, and one of them has an article right now. Risker 04:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not such a stretch to imagine a site somewhere in the grey area - not such an obvious attack site as WR, but still hosting harassing material. Such a site might become notable for some completely different reason, having nothing to do with its anti-Wikipedia material. Would we then have an aritcle on it? The quesiton's impossible to answer in the abstract; we'll just have to find out when, and if, that happens. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, that was completely out of line

User:Crum375 deleted an entire response of mine because I linked to the Unspeakable Site to illustrate my points. This is intolerable. First, I take it as WP:POINT and frankly bordering on a personal attack. Second, since he is one of the people being criticized by the Unspeakable Site, I consider this a bad faith edit. Third, it's excessive; even if one holds that the site cannot be linked, deleting the whole thing is unnecessary. Fourth, the arbcom clarification specifically disallows it. And fifth, we're back to the Catch-22 problem that we cannot offer evidence about the site to demonstrate that evidence about the site can be offered.

I'm not going to revert the censorship yet, but right now this discussion is dead in the water, since now we're going to have to go through mediation/arbcom to establish that we can even have it. Mangoe 03:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Mangoe, as I noted on your talk page, your post could have been perfectly OK had you just stuck to generics. Talk about a generic attack site, that attacks generic WP editors, with no hinting at any specific sites or editors, and all would be fine. If, however, you link to specific attack sites, which make specific attacks on specific editors, then you are furthering those attacks and harassment by repeating them here. If you are really concerned about the generic issues, then please just make your arguments and examples generic. Thank you for understanding. Crum375 03:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

What I understand is that you (as well as others) are trying to WP:OWN the discussion. I've asked for mediation as part of the existing case. Mangoe 03:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. All I want is to make sure we don't post attacks on our editors, either directly or by linking to an attack elsewhere. I have no problem at all with discussing any generic issue, but we should not attack or harass individual editors. Crum375 03:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

But isn't the very thing we're debating here whether a link to something unrelated to harrassment that happens to be in such a site is acceptable or not, with the side that thinks it's sometimes OK (on a case by case basis) winning by a long shot? In that case, there's no legitimate ground for enforcing a rejected policy. *Dan T.* 03:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC) (UTC)

If you follow what was deleted here, it was clear harassment and attack. Crum375 04:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Now we are back to step 1.... Can we stop arguing for a minute and come up with a resolution that we can live with. These accusations are not very productive... --Kz^{Talk• Contribs} 04:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way we can all agree not to link to any of the sites that are being discussed as "attack sites" while we're still talking about it? I think if we could all agree to that, it would be a helpful good-faith gesture that might lower the temperature a bit. Is that a truce everybody can live with? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

NO In fact, it's the opposite of the only truce I see as reasonable. A moratorium on making or deleting such links outside this discussion makes sense, and from what I can see it's happening anyway. There were never very many such links to begin with, from what I can see, though it is possible that his crude deletions allowed his detection where others have been more successful in covering their tracks. But it is impossible to advance this without discussion of the actual content of the site that was, for better or worse, put forth as a test case. Mangoe 12:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

In the spirit of allowing that the other side might have a point, can we possibly agree to approach such links with caution? Maybe you can describe some content, in generic terms, and we can talk about whether or not it would be appropriate to link to such content? We could even circulate links by email, as long as people feel comfortable with that medium.

I'm looking for compromises because advancing the discussion is more important than being right. Is that something you'd be willing to make a small sacrifice for, Mangoe? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

One immediate compromise....

....as i pointed out above (under is this misuse?) - it's not purely the the removal of a link that seems wrong, but the removal of an entire post - you can just leave it there with [link removed] instead of the link - would you mind agreeing to this (Crum, etc....) for now?

You see, there's no need to take anything but the link away - you may not agree, but please try to explain the justification for removing any more than just the link - i don't get it at the moment....

best - Purples 05:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

There is clearly no justification for removing another user's comments completely. Perhaps Denny was right that the troll template is needed here (which I wont link to for the saftey of other wikipedia users), although what a shame! Perhaps an impartial admin would care to to block Crum, albeit for a few mins, SqueakBox 05:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any need for a block...linking to attack sites while we are discussing not linking to them is disruptive.--MONGO 05:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, that completely begs the question. At this point it's up to you to prove that it is an attack site, which proof requires references to what was actually said. At the moment, the claim that they are an attack site is an unsubstantiated attack. Mangoe 12:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

(ec)::Yes but if I make a serious point to you and include the word effing you should replace effing with [censored]. You should not remove the whole comment as it just looks like an attempt to manipulate a debate in one's own favour, and who is going to respect that? Crunm could have removed the link not the whole comment and by removing the whole comment he was surely engaging in a personal attack. By showing we dont tolerate censorship dont we give ourselves more validity? and by tolerating on site attacks and not off site attacks dont we show ourselves in such a poor light that we pretty soon wont have any volunteers left? And dont we just feed WR, who are obviousl;y monitoring every word of this debate? SqueakBox 05:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, blocks aren't punitive but preventative. I don't see that Crum375 is on some kind of comment-removal spree and needs to be stopped. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well a 2 min block would send a powerful message without being punitive. Otherwise what? We just tolerate users removing other users messages because they dont like them and if we agree with the deletor we turn a blind eye. What kind of message is that? SqueakBox 05:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

We talk about it, and we engage the user in discussion, and we work it out, maintaining civility and assumption of good faith the whole time. That sends the message that we're acting like professionals and being effective rather than emotional. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Removing links to sites while we are discussing the foolishness of trying to ban such links is disruptive. *Dan T.* 13:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

However, removing them while we're discussing the wisdom of banning such links is common sense. Please consider that we're dealing with more than one perspective here. The discussion will be advanced further by thinking pluralistically than by digging into trenches. We can't assume that either side is right a priori, ok? That means that we should be very circumspect when talking about specific examples.

A big part of productive discussion is allowing for the possibility that the other guy might have a point. Would it be possible for Mangoe to describe the sort of content that was linked to, and then we can talk about why it might or might not be appropriate to link to such content? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The unacceptability of deleting other users comments

Okay. Here goes.....Crum, please dont delete others users comments under any circumstances. If you see an attack within another user's comments remove the attack and explain your reasons without fail here, SqueakBox 05:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox, I did want to remove the link only, but then I realized that there was actual discussion of a specific editor mentioned in the link in the text itself. So I would have had to somehow modify the verbiage of the post in a non-trivial manner to make it generic, if I really wanted to excise mention of individuals, and I felt this was inappropriate. Instead, I removed the entire post and suggested to the editor to re-post it generically, without mentioning specifics. I felt this was the only reasonable course, given that I wanted to eliminate the effective personal attack immediately. I am willing to assume that the editor had no malicious intent by posting this information. Crum375 11:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

And what about this edit? —AldeBaer 13:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a link to an essay, which is generic, but as you scroll below it you can find at least one personal attack in the lower posts, plus if you scroll up to the top and navigate to any of the other main parts of the site, you can find copious amounts of attacks and harassment of our editors. In that case, the attack site link was the essence of the short post, so I removed the post with an appropriate comment. The original poster could re-post while not linking to a specific attack site, full of harassment and attacks. If we are discussing generic issues, there is no reason to promote or facilitate actual attacks on editors by linking to specific sites. Crum375 16:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, SqueakBox 18:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

A link to an essay containing: "Examples of provocative responses:

• Question the anti-partisan’s motives.
• Accuse the anti-partisan of being disruptive.
• Stop responding to the anti-partisan’s talk page comments while still reverting, using a tag-team if necessary, any attempts to contribute to the article.
• Shift from reverting the anti-partisan’s undesirable attempts to contribute to aggressively reverting any and all attempts by the anti-partisan to contribute no matter how minor the changes." was deleted. Maybe someone felt described, I mean attacked. WAS 4.250 15:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

What is an "attack site"

Risker has asked me on my talkpage to begin working on this definition. He linked to a website that has many links to hate sites...sites that seem to promote hatred on the web. It's a pretty expansive list. Anyway, for our defintion, I would suggest that an attack site is

• ...any website in which the contributors compile evidence that is used to try and discover the real world identities of Wikipedia contributors

This can be reworded of course and I hope we can come up with a working definition. I think that the link provided by Risker on my talk page falls under a different category if it is not doing what is in my summary above...they fall under the category of "hate sites". So maybe that needs another page...maybe this and that need to be codified into WP:NPA in better detail than is attributed there...I don't know yet. I feel even though a lot of folks have commented on WP:CREEP...(that excessive policy and rules pages are anarchy)...that we still need this page. I've been in the forefront in trying to help editors here defeat harassment. I have worked with a number of editors in this effort, and done some behind the scenes work as well. For a lot of people these days, real life harassment is a serious issue...even if the people who post these things about real life identities do so just for the sake of curiousity, real miscreants also read these things...I mean some real bad folks, people. I know, I have had to deal with them in my job in the past. I think for those people who want to remain anonymous, it is critical we do all we can to assist them...we need to make contributors here know that we do not support harassment on wiki, or imported from elsewhere into wiki, and we will defend them from it.--MONGO 05:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The concept of attack sites has fuzzy boundaries, so a clear-cut definition can never be given. I propose the following list of characteristics of attack websites

Attack websites contain a substantial fraction of

1. Outing or other invasions of privacy or

2. Ad hominen criticisms on non-public figures or

3. Abusive language

In addition

4. The attacks should be generated by Wikipedia. A mere perpetuation within Wikipedia of an internet conflict outside of Wikipedia does not make a website an attack site. For example, the homepage of Michael Moore is not an attack site if Mr. George W. Bush incidentally becomes a Wikipedia contributor.

Webpages or posts in a forum (including Wikipedia) are called attack pages if they contain

1. Any outing or other invasions of privacy or if they contain a substantial fraction of items 2 or 3 listed here above.

Trenchant non-abusive criticism of the editing behavior of certain Wikipedia editors should not be considered a characteristic of an attack site, forum post or webpage. Andries 08:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Not all "outings" are "invasions of privacy." Privacy is never a guarantee and should not be considered as such. Furthermore, the idea of a "non-public figure" is not one anyone's going to agree with - one could make the argument, for instance, that writing for a top 10 website is not the act of a private person. And "abusive language?" if I drop an F-bomb on a site that criticizes Wikipedia, oh well? How silly. As for #4, that can be debated to death, but one could say, for instance, that the Katefan issue was not perpetuated by Wikipedia, but by a percieved separate conflict. I wouldn't buy it, but that doesn't mean others won't. The holes are too big. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

When would an outing not be an invasion of privacy? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with SlimVirgin on this. What do you think the motivation of the "outers" are? It is to intimidate editors on wikipedia by inviting real world harassment. I disagree with badlydrawnjeff contention that writing for wikipedia is not the act of a private person. If that were so, then having a myspace page would make you a public person, too. Or what about when you post to a message forum of a popular newspaper? WW, ED and probably WR are all "attack sites". --rogerd 20:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

On a mostly unrelated note, I think having a MySpace page really does make people quite a bit more public than they may expect, given, well, any number of these links. JavaTenor 20:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. It will be clear that I think that the definition of an "attack site" will never be completely clear and is not a black and white issue, and so there will always be holes. Andries 13:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Considering the critical reception of Michael Moore's films, many would be moved to refer to his homepage as an "attack site" regardless of whether or not the president takes up editing in Wikipedia. Mangoe 17:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Youi guys are confusing the WP:BLP issues with Wikipedia editors...though some Wikipedians have biographies here, those are already protected by policy. Individual wikipedia editors in themselves are not as specifically protected aside from the oftentimes vaguely defined NPA policies...in which there is incessant wikilawyering as to what a personal attack is. My summary makes it clear what an attack site is...this is not about biographies.--MONGO 17:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If it quacks like a duck, it is a duck. Harassment and outing have real-world consequences. People know this and can be discouraged from contributing by a sustained campaign. Anonymous editing is important, and so this interferes with our work. Even more important, outing can jeopardize a real person's job or family. Linking to an attack site is working against ourselves.

Linking to a site devoted to abusing our fellow volunteers feeds the flames, and the trolls, whether there is a real underlying disagreement, an imagined offense, or a pretext just for drama. Not linking helps deny recognition and avoids promoting the site.

Removing these links does not deny our readers any encyclopedic resource, any more than removing links to spam or random blogs.

This is something most of us already do - remove links to attack sites. Writing it down will let all of us work with less worry that the project we are contributing to is contributing to our harassment. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless you can get Google to stop indexing those sites, they'll be out there for our enemies to easily discover any time they want to. Not linking them here mostly gets in the way of us seeing, discussing, and responding to what our enemies are doing and saying... it does nothing at all to impede anything they're doing against us. *Dan T.* 22:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm off to church, so I can't come back to this until evening. But I don't see how we can discuss what an attack site is without discussing exactly how the one site that is being blocked at the moment fits or does not fit the standards people propose. Mangoe 13:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

From what I have gathered from this proposed policy (I don’t think guideline would be the correct classification for something dealing with harassment of others), it looks like this is long overdue. I noticed it was locked down till Apr 20th, but I don’t think it needs too much more tweaking. As the internet is a dynamic place ever-changing, keeping the defining characteristics of what is an attack site more in a general sense will allow administration and editors keep up with the new sites that appear that harass editors. I think overall this needs to be moved forward to a full policy. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Policy RFC anyone? Also, related "privacy" proposals rejected

Though discussion here is already rather unwieldy, it seems that voices we are mainly familiar with have been doing most of the talking. Would anyone be interested in formulating a substantiative query for an Wp:rfc#Request_comment_on_policy_and_conventions? This may bring in more third parties into this discussion. Also, was anyone aware of the debate (or lack of one) re: the rejection of various privacy proposals, two of which were explicitly designed to protect our vulnerable youth from the sort MONGO seems most worried about? [14]

The individual rejected proposals are:

Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy

Wikipedia:Youth protection

Wikipedia:Privacy

Before I read the utter lack of comments from the hardcore proponents of this policy on those pages (except for Crum375, who helped sink Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy!), I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and think they were sincere in caring about the safety and well-being of all Wikipedians. Now I can see they only care about themselves, and are willing to construct policy purely in view of their own benefit. They don't care about other Wikipedians, they only supported this policy because they saw that WR was on to them. I say, just deserts! Academy Leader 07:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Crum375's thoughts on ArbCom and consensus:

ArbCom does not set policy, and I don't see anywhere in ArbCom's decision where they declared this proposal a policy, or even a guideline. They did conclude that the community "failed to achieve consensus" about it, and that further work is needed. I think we all agree and accept that no consensus was reached. Crum375 12:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[15]

And morality:

I think WP:BG&E was rejected because it is unnecessary and sounds like a trollish hoax anyway. The way I see it, WP's mission and mandate is to spread well sourced notable knowledge and present it in a neutral way. Most of us here believe that that mission alone is a moral common denominator. Going beyond this common mission starts down a slippery slope to imposing one's own brand of morality on others. Crum375 16:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[16]

Also, Radiant! (talk · contribs) seems ok (thankfully!), but neither was he a heavy hitter in favor of this policy.--Academy Leader 08:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been fully following this, and don't know why or when the above comments were struck, and the history is too long and complicated for me to want to investigate it. I hope that it was Academy Leader who struck the comments. It may not be completely appropriate to respond to something that has been crossed out, but the point I want to make is such an important one, that I think I should do so. It is a point which addresses the abominable insinuation that people in favour of banning links are only in favour of it because their (possible) identities are reported on these sites.

Let me state, as a victim of one of the worst cases of real life stalking that Wikipedia has had, that some of the people who are pushing for this policy, and some of the people who have or had what may be their real names, photos, and contact details on some of the stalking sites, were people who absolutely overwhelmed me with their kindness and support when this first happened to me, and before it happened to them. There were several who sent me kind, supportive messages, watched over my user and talk pages, where sexually-sadistic, gloating posts were appearing, reverted, blocked, and deleted histories, while I was asleep — without ever drawing attention to it. There were several who traced IPs, made abuse reports, offered to make phonecalls, tracked down contact details of police and FBI agents for the relevant location. There was one who sent me his real name and address, although it wasn't public on Wikipedia, and told me to call on him anytime. There was one who did everything he could to spare me distress, jumping in to answer awkward questions about why an article had been deleted, leaving discreet messages of support, e-mailing me after I had apologized for not keeping him updated, to say that I should not feel any obligation to respond to correspondence from him, and that I should know I had his support regardless of how recently we had e-mailed. At the time that this started, deleting and partially restoring a page could take half an hour, or longer, yet all these people were prepared to do that for me.

I will further state that of all the people who were kind and supportive, I can think of only one who thinks it can be okay to post the URL of a site that speculates on the identities of editors who wish to remain anonymous. I'm not going to identify the editors who helped me, as I don't want to expose them to any (further) harassment. But I will say that the implication that they only support removal of the links because they are in danger of exposure, and they don't care about others is one of the most offensive things I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Musical Linguist 13:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Help me with a better interpretation. I can only judge myself, and I strongly believe that not having been the target of an outing campaign is what enables me to argue for some caution when it comes to carte blanche bans against controversial sites. You're basically calling me an ass because I would like to be able to link to subpages without personal attacks? How much more ad hominem can it get? I hate attacks on any Wikipedia editors and I do feel sorry for what happened to you, but this is not a matter of emotional reaction. We simply need a rule how to proceed with possibly problematic links. Obviously problematic ones are forbidden anyway by existing policy. —AldeBaer 18:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understood that the next morning after I posted the above, so I struck my own comments. Still, the relative uproar over this proposal and the relative lack of interest (or less conflicted interest) in the related failed "privacy" proposals, especially concerning children's privacy, does seem worthy of some social analysis. I made my own immediate connections, and posted them, but realized independently they were grossly inappropriate per this immediate discussion. Comparing the thematic elements of the two policy area discussions, what seems to be animating this one are actual, linkable instances of outing attempts as opposed to a more nebulous specter of "child endangerment." As I understand the circumstances, those discussions might have failed due to the lack of observable instances of such re: minors on Wikipedia, and for the relative lack of self-identified minors (or specific victims, or their guardians) involved with those discussions. It would be a natural response for victims of such sites to militate against them, and it does not necessarily follow that they are self-interested. I was wrong to suggest such, but there must be some objective way of accounting for the lack of a vigorous community effort to push the proposed privacy policies through. My utmost apologies if I have offended anyone.--Academy Leader 18:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of Individual Sites that some consider to be "Attack" Sites

I notice that someone quoted Fred Bauder's ArbCom comment above where he states that Wikipedia Review is okay to mention on Wikipedia because it often presents valid critiques of things ongoing in the project. Since that time, it appears to now be okay to mention Wikipedia Review without being warned and having the comment "oversighted." Since this policy seeks to label entire sites as "attack" sites and put them "off-limits" to mention on Wikipedia, I think we should list all of the potentially offending sites here and debate on why or why not they are "attack" sites. Until we can openly discuss these, we're not going to get anywhere. How are we going to decide if a site is against this policy if the mere mention of the site's name is immediatly "oversighted" (i.e. the "unmentionable" site(s)) and the person who mentioned it is threatened with a "block?" Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but it isn't (at least not supposed to be) so Orwellian either. Cla68 23:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Fred's opinion was contradicated by another member of the ArbCom from the Mongo case period, and he quoted the actual ruling, which would clearly include Wikipedia Review. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

He wrote: "Actually, speaking as an arbitrator who was involved in the MONGO case, the unanimous Arbitration Committee ruling there was quite clear: A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances. Since Wikipedia Review spends a fair bit of time in various attempts to do exactly this, it is clearly an attack site as defined by the Arbitration Committee ruling. Fred voted for this statement, as, for that matter, did I. It is quite appropriate to "generalize" this principle to the case of Wikipedia Review, since these broad principles are stated for exactly this purpose, and since the application is quite obvious and appropriate in this case." Jayjg (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No, he did not write that; you did. diff Mangoe 23:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about. The diff that you give shows clearly that it was Jayjg who wrote that. ElinorD (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see that-- though it doesn't really help. Two arbcom members disagreeing (much less two against one) is hardly clear. Mangoe 14:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• I was checking out WR and didn't see any outing. Can anyone point me to where this is occurring? .V. _[Talk|Email] 23:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand why some of you are eager to try to protect yourselves from sites that try to "out" things about your private lives, especially since some of them are apparently trying to target the most active or "powerful" administrators in the project (by powerful I mean admins with extra "powers" such as "oversight" authority or members of the ArbCom). Some of these sites, do, however, sometimes point-out some significant, article-related problems occurring on Wikipedia, which was the case with the Gary Weiss article that I helped clean-up recently, and for which in return I've received a fair degree of "grief" (And to be honest I could have handled the situation better. But, the problem with the article did exist and did need correction.). Fred's opinion that we should be able to selectively quote from sites that present a valid case of a problem on Wikipedia is valid. If another site points-out a POV or COI problem with an article on Wikipedia, and backs it up with evidence that anyone can validate for themselves, then that article should be available for consideration, discussion, and/or debate here in the project. However, only that particular article can/should be linked to. If the rest of the site tries to "embarrass" or humiliate administrators of this project by giving unrelated details of their private lives, then I support putting that sort of calumny off-limits.

How then, do we decide, what is valid for linkage and what isn't? I say that the policy should state that any article that critiques Wikipedia and allowed to be linked to, must relate to a POV or COI issue, and must present evidence that can be verified by a neutral party. I believe that the article that originally pointed me to the Gary Weiss article does just that, and is therefore not an "attack" article, but a valid critique that merits discussion and shouldn't be censored by a "blanket" policy that might inhibit corrective actions here in the project. Cla68 23:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the article in question, but it seems to me the subject probably has you to thank for those issues not blowing up the way the Essjay controversy did. Best, --Academy Leader 00:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh, let's be clear on something. The "fair degree of grief" to which you refer is the defeat of your RfA, which took place because you repeatedly pushed the agenda of a banned user. That banned user, via several dozen sockpuppets, has harassed Wiki users and administrators and vandalized project pages. That banned user runs an attack site on behalf of his employer, a site that you admire, but that hate site was secondary to your agenda-pushing -- which you demonstrated during your RfA by linking to that banned user's attack site even after being told not to do so. You said then and say now that you could have "handled it better," yet you are still arguing that banned user's cause. You were advised to "drop it"[17] but you still have not taken that wise advice.--Mantanmoreland 15:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Please remain civil. However, Jayjg is not an ArbCom member anymore. That's why I stick with what current ArbCom member Fred Bauder said. —AldeBaer 18:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with my comment, which concerns this user repeatedly pushing the agenda of a banned user.--Mantanmoreland 18:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That sort of thing (presuming what the agenda of a user is) seems like an Assume Good Faith violation. If you guys are so intent in finding them on the part of opponents, you should be aware of them in yourself too. *Dan T.* 20:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

When a user repeatedly pushes the agenda of a banned user[18] , or parrots what he or she sees on the very attack sites we are discussing [19], the assumption of good faith does not apply. --Mantanmoreland 21:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I can see no reason for any of us not to assume good faith to all other editors on this page, SqueakBox 21:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hivemind

The Hivemind page that names wikipedia editors is currently not to be found. Success? SqueakBox 01:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, you can read Brandt's explanation on the Unspeakable Site. Of course, at the moment it seems that I cannot give out a precise link, because it will be reverted. Mangoe 11:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason why, without endangering and distressing your fellow Wikipedians, and without resorting to sarcasm, you can't simply state that Brandt said that he took it down because, as he moved towards litigation, he realised that Jimbo and the Foundation are the ones who are responsible for what editors do, because it is they who control the structure of Wikipedia. See? No sneering. No sarcasm. A nice rewording, with all the necessary information, but with nothing that will antagonise or endanger others. No need for a link at all. It's not even a very interesting thread. ElinorD (talk) 11:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That misrepresents what Brandt said. WAS 4.250 11:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If you think I misunderstood it, why not post a summary in your own words, but without linking? The only point I'm making is that it's possible to explain why the site is gone, without posting the address of something that would enable people to harass someone in real life, and without making sarcastic remarks about the fact that one can't post the link. ElinorD (talk) 14:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty arrogant and patronizing to say that we don't need to see that thread because you've seen it, and allegedly paraphrased it, and you say that it's uninteresting and antagonizing. *Dan T.* 11:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't have any "need" to see it myself, and would gladly have forfeited the pleasure of seeing any thread if it meant lessening the risk that somebody's is going to be stalked in real life as a result of a stalker who frequents Wikipedia but hasn't yet discovered these other sites clicking on a link here and finding out the real name and contact details of someone that he has just had a disagreement with. I was simply pointing out that if Mangoe knew what Brandt had said, he could simply have told us, without saying that he can't link because it would be reverted. As for being "arrogant" and "patronising", if I knew the exact address of some secret location that Kate Middleton has gone to, in the hope of avoiding harassment from the public, as she discusses with her family her recent split with Prince William, I would do what I could to ensure that other people didn't find out what I had found out. It wouldn't mean I thought I had a particular right to the information myself. It would just mean that since I, rightly or wrongly, had discovered something that might endanger another person, I would not want other people to get hold of it. Do you think it's arrogant of an admin with oversight access to use oversight on something that might endanger others? Should they say, "Well, since I've seen it, it would be very arrogant and patronising of me not to allow others to see it"? I think not. Oh, and I didn't say that Brandt's thread was antagonising. I was referring to the post on this thread, with the edit summary "Oh the irony". I felt that if Mangoe had just wanted to tell us why the site was down, it would have been better to have just told us why. ElinorD (talk) 12:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"Do you think it's arrogant of an admin with oversight access to use oversight on something that might endanger others?" Yes, if the extent of their analysis of the context and degree of probability of harm and degree of possible harm consisted solely of identifying it as a Wikipedia Review web page link. Mindlessless causes more harm than good. WAS 4.250 13:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

My name, workplace, and contact details were posted at that site, along with a link to the (then) address of my parents. They were never removed. I was stalked by a sexual predator who became interested in me on Wikipedia, and then discovered my identity and work address, tried to blackmail me, harassed and abused the girls in the office where I worked (as he couldn't get them to put him through to me), told my superior (falsely) that I was editing Wikipedia during worktime, made threats against my elderly parents, told me that he was working on some technology that could use an existing photo of me and produce one of what I look like naked, sent me maps of the part of the city I work in, with my work building highlighted, and the words "Now that we have you surrounded, we start slowly tightening the ring. Very slowly and firmly. Very slowly . . . ", and did a lot more. If you were to weigh up the negative side of all that (and I really do mean that there was a lot more) against the negative side of removing a link to something that is itself inoccuous but is only three clicks away from the a post that "outs" someone else, could you explain why you think that oversighting such a post is more terrible than refusing to lessen (even if we can't entirely remove) the risk that what happened to me might happen to someone else? Musical Linguist 15:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds pretty nasty. Of course, I didn't even know that until it was brought up via this policy proposal. So why on Earth would you want this proposal to pull through (unless you don't)? This is exactly the problem with the recognition thing people have been talking about. I know so much more about people's privacy problems than I did before this page existed. Milto LOL pia 16:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The analogy with Prince William's love/social/personal lives is strained, at best. And while I can be pretty privacy-paranoid, typing stuff into a service which promises to distribute them to any of the six billion humans who has internet access and is interested in reading is just about as public as one can get without actually disrobing in Times Square with one's passport clenched in one's teeth.

But that's not the point. I am having a hard time deciding exactly how relevant Brandt's story is to this proposal. The fact that his alleged presence on the Unspeakable Site is being used as sufficient justification to censor them looks punitive to me. But what should be perfectly evident from these exchanges is that the problem of not being able to quote the site means that the proposal effectively authorizes making unsubstantiable charges about a site, and indeed forbids substantive discussion. Assuming that he doesn't jump out of the electronic bushes and threatens to sue us, his response could be quoted here and cited-- except for this proposal of prior restraint. So what is happening is a completely unsubstantiated disagreement over what Brandt said.

And that's a running theme in all of this. There is a group of people on the Unspeakable Site who believe that SlimVirgin, MONGO, Jayjg, and in fact pretty much anyone who is defending this proposal are part of a concerted effort to WP:OWN a variety of articles. They accuse these people of abuses of power, left and right. So here appears DennyColt, who drops this "policy" in as an essay and then proceeds to enforce it systematically. That cat having been let out of the bag by the almost immediate objections to this, it's obvious that those on the Unspeakable Site are going to be very interested in the identity of this DennyColt. And as it happens, they are, and there is the inevitable thread there trying to puzzle him out. And I think their interest is legitimate; if it turns out that he is essentially a front for an attempt by the supposed cabal members to censor the Unspeakable Site, then we would have an object, documented case of dishonesty and administrator misconduct. Except, of course, that such evidence could not be produced ehre, because of the censorship of the site.

Obviously this is all unsubtantiated-- not because the material isn't there, but because I'm not allowed to produce it. And that's where we seem to be left: the supposed cabal members can make unsubstantiated attacks upon the Unspeakable Site, but effective refutation of their allegations is disallowed. If I were Javert and felt WP:POINTed, I think could delete every statement made about the content and nature of the Unspeakable Site as being unsubstatiated; and I could additionally justify deleting the claim that they are an attack site as being a attack-- even a personal attack. We've already had, in the course of this, a completely fallacious attack upon Dtobias for participating on that site, even though anyone who bothered to read what he posts there would see in a second that the mostly disapproves of the anticaballists. But of course, that cannot be substantiated either.

Meanwhile, the conflict of interest sails on. It seems to me that if all of those who are "attacked" on that site were to recuse themselves from this discussion, there would be an overwhelming consensus for rejecting it on the spot. That is a very bad sign, and a stain on Wikipedia's reputation that these people cannot back away from the discussion. Mangoe 14:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make even more sense if contributors to that site, such as yourself, recused themselves?--Mantanmoreland 15:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Actually, I made that offer back when I made an abortive RfA 9diff). At the time, I'd posted a few messages there, one or two of which could be interpreted as bearing on this discussion. I did not initially reveal my identity, though anyone who was following both sides should have figured out the connection. This was some days after the controversy started, though; as I've said before, I'd never heard of these people until the censorship campaign brought them to my attention. I'm willing to repeat the offer to recuse, but I'm not willing to pull out of this unilaterally. I am far, far less tainted by my associations with this than the others are. And frankly, I see no reason for Dtobias to pull out, seeing as how his activity on the Unspeakable Site have largely been rather negative criticisms of the others on that site. Mangoe 15:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Though in that case I'd have to recuse myself too, given that I've been attacked on that site too (not "outed", given that I freely [foolishly?] disclose my personal info anyway). But it adds to the irony of the whole situation that, in this case, the thing whose discussion is being muted by the alleged link ban is actually the fact that Brandt has taken down personally identifying information that could be used for harrassment. *Dan T.* 14:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"Could be" or "was"? ElinorD (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Unquestionably "was used for harassment." Musical Linguist 15:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

(unindenting, after edit conflict) Musical Linguist said here that people in favour of banning links to sites that try to "out" editors were among the kindest and most helpful supporters she had when she was stalked and before they were. I see no conflict of interest. We have people who hold strong views that censorship shouldn't be allowed, and who, to uphold that principle, are prepared to take the risk of increasing the possibility of a stalker getting hold of information to enable him to find a new victim. (Of course, they don't agree that the risk is significant, but they can't deny that there's some risk.) We have others who think that safety of editors is more important than allowing nine hundred and ninety-nine possible non-stalkers to see information that one stalker would abuse. Both sides seem to feel strongly. I can't see why one should recuse more than another. It also seems likely that many ordinary editors would agree with the position that we should put protection of editors first, and would happily forfeit their "right" to see personal information if forfeiting it meant that the creepy guys couldn't see it either. However, these ordinary editors are just editing articles, and haven't discovered the page. I can't even remember how I discovered it. ElinorD (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleting bios of Wikipedians is the first thing Brandt has done that makes me think he is serious about going to court over Wikipedia's bio on him. But he still has significant bio data of other people no more famous than he is at his NameBase website. WAS 4.250 11:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Attempts to suppress categories of things have a tendency to lead to self-referential strange loops where attempts to engage in commentary and criticism regarding such suppression are themselves suppressed. See, for instance this case where a professor's posting of a video of the National Football League's copyright notice at the beginning of American football telecasts, for the purpose of commenting on whether this notice took an overly broad interpretation of the rights the league has under copyright law, was itself the subject of a takedown notice by the NFL. *Dan T.* 15:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

A quick solution

Someone suggested this to me in a private communication: can we just change this from attack sites to attack pages? Mangoe 02:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would support this page move. And while I wouldnt guarantee to support such a re-named policy it would certainly make it more likely, SqueakBox 02:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds more reasonable and more in line with common sense to me also. I think we may have reached a workable compromise. A poll in order? Cla68 02:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe attack pages are already covered by WP:NPA: "Posting a link to an external source that fits the commonly accepted threshold for a personal attack, in a manner that incorporates the substance of that attack into Wikipedia discussion, including the suggestion that such a link applies to another editor, or that another editor needs to visit the external source containing the substance of the attack." The difference between that sentence and this, is that this proposed policy applies to any external sources which host such material, even if the page directly linked to does not fit the NPA description. I'd suggest that if this policy is ultimately accepted, it could probably be reduced to a single sentence in NPA rather than the current mound of beans.JavaTenor 14:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I would concur with that, with the observation that prohibitions against attack "content" would make an even finer distinction, not that I see the utility of more than a single sentence amended to WP:NPA to that effect, as the editor above me suggested.--Academy Leader 03:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Case by case evaluations are needed even if the proposal changes "site" to "page" or "link" or "content". It is in no case the right choice to switch off our brains when called on to make an editorial choice. WAS 4.250 11:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. And so does the ArbCom. Seems some people have yet to understand that. —AldeBaer 18:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the comment about "not switching off our brains," as the dialogue on this page is becoming increasingly divorced from reality, as it relates to both the attack sites and our procedures regarding websites in general. We have very stringent policies that relate to websites. Even fan sites with accurate information about celebrities are not permitted to be cited on Wikipedia. I don't see people throwing themselves in front of trains to retain links to those sites. But here we have a situation were a tiny number of websites make vile accusations against Wikipedia and editors, and strenuous efforts are underway to ensure that these websites remain quoted, linked and such, and that not doing so is "Orwellian" and other such overblown rhetoric.--Mantanmoreland 19:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL. —AldeBaer 20:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

A user who serves as a representative of an attack site, as you did via this edit [20], should not preach to others about WP:CIVIL and, in my humble opinion, not be editing Wikipedia at all.--Mantanmoreland 21:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That's ad-hominem, and doesn't even seem to be obviously true; the diff you cited merely had him expressing an opinion against censoring links to external sites, consistent to the one he's expressing here; how do you stretch it to saying he's being a "respresentative" of that site? Anyway, your arguments here are full of straw men and apples-and-oranges comparisons; there's a difference between what's a reliable source to cite in an article and what may be linked to in a talk page in the context of discussion; and, besides, it's not true that all links to fan sites are banned anyway; last I heard, it was considered acceptable to link to the one most prominent fan site for a given celebrity in the "external links" section; it was just discouraged to let the fancruft get thicker by adding more fan site links than that. *Dan T.* 21:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

He's not even a member of WR let alone a staff member so how can he be their representative? SqueakBox 22:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User:WordBomb runs another attack site. The "strikover" jibe in that edit indicates that Alde is (in my hunble opinion) a meatpuppet of User:WordBomb and the attack site that he runs for his corporate employer, the CEO of an Internet company. It is not WR. I don't object to this edit, as it shows the agenda at work here. Oh, and incidentally Dan T., in the process of stomping your feet about my imaginary "ad hominem" you threw in some real ad hominems yourself.--Mantanmoreland 22:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

IMO if you think somebody is a sock of a banned user you should report it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or inform an admin, etc. In the meantime we must do what we can to assume good faith on this page, SqueakBox 22:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that Alde was a "sock" of a banned user, but that this edit indicates that he was pushing the agenda of a banned user. If Alde continues with that kind of behavior, yes a block would definitely be warranted. Again, you are incorrect about WP:AGF. Read the policy. It is not absolute and does not apply to this editor in light of his behavior. --Mantanmoreland 22:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting recent action

I thought this might be of interest to participants in this discussion. For reference, the forum mentioned in that post is owned by a Hollywood producer who was annoyed at WP:BLP issues in his article. There are several threads on his forum which are in clear violation of WP policy. Apparently there exists a bot-based procedure for local blacklisting of links, which I wasn't aware of. JavaTenor 15:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Protection from outside vs. protection from inside

How many stalkers would need a link on a user talk page, for example, to find an attack site/forum of their liking? Is it just me, or has the motivation to advance a general ban on all controversial sites got something to do with protection from criticism from inside Wikipedia? Fully banning pure and uncontroversial attack sites is one thing, banning all non-attacking subpages of a site that contains some valuable criticism is another story, as pointed out by a present ArbCom member on behalf of the present ArbCom. So where does the strong desire to forbid all links to such non-attacking material come from? Is it because of yet better protection? Yes, I suppose. Has it also to do with suppressing critical voices? I hate to say it, but... yes, I suppose. —AldeBaer 18:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The above is the most blatant violation of the assumption of good faith that I have ever seen. --Mantanmoreland 18:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've seen worse. —AldeBaer 20:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a bit overstated. Given the extensive reading matter available both here and on the Unspeakable Site-- and it's far more than any one person can digest-- we are somewhere between assuming good faith and suspending judgement. AldeBaer perhaps shouldn't have opinionated (though frankly this would go better if people weren't so touchy about these expressions of opinion; it's has gotten to the point where the objections are as much of an impediment as the opnions), but it's too much to say that people can't interpret the matter at all.

But since this is an "Assume Bad Faith" proposal, the continued appeals to WP:AGF are yet another unaddressed issue. There is a whiff of hypocrisy here. Mangoe 19:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It most certainly is not an "assume bad faith" proposal. Users can accidentally post links to attack sites - I did so once myself - and they just get reverted. No capital punishment is involved, and there is no assumption of bad faith on the part of anybody. WP:AGF concerns the actions of Wikipedians, not the actions of websites like that "unspeakable one" you contribute to.--Mantanmoreland 19:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, if I wanted to be picky I would say that your "touch of hypocrisy" comment was another breach of AGF. But I won't even mention it! :)--Mantanmoreland 19:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

By "assume bad faith" I mean that the proposal is to establish a policy of assuming that everything on the site is like unto an attack. And the hypocrisy is that of Wikipedia in general, not any individual. Mangoe 21:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You must not have seen too many WP:AGF violations. However, I think the distinction between "present" and "past" ArbCom members is useless for this debate. It's not like the substance of any interpretative statements of a prior decision made, pro or con, depends on present ArbCom membership status, especially re: the construction of a permanent policy. We should welcome all insights, including and especially those of figures targeted by particular sites, links to which may be prohibited by this discussion. --Academy Leader 19:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Fred has clarified his previous statement on the subject.[21] In any event, Mangoe's use of the term "good faith" is not the one described in WP:AGF.--Mantanmoreland 21:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Good Faith, and styles of argument

Can all of us (on all sides) try to do a little more rational discussion of the issues, and a little less ad-hominem assertions about the people on the opposite side, or jumping to conclusions about what their agenda or motivations are? *Dan T.* 20:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed we should assume that people on all sides are motivated by good faith and the best for wikipedia and wikipedians. Which I think is actually true, SqueakBox 20:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I notice how this "debate" is starting to get on my nerves. I'm going to stay away from it for a while. —AldeBaer 21:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. We each need to remember that disagreeing with someone politically doesnt have to get personal, and the disagreements here are political as are the disagreements expressed at WR, etc, SqueakBox 21:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF is not absolute. If a person contributes to an attack site, or pushes the agenda of an attack site, there is no obligation for other editors to assume good faith. --Mantanmoreland 22:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It is nevertheless true that the discussion is not advanced by accusations of bad faith, no matter how well-grounded you may consider them to be. There's no reason to do more than respond to the arguments presented. Talking about others' motives takes us further away from our goal, which is writing an encyclopedia.

The question at hand is whether or not the encyclopedia should have a certain guideline. That is a question on which reasonable people may differ in good faith. In order to decide that question, we don't need to determine anything about anybody's motives, so why don't we drop that, as unproductive? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

GTB, it's extremely hard to assume good faith of people who are arguing strongly, and have been for days, for their right to link to, and thereby increase the readership of, websites that are harassing, stalking, insulting, and libeling editors here. It becomes even harder to assume it when one of them gratuitously tries to "out" an editor during the discussion, and another of them repeatedly restores links to one of the sites. Having a discussion in this context is like trying to talk sense in a madhouse. It's childish at best, vicious at worst. Motives do have a bearing when the atmosphere becomes as poisonous as this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I agree it's a bit out of hand in here. I agree it can get difficult to assume good faith. That's still a different question from what is the most helpful, or the least destructive, way to respond. Escalation, for example, is generally less than optimal, in my estimation. The proverbial tango does require two.

I wonder if you'd agree or disagree that the promotion of this page to guideline or policy is a question on which reasonable and good-faith people may differ, or is the mere fact of opposing its promotion proof of bad faith? What I'm trying to get at with that question is, are the arguments something that can be separated from the arguers, or not? (I hope those questions make sense.) -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a note for everyone here, I believe the best way to deal with an editor you feel isn't acting in good faith is to ignore them, i.e. don't respond to anything they have to say. Comments not made in good faith are usually fairly obvious, because they don't have much logic behind them and are usually overly personal, accusatory, shrill, defensive, and often repeated over and over in the hope that some of their reasoning will "stick," which it rarely does. The truth is the truth, stands on its own, and can bear the light of scrutiny. Cla68 23:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. Fortunately when important decisions are made, such as RfAs, the community can distinguish between truth and spin.--Mantanmoreland 23:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarified, its an attack site. Remove it everywhere!!

"Obviously any ambiguity is inappropriate. Due to extensive attacks on SlimVirgin, Wikipedia Review should be considered an attack site. Fred Bauder 21:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)"

see here. Per Fred remove all references to it. Thanks! MrSmee 22:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That is not what Fred said in that link. He said it was an attack site, not that all references needed to be removed. I'll assume good faith here, but we must take care not to put words into the mouths of others. Risker 22:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This is User:MrSmee's first edit. His post is a gag.--Mantanmoreland 22:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I realised that, which is why I added the "AGF" thing, but really, I am wondering how this name didn't get blocked given its resemblance to the name of a long-time editor. Risker 22:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Funny how the "straw man" in the Wizard of Oz has kept flitting through my brain the past few days.(Oops, sorry! I must assume good faith! Never mind.)--Mantanmoreland 22:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Straw man arguments are not per se made in bad faith! SqueakBox 22:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Fred struck his original comments. He has endorsed the status as an attack site. So, it cannot be linked from this talk page! Doing so is a violation. Please make note of that, all of you. MrSmee 22:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Playing games is not helpful. Links to aggressive attacks on Wikipedia users may be removed. No one needs permission, no one needs to spend time making a policy about it, or arguing about it. Fred Bauder 22:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I really wonder, what's more of a violation: adding comments that are currently in violation of nothing (and that can inhibit a discussion sans fear of unbased moral censure), or removing them according to a disupted imperative, blissfully ignorant of the discussion taking place? Gracenotes^T § 02:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You have a good argument, but at the end of the day, it remains a gross offense to use Wikipedia to further an attack on other users. So you can win and win at arguing about it, but links are still wrong. Fred Bauder 03:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The only reason I support this policy proposal is because it reduces the ambiguity as to whether linking to attack sites is appropriate, something that NPA doesn't really have the room to explain as well and addresses somewhat different concerns. I hope when the page protection expires we can all reach a conclusion on the best way to address this issue...in others words, I am hoping that those opposed to his proposal don't nominate it for deletion as soon as it is unprotected, or add the rejected tag when there is no clear consensus here for rejection.--MONGO 05:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, I think you've just nicely summarized the best argument for promoting this page. I think the best argument against promoting it is that WP:NPA is sufficient, and that a new policy would have unintended bad consequences. Perhaps the best way to work towards consensus would be to directly address (a) the sufficiency of current policy to deal with potential harassment, and (b) evaluation of the potential bad consequences of promoting this page. Does that sound reasonable? What important arguments am I missing? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I can understand why many would see this as WP:CREEP...but I am also concerned that is this a somewhat different issue than NPA. We'll find a way to work it out, but ultimately, it will be hard to please everyone.--MONGO 06:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think there's more to the bad consequences argument than simply CREEP; my reply to Mangoe at the bottom of this section goes into that a bit, in the paragraph beginning "I think the prevailing...". On the other hand, I'm interested in the difference between what this covers and NPA. Could you say more about that - what's missing from current policy? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think NPA is fairly broad, whereby this proposal takes the issue of attack links to websites that make overt efforts to "out" wikipedia contributor's real identities...I see this as an invasion of privacy/right to privacy issue.--MONGO 06:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you really think there's a problem deleting harassing links just because that's not specified in the letter of NPA? I mean, this is the land of IAR. When it comes to people's personal info being posted, or stalkers using Wikipedia to intimidate people, aren't we generally pretty good at responding without pausing to think about policy justifications? We don't have to read people their rights, here. I remember working together with you to remove postings speculating on a Wikipedian's IP address; that was a year ago, and we didn't bother ourselves with whether or not we had a rule behind us. We just did the right thing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Does this page describes the de facto policy that we are already following? Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, largely. As has been noted, there are very few situations in which is makes sense to link to a site with attack pages. Most of us remove such links on sight, unless there's an obvious context in which it actually does make sense, in which case I think of us would leave it alone. Presumably, if this page were promoted, such exceptions would still be made, if needed. There are so few cases, we're going to deal with them on a case-by-case basis no matter what tag ends up atop this particular page. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Immediately, maybe it will not change much. In the long term, it is an expression of our consensual standards. If tagged as policy, it becomes an existing standard that new users are expected to adopt. Of course, dismissing the concerns it expresses, even if with a disclaimer, says something as well. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that it is an iteration of the current policy. This proposed policy is broad enough to be used in ways that its authors clearly haven't imagined. If strengthening of existing policies is required (and to be honest, I don't think it is), then that can be done. This proposal has enough loopholes to drive a truck through. Risker 01:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but loopholes don't do anything here. This is Wikipedia, not moot court. Most of us don't read policies and guidelines, and we're just going to do what makes sense, no matter what this page says. This page, if promoted, would have virtually no effect on how we act. If people link to harassing material, we'll remove the links, just like we always have. If there's a good reason to link to a site we would otherwise not link to, we'll make an exception, of course. I don't see this page making a huge difference either way.

If there's wording in this policy that someone tries to abuse, it's not as if we just let them, as if we'd signed a suicide pact. We deal with whatever abuse, and then if necessary, we reword the policy. Another day on the wiki. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. What happens with new users who make innocent mistakes and are whacked over the head for doing so is that they go away instead of complaining about bullying or becoming valued editors. This policy is made for order to assist editors who WP:OWN certain articles to keep unwanted sources out of their area of focus. If I can come up with a list of 15 sources that meet the proposed definition, I am sure people who really want to put the effort into it can do even better. Policy in a non-censored encyclopedia should have as few limits as is absolutely required for the efficient development of the encyclopedia; current policies already cover all of the actions recommended in this proposal. There is a reason for WP:CREEP. Risker 03:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Some of the pages on, say, the Wikipedia Review are not attack pages (and to go further, not all posts in attack pages actually contain "attacks"). Of course, linking to such a page might lead people to read the post, and linking to a non-attack page might lead people to a page that has "attacks". I suppose that the idea is to create a walled garden? Not too fond of those in most contexts. Gracenotes^T § 03:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure anyone defends linking to pages that attack or try to out wikipedians in order to attack? and if they do they get blocked and everyoner is cool with it, but there are otehr issues than just that being debated here, IMO, SqueakBox 03:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Just when I thought we had a clarification.... I don't see anyone arguing that "attacks" can be linked directly and especially for the purpose of introducing that "attack" to Wikipedia. Since these already prohibited, though, by policies that are already well-defined, there's no reason to keep coming back to this. The purpose of this proposal must be to block links to other pages on these sites, pages that are not unambiguously attacks.

And that leads me, personally, to the signal difficulty in this. I don't edit the kind of articles where POV pushing is the general order of the day-- such as anything about Lyndon LaRouche. I consider this sort of article an object example of the notion someone expressed of "quantum truth"; the POV pushing is so rampant and so strong that the text, viewed historically, consists of the superimposition of two (or more) radically opposed versions. My mistrust of these articles is almost absolute.

And yet the larger pattern of conflict here seems to involve these articles quite a lot. How do I know this? Well, because I'm looking to the Unspeakable Site for a directory to the conflict. And consistently I come upon the same pattern: there is none sinless, no, not one. In the last case I checked out, for instance, an administrator blocked a user indefinitely on one of these articles and then proceeded to systematically edit the article against the blocked editor. This ties neatly into the abject refusal to acknowledge that the principal beneficiaries of the proposal are the very administrators who are pressing for its adoption most aggressively. I've brought this up over and over again, to be stonewalled each time. I do not deny that "assume good faith" is a valuable precept, but it is sorely tested when it is constantly having to be invoked in order to defend behavior that looks questionable. Using WP:AGF to defend acts which the greater world would assess as being ethically questionable is an abuse of the principle.

This whole discussion, proposal and all, seems to be mooted. Right now it appears to me that at least one of the parties, if not more, will continue to delete links to the Unspeakable Site, or any other that they deem unacceptable because of its attacks, even if this proposal is rejected. I'm half inclined to return to editing notable trivia and abandon every attempt to impose some sort of systematic quality control on the thing, because the resistance to it is simply too entrenched. Meanwhile, I see very little sign that any kind of consensus is forming. Mangoe 04:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Mangoe, I can see why you might come to the conclusions you have, but I tend to a different interpetation. It's kind of in keeping with Hanlon's razor, the one about not assuming malice. I think a lot of the support for promoting this page is coming from people who genuinely want to protect Wikipedia from attacks. I think they want explicit policy sanction for removing links to certain sites because they don't want to open the door to these attacks, or to give harassers any room at all to Wikilawyer. They want the comfort of a nice unambiguous rule that says, "no linking to sites where outing is going on, period."

I think the prevailing attitude is that a rule against doing something wrong is a good thing. I don't happen to agree with that part, and I think that making special rules against specific "enemies" empowers those enemies and sets the stage for worse conflict than ignoring them would, but I think I'm in the minority with that view.

I don't imagine that the supporters of this page are in cahoots to suppress or censor criticism of Wikipedia. Criticism of Wikipedia made here at Wikipedia, or in any forum where outing and harassing aren't tolerated, is perfectly welcome, and happens every day. The problem is linking to criticism at sites that also host outing and privacy-violating material.

The above is very presumptuous, and I'm happy to be corrected regarding all the words I just put into people's mouths. Mostly I was replying to Mangoe's suggestion that it's so hard to AGF, which is just what the other "side" says, too. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible problematic link

I noticed that this edit, (for reference: the user making this edit is an administrator) adds a link which many in this discussion feel to be inappropriate. What, if anything, is the appropriate remedy in this circumstance? This may provide a useful test-case for this guideline/policy proposal. JavaTenor 22:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me to be the perfect example of the sort of link to "bad sites" that ought to be made; the Wikipedia community ought to be aware of what Mr. Brandt is up to and how he explains it. *Dan T.* 23:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly the page doesnt attack anybody, wikipedian or otherwise and nor has anybody removed the link, SqueakBox 00:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion. It might help the conversation here remain more civil if we confined ourselves to pointing out existing instances of links that might fall under the purview of this guideline and discussing their relative usefulness, rather than adding new links to this discussion (which has proven contentious). Special:linksearch is a useful tool here, although it obviously won't catch instances where the link has already been deleted, in response to this proposal or for other reasons. JavaTenor 00:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Much Ado About Nothing

If links to sites don't meet WP:RS, remove them. Be them on Talk or article pages. Since sites that have been deemed "attack" (depends on ones POV, doesn't it?) are most likely not RS, remove them. "Attack Sites" regulation becomes superceded and WP:{censored]. And good luck with people not googling the shrillest to find out on their own if there is merit to claims of sock puppetry, conflicts of interest, and deception. Even kids these days can trace IP addresses and add 2+2.Piperdown 02:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

How Hanlon's Razor isn't going to help us

Some day someone is going to come along, someone who makes the mistake of editing an article in one of the "quantum truth" controversialist topics, say about [[Feminists Against Abortion]], and get burned by running into a zealous administrator who blocks him for some transgression in the article and then goes back and edits it themselves. So this fellow (who for the sake of argument I'll name David Brunt) gets mad, and starts looking around, and decides that the thing to do is to start a blog, exposing absues of power on Wikipedia. And (just as one sees on the Unspeakable Site) he has no trouble at all finding lots of suspicious-looking activity, so the blog proceeds quite nicely. And in no time at all it gets deemed an "attack site", because after all it is "attacking" admins and their allies on Wikipedia.

So: comes the day when another editor (let's call him Mangosteen) is getting frustrated trying to edit some relatively constroversial corner of some topic he's interested in. And he gets hit by some tag team, gets frustrated, and starts looking around and finds (let's say) Wikipedia:Expert rebellion. And he discovers that there are a lot of people talking about deficiencies in Wikipedia processes, and he gets talking with other editors, and eventually winds up at WB's blog. And he thinks that some of WB's suggestions are good, so he repeats them in Wikipedia talk, dutifully citing it. Then out of the blue (as far as he is concerned) up pops Billylamb, who erases the whole passage with rv [[WP:BADSITES]]. Not surprisingly, Mangosteen is a bit peeved about this, and after reverting that reversion, starts looking into this a bit more. And it seems to him that this Billylamb character's editing is odd, and he drops an e-mail to DB, who (having had some practice at this now) digs up enough info to suggest that there is in fact a strong connection between Billylamb and an administrator-- by coincidence, perhaps, the very adminstrator who blocked GB back at the beginning of this scenario. And in the meantime that same administrator has dropped a warning on Mangosteen's user page telling him that he'll be blocked if he reverts the talk page again. Mangosteen starts rattling cages and finds that this administrator does this a lot, and he looks further into DB's blog and finds a whole bunch of posts about this administrator. None of them gives a name, but there is definitely an attempt to sketch out what this person's motives might be. And he finds other evidence of dubious behavior, and he comes upon one post in particular which references, oh, let's say a Salon article which talks about attempts to WP:OWN articles by partisan groups. And Mangosteen sends the author of this article a "hey, I think I have another case here" e-mail. So this reporter looks into it further, and having better investigative resources, not only manages to pin a name on the administrator, but uncovers that she is head of a local Planned Parenthood group. This gets published on-line, and DB links to it in his blog, since after all it is highly germane to his campaign, and he also outlines his role in the incident. So now, by the standards of the [[WP:BADSITES]] proposal, his blog is absolutely an "attack site". Nonetheless someone decides it's time for an article about [[David Brunt]], because he's hit the media. This turns into another battle over sources, because editors of the article are going to want to refer to his blog, but this administrator, as well as others, refuses to allow any such link. DB also is understandably peeved about this from a WP:BLP perspective, seeing as how he can't edit it-- not just because of blocks, but because it's ethically questionable. Various dedicated defenders of the Wiki Way are not so inhibited, though, and they tend to push the article towards a depiction of him that is far from flattering and on occaision downright slanderous.

Now the bad blood really begins to boil-- or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the media sharks smell the blood in the water. The Salon article has alerted them to the possibility of uncovering a great embarassment for a site that is well-known and influential. The growing noise, in spite of attempts to silence it on Wikipedia, alerts all the malcontents who have a bone to pick with these administrator actions. A lot of these people were, by any standard, banned with cause; but the sheer number of them allows reporters to get a pretty good picture of what's going on, and constructing a narrative of unsupervised administrators violating ordinary standards of ethical conduct is a piece of cake. Other admins who are unhappy about dealing with the "problem administrators" start leaking internal communications to the press, and it comes out that the admin who set this whole thing off has a real world connection to Billylamb that a lot of administrators know about. And the media also become hot about this because a lot of the controversial topics are about real world politics, and since they are prone to see the world in terms of partisan politics, here at last is a way for them to understand the whole conflict. And therefore they paint a picture of Wikipedia as the (on one leve not at all unwitting) tool of poltical actors, and its administration as being hopelessly corrupted by political activists and cliques and cabals. It won't matter that a lot of the time the details will be against this, because the major media don't "assume good faith" very well, even in the real world sense of the term. And finally, the day comes when the whole thing ends up on the cover of Time, complete with the wikiglobe logo split in half.

My point with this is not to cast allegations upon the present actors. I've used similar names to point up some rough parallels, not to cast aspersions. The Unspeakable Site is much more undisciplined than this, and Daniel Brandt is far less defensible than the putative David Brunt. But the breeding conditions are already there. The rest of the world has higher standards for neutrality than are appearing here, and they are not going to be swayed by appeals to "good faith" in the face of conflicts of interest. In the rest of the world, the way to solve these conflicts is for the conflicted to give up some of their authority, not for people to say that we have to assume that they are resolving the conflict in good faith. The rest of the world's standard is "Caesar's wife must be above suspicion."

I've been trying to get across the point, perhaps too fragmentarily, is that this proposal trades some pretty minimal protection from "attacks" (which a disinterested bystander might even view as "legitimate concerns") for a situation which enables bad behavior and exactly the sort of abuses that attrct media criticism. There is a very large pattern here of the proponents of this proposal doing things which are potentially embarassing-- such as pushing this proposal. I've brought this up over and over, and I'm getting stonewalling; the attitude seems to be that we don't have to care what the rest of the world thinks about us. Well, eventually someone is going to come along who takes advantage of the protection afforded by this, and gets to be an administrator, and combines editing, administration, and policy advocacy questionably, and it will come out that they weren't just questionable-- they were plainly guilty of ethical violations that no amount of good faith can cover for. Mangoe 16:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I take it you're opposed to this proposal?--MONGO 16:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Mangoe, [22] WAS 4.250 20:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it's an interesting read. Relatively captivating. The only thing I'm confused by is the acronyms... Gracenotes^T § 23:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it's a page turner. It takes place, however, in some Wikipedia other than the one I know. The Wikipedia I saw react to the Essjay affair isn't such a unified dark face, taking measures to hide and protect its own. Quite the contrary, we'll cheerfully turn on and stone suspected traitors to neutrality, especially if there's media involved.

Insofar as the story relates to this policy... I guess it's an argument against promotion... for reason of unintended consequences, but it doesn't make any sense that way. If such a situation arose, then of course we would reevaluate, rather than being shackled by an agreement some dozen or two of us made before any of it came up. We're not carving things in stone here, or making suicide pacts, or launching missles. I believe the soundbyte goes, "consensus can change".

Mangoe, I agree with you that this page shouldn't be promoted.... and I question how well you know Wikipedia if you consider your story realistic. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If people are reading my morality tale as depicting Wikipedia as acting monolithically, then for all those words I was unclear. Wikipedia clearly doesn't act monolithically; indeed, I think one of its characteristics that enables this kind of behavior is that for the most part it's right hand doesn't know what its left hand is doing. That has resulted in a community which is on the whole extremely resistant to any policy changes that attempt to rein it in any manner, though one can see from the controversies that revolve around those proposals that there are plenty of people who think that Wikipedia needs more discipline and tighter limits. But it also means that there is a lot of bad behavior going on that most people don't have any idea is going on. I used to edit in theology a little, and I never had any idea that Essjay was editing there.

The present proposal would appear to be an exception to that conservatism, but the effect is nonetheless conservative. It "protects" Wikipedia, to a limited degree, from criticisms of processes and practices, and of certain kinds of infractions. In the case of the Unspeakable Site, it "protects" Wikipedia from the appearance of certain accusations against some of the people pushing this proposal-- at least, on Wikipedia. Now, anyone who has bothered to look at the Unspeakable Site and to follow the story around to the many other sites that discuss it will know that a very serious charge is being leveled against a group of people that encompasses many of the proponents of this proposal. It's a charge that, by its nature, requires "outing"; but if it is true, then those identities are entirely relevant, because they show that the WP:COI is not only being violated, but that admins powers are being used to back up the violation. Whether or not this particular charge is true, groups that are investigating WP processes are going to look for similar situations, and when they find one, they are going name names, and are going to have to name names. I really don't see how there's any privacy involved in that; editing here is a public act, and Wikipedia cannot protect anyone from the external consequences of losing their anonymity. Those consequences would include loss of credibility for Wikipedia, should such an accusation be proven.

And as it stands, such a situation will happen. There is simply too much room for such abuses. And when it does, we're going to look bad if it comes out that we've approved a policy directed against all such investigative sites. Mangoe 15:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"Investigative sites"? You are giving them too much credence. I will simply call them "Detractors' sites". These sites are not "investigative", their main purpose being to discredit WP, usually by people that did not and could not edit within the challenges of an open collaborative project such as this one. These sites are not "for" anything, rather they are "against" something. An investigative effort does not have these aims.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd take that thought one step further. One of the attack sites, not WR or ED, whose concepts I see reflected by implication in some of the posts on this page, is the creation of an employee of a CEO who hates Wikipedia and has begun something of a Wikipedia imitator of his own. This site has received off-Wiki publicity, not for being "investigative" but for being an example of corporate malfeasance. Attacks on Wikipedians is just one small facet of a corporate smear campaign. The operator of that site is not a misguided ex-Wikipedian, but a public relations operative who has gone on a rampage of trolling and vandalism on Wikipedia, using multiple sockpuppets. I think that point needs to be made, as there is an innuendo in some of what I read on this page that laps up this attack site's kool aid, and is also ugly, disturbing and misleading. --Mantanmoreland 16:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, just to clarify because of its proximity, I'm not directing this at Mangoe's latest post. Also, I'm not necessarily arguing in favor of this proposal because this essay is simply a reiteration of existing policy. It is not a terrible idea to make this explicit for new users. However, it is not as if we would be inventing or reinventing the wheel on this subject. --Mantanmoreland 16:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well you know, Jossi, I don't agree with your depiction of these sites. They hold that Wikipedia is discredited because the community and the foundation do not stop the practices they accuse of going on there. And if their representation of certain "scandals" is even vaguely accurate, your response stands as complicity in the problem. Once again we've reached a point where it's really impossible to continue effectively without naming names, because if their identification of real-world people with editors and administrators here is correct, there's no question that those editors and administrators are at least negligent and more probably guilty of gross misconduct. And unfortunately for you, Mantamoreland, convicting them of a "smear campaign" isn't going to protect you. According to them, you are a party in the very same conflict, in real life. If they are involved, then the affair becomes more sordid. It's extremely tempting to assume that everyone is lying, and everyone is telling the truth.

The thing is that this proposal is part of constructing a narrative about how the Forces of Good are trying to keep out the Evil Influences of the Unspeakable Sites from harming innocent Wikipedians. Of course, if those Wikipedians aren't so innocent, then this narrative doesn't work so well, and if the Forces of Good are those same non-innocent Wikipedians, it especially doesn't work well. So in context, this can be read as an attempt to WP:OWN the talk pages to make sure that the FoG version of the narrative is the one that is represented there. And that's not assuming good faith, of course, but the rest of thw world wouldn't under the circumstances, and I think we do need to care how they read it. The posturing about investigations is just nonsense, and I don't agree that everyone's actions have to be "for" something. If malfeasance is going on in Wikipedia, those who care about it at all, positively or negatively, have an obligation to point it out. And those who are "for" Wikipedia have an obligation to try to get it fixed, to the best of their abilities. Any site examining Wikipedia can come upon situations where "attacking" the behavior of editors and giving them rest-of-the-world names is going to be necessary. This proposal is specifically designed to censor such sites, no matter how good they are. Therefore the consequence of this proposal is to suppress reference to any seriously critical site. Do we want Wikipedia to adopt a policy that begs to be interpreted as an admission that we can't take the heat? Mangoe 16:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Mangoe, I don't need protection from "them." There is no "them," there is a "him," a PR guy who makes a career out of lying. He begins with an assumption and builds his "case" around it no matter how many denials stand in his way, and plays to the sympathies of the anti-Wikipedia crowd. He just yesterday had to retract a lie he published about someone else, a "case" that he had built up over months. He devotes his energies nowadays stalking people on message boards who criticize his boss. If you lap up his kool aid that is your misfortune. People who act out on Wikipedia by naively swallowing his fairy tales are the ones needing "protection."--Mantanmoreland 17:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You say "According to them, you are a party in the very same conflict". That is news to me... Could you be kind enough to email me a link in which they implicate me? I am curious to know on which basis they made me a party. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think he meant me. What you see here is an example of the poison that has afflicted this discussion, and why I am really tired of having AGF thrown in my face by people peddling the same crap that we see posted on these attack sites. Again and again in the discussion on this and other pages, we have seen editors, some of whom are contributors to these attack sites, justifying linking to sites attacking their fellow Wikipedians. Some even repeat, directly or as "hypotheticals," the filth that is on these sites. The fact that one of these sites is a coporate astroturfing site just makes the whole thing even more vile. No, it is very difficult to assume good faith in light of such behavior.--Mantanmoreland 17:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, when I said earlier that I was "directing this at Mangoe's latest post," I was assuming good faith and that he was not repeating assertions on an attack site. When he converted his hypothetical into a personal attack on myself [23], that assumption no longer applied.--Mantanmoreland 17:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute. You make allegations against some site, and it is neither relevant nor fair to report that they make allegations against you? We're right back at the original problem: you protest too much! I mean, I can't tell who is telling the truth here, but I can observe a pattern of you and the other proponents consistently avoiding admission that you are the chief beneficiaries of this "protection". And you've completely dodged the point: that whatever animus is justified against the actual sites we are discussing now, a site from someone who isn't tainted and who has found a situation in Wikipedia where rest-of-the-world identities matter would be routinely blocked under this proposal. The last thing Wikipedia needs is a policy that looks like "we don't accept criticism."

I understand that you find these people to be a nuisance, and I think that your annoyance against a lot of them is justified. But the apparent desire to block their genuinely offensive posts (and their offensiveness is overstated for the uncensored Wikipedia) has to be balanced against a willingness to take legitimate criticism and even "attacks". It just isn't true that everything at the Unspeakable Site is dreck, though the good stuff isn't as good as I would have it. Mangoe 18:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Last time...there is a distinct difference between websites that provide a critical analysis and those that promote the efforts to invade the privacy of Wikipedians by posting personal information on them. No, no one here has to put up with attacks of any nature. This policy proposal needs to make an unambiguous statement that linking to websites that promote "outing" the real life identities of individual Wikipedia editors is unacceptable.--MONGO 19:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Mangoe is suggesting that certain types of critical analysis - namely revealing conflicts of interest - actually require identifying real-world identities, in order to establish the conflict of interest. I still don't see where the lack of "unambiguous statement" is doing any actual harm. We do very well without rules here to cover every situation - we can move easily that way. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You're proving my point again by misrepresenting my position and the character of these sites and this proposal. I am a "proponent" only of the existing policy that we have concerning attack sites. This essay adds nothing. While I thought at first that it was benign, the dissembling of people such as yourself have led me to believe otherwise.

You and others keep raising the theoretical, phony strawman of how this "new" policy (which isn't new at all), would "censor" sites from people who aren't "tainted and who has found a situation in Wikipedia where rest-of-the-world identities matter would be routinely blocked under this proposal."

That only exists in la-la land. In the real world, all of the attack sites are run by people who have an axe to grind against Wikipedia. The corporate smear site that you have been promoting by innuendo and personal attacks on me is an outstanding example not of someone seeking to "expose" conflict of interest but rather the application of conflict of interest. This PR guy edited articles on his boss. The Unspeakable Site has no problem with that because he was banned from Wikipedia and that makes him a homeboy.

And while we are on the subject of conflicts of interest, why is it you do not disclose that you yourself are a contributor to one of these sites?--Mantanmoreland 19:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It is true that I am a member of and have made posts on Wikipedia Review. However, I was not a member there until this proposal brought it to my attention, and if you go there you can see (which is how you know, I imagine) my Wikipedia identity. And I have hardly outed anyone. Some of my posts are discussions of this, and some are attempts to engage them on only very peripherally related subjects. DTobias is also a member there (as he readily admits), largely as a critic of their efforts. They allege that you are a member there as well and have made posts, not that I can tell.

At any rate, this has fallen back into an attack upon the particulars of one site. I don't think that is legitimate as long as citations are banned, because it means that neither your allegations nor theirs can be substantiated. Strictly speaking even the fact that they have a grievance with you cannot be substantiated, though it is trivial to uncover this. At any rate, however, your "la-la land" comment, besides being in essence a personal attack, is once again a dodge of the point. I see nothing whatsoever that is protecting Wikipedia from being involved in another case of the same type where the sins of editors are real and the external site is untainted. When that happens (and I believe it will happen), that external site will get called an "attack site", and strenuous efforts will be made to keep anything from it from appearing in Wikipedia, though it will be entirely germane. I think that avoiding that situation is far more important than the protection you would be afforded by this policy, especially since in practice it isn't amounting to much at all.

As far as privacy is concerned, MONGO, this is one of the places where we have a substantial difference of opinion. I agree 100% that Wikipedia itself has an expectation of not violating your privacy by revealing your identity. But you have no reasonable expectation of any such privacy from the outside. Everything you do and write in Wikipedia is utterly public, and by editing and writing here you are risking whatever consequences may result from the exposure of your identity, whether you accept that or not.

As far as revelation of irrelevant personal data is concerned, nobody is arguing against you, and we all agree that existing policy-- not Arbcom-- gives sufficient justification to remove specific links to specific offensive revelations of that character. Administrators routinely unmask editors in certain situations of misconduct (e.g. sockpuppetry), so it seems that in practice at least some of the time one can lose one's privacy over abuses of anonymity.

The sticking point is in the overgeneralization. While there is a lot of bad behavior there, the fact remains that someone here did link to the site for another purpose. (And it wasn't me.) Your privacy isn't invaded just because someone links to a site that has untoward revelations about you on it, never mind revelations that are germane to your editing. And I looked at every link that DennyColt erased, and for the most part they were simply not the kind of offensiveness that is implied here. Perhaps the only exception was in an talk page which SlimVirgin edited to her advantage after re-erasing the reference. Mangoe 20:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I would not be surprised if they say that I am a member there. I would not be surprised if they said I ran the damn place, for Pete's sake, or was the uncrowned king of Egypt. That's why I object to your constantly using this discussion page to push the swill that is on attack sites. Your doing so repeatedly is pure WP:POINT, and is yet another example of why these attack sites should not be linked. The presence of snippets of non-kool-aid content is irrelevant. Even if Plato's dialogs were printed on those sites, their primary purpose and content is to demonize Wikipedia editors that the regular users do not like.--Mantanmoreland 20:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be a contest between "making a point" and "making attacks". I'm not the one who is saying "these places are nasty, these places are rude, these places are dangerous, these places have an agenda, there's nothing there of any value....". It is you and the other people whom the Unspeakable Site "attacks" who say all these things. Your chief argument against them-- and a necessary argument-- is one long attack upon their character. They absolutely are not without sin, and a lot of them got what they deserved when they were banned. And yet it is overstated.

At any rate, I am not trying to make a point by opposing this. I am opposing it because it sets us up for an embarassing situation under conditions which on the surface are pretty similar to the current case. Everyone (including myself) seems to agree that if we changed "attack site" to "attack pages", there would be no problem with this proposal. But there seems to be a consensus that "attack pages" are already covered by other policies. We don't seem to be getting anywhere on the issue of why it is necessary to expand this to cover whole sites. Perhaps if we concentrated on that single point and ceased the discussion of the unspeakable site entirely, we might be able to definitively determine a consensus-- or not. Mangoe 21:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Fred Bauder's most recent statement was to the effect that not only ED, but WR as well, should considered attacks sites and we shouldn't link to them. In all but the most rarest of circumstances (which I can't even imagine), websites of this nature don't need to be linked to from here...anything that might be needed by arbcom could be emailed to them.--MONGO 21:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Fred Bauder's most recent statement was, "Links to aggressive attacks on Wikipedia users may be removed. No one needs permission, no one needs to spend time making a policy about it, or arguing about it."

I'm not getting the argument that our current way of dealing with such things is in any way deficient. Whether or not this page is promoted, MONGO, you and I will continue to remove harassing material, and we'll continue to be backed by policy. Since when do such things have to be specified to the letter? When has the lack of a specific rule ever hurt anyone? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Mangoe, I am not suggesting you are making a WP:POINT "point" by opposing this policy or essay. There are good reasons to not like promoting this essay, not the least of which is that it is not necessary. Perhaps desirable, but it is duplicative of current practices. What I am saying is that you are running up against WP:POINT, or worse, by making snide "hypothetical" insinuations that parrot what these attack sites say. You also make annoying "apocalyptic" comments indicating that the world will collapse if Wiki omits links to these sites.

I would gently suggest that if you want to avoid causing offense to other editors, particularly those of us who are not participants in these sites as you are but victims, that you avoid repeating their slime in your arguments on this policy. You sometimes give the impression that you are here to defend them and to push their poppycock. You are not helping your cause in the least, believe me, if indeed your intent is to simply oppose promotion of this policy. So my advice is that you knock it off.--Mantanmoreland 23:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I get the impression, Mantanmoreland, that the argument Mangoe is making - that this policy could lead to a big public embarassment for Wikipedia - has everything to do with the specifics of the allegat..., er... slime. It makes it difficult for him to avoid bringing it up, or to come close to assuming good faith.

Mangoe: if the situation you're describing were to actually happen, it sounds like it would be good for Wikipedia in the long run. I suggest you let it happen. Let things come out in the wash. If there really is all this corruption going on, it's better to have it rooted out, and if this policy hastens that, good for it. Maybe I'll support its promotion after all... nah. Fred Bauder was right, we don't need a new rule, and somebody has to stand against well-intentioned policy creep. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course. The argument that Mangoe is making assumes bad faith on my part, and bad faith on the part of other editors and administrators (to the extent that we are not sockpuppets of each other, according to the PR man who is peddling this slime and who has five dozen sockpuppets on Wikipedia). Recently an editor who hasn't been on Wiki in some months, and who was alleged by this PR man/attack site owner/sockpuppet to be a "sockpuppet" of myself, started editing Wikipedia after a year. I have emailed this editor (sorry, myself) for him to come here and introduce himself, so that the PR man who is dictating much of the discourse here could get to work on him off-site. Then Mangoe could latch on to that and assume bad faith of all concerned.

The conspiracy is definitely getting bigger, and I agree with you that Wikipedia will collapse upon itself eventually through the weight of all this corruption. I cannot tell you the extent of this corruption. Since this dialogue is to a large extent being dictated by a PR man for an Internet company, the extent of the conspiracy will have to await further press releases and blog postings.--Mantanmoreland 04:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this is all about. Nevertheless, I'm pleased to introduce myself. I've been away from WP for about a year. Within about the first hour of my return, I found myself being reverted on my own user talk page and then slandered on others. And now that it has been a couple days since I'm back, I find out that I'm another's sock puppet. Maybe it's time to take another year off.Doright 05:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure either, and what with all the accusations of sockpuppetry and the like I'm not sure that anyone other than God in heaven could figure this out. The rest of us cannot see enough of this at once. My personal reaction, when I see a knotty message of counter-accusations like this, is to assume that everyone is guilty, and move on. It's a completely cynical reaction, of course. But here we are, and Mantmoreland is accusing me of bad faith in repeating these accusations (which is inaccurate) and at the same time repeating accusations himself. I really don't see how I can point out the apparent conflicts of interest here without insinuatingimplying that the Unspeakable Site is making accusations against him and others involved in this.

I'm implied to go along with GTBacchus at this point, and throw up my hands. There are on'y so many different ways I can come at the problem here, and it's obvious that this has pretty much been argued out. Mangoe 13:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Mangoe, you seem to be replying to my one and only post to this page. Yet, I have no idea what you are talking about. Nor do I have any idea why you wrote: "you're accusing me of bad faith." Are you saying that it is me that is accusing you? If so, I find that very strange since I'm quite sure I've never read anything that you wrote, nor have I ever talked to you or about you.Doright 19:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

My apologies: I switched who "you" was in midparagraph. I've corrected the problem spots. Mangoe 20:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Details of the proposal

Trying to keep this it SETR (short enough to read).

Having spent the last day "off", I finally had the chance to catch up on several of the sites in question. I'm confident I won't have to go into details, but since I myself went on the barricades against censorship and whatnot, I'm now correcting and clarifying my position on several points.

This has to do with Fred Bauder's update regarding WR, which leaves nothing to quarrel about. But there's a lot more to it. I'm afraid that while I assumed I was arguing for freedom of speech, I actually argued advertisement of some seriously dangerous material, far beyond questionable taste.

As said, I suppose I won't need to go into details for the attendant crowd. But just in case: Everyone should be aware that information exchanged on these sites has been used for real life harassment, not to mention threats, libel, and mean slander (some of it aimed at a deceased individual).

I'm actually glad I had the chance to catch up on what we should be talking about on this talk page. But several things happening here make me doubt that we're on the right track. The appalling things I now know about are only part of a greater misunderstanding:

The people maintaining those sites (and WR is one of those) not only appear to be mean, but also hive-minded. It's actually a small group who follows and criticises each and every step of their chosen targets. And even though not all people posting there are evil, what finally matters is Wikipedia, not them or their opinions or interests. This includes not only the safety of our editors, but also some essential agreements.

We should not talk "justice" here, and not speculate about hypothetical situations. The issue at hand is enough, we shouldn't be complicating matters beyond feasibility by mixing it with other, unconnected issues. Especially not when those issues are nothing but a live feed from WR.

I'm not even talking about AGF, CIVIL or NPA. Let's face it: We're not discussing editing details of this proposal. We're actually abusing this talk page.

I don't know why you switched on your computer today. I did it to edit Wikipedia, not to lobby for some cowards sitting around the regulars' table.

—AldeBaer 00:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

AldeBaer, I think I agree with most of what you just said. Does that mean that we're both... opposing this page's promotion? Or am I confused? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont think any of us argue that anyone other than SlimVirgin has the right to link to a WR page that attacks her, and especially not in order to attack her. The problem is that there are many pages on WR that arent attack pages and may be useful to link to, as on the Jimbo Wales user talk page updating him on the HM situation with a link to a page that attacks nobody, SqueakBox 01:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo's email is on, so any links can be emailed to him.--MONGO 07:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You know, even if this is promoted, obvious exceptions, like communications involving Jimbo that he's clearly ok with, will be allowed in the usual manner. Just like, even if this isn't promoted, harassment will still be deleted on sight, just like it always has been. The question isn't whether either worst-case scenario will happen; we're flexible enough that it won't. The question... only has meaning because people don't understand that these tags are just tags. Personally, I think adding a guideline or policy tag would empower those who wish to harass Wikipedians in a small way, probably unnoticeable, and that's about it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd think that allowing such links on a page discussing an attack site policy was also an "obvious exception". A lot of people seem to agree that this is an obvious exception. Such links have been removed anyway. Obvious exceptions don't seem to be allowed even now. We're *not* that flexible; what has actually happened doesn't match up with what you're saying. Ken Arromdee 13:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Has that link been removed from Jimbo's talk page? Are you referring to the recent deletion of links by Denny that were justified by this essay? Perhaps I'm not familiar enough with the examples to say, but I was getting the impression that, until this essay came along, the usual practice was to apply common sense, removing attacks immediately, and leaving links that are clearly not attacks and are being used for something meaningful. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the link has been removed from Jimbo's talk page, but anything related to Jimbo causes editors and admins to act as if they're walking on eggshells. Nobody would dare take out a link that was put in for Jimbo's sake; it's a special case with little bearing on how people behave elsewhere. And yes, I was referring to Denny's deletion--and SlimVirgin's block threat. We manifestly have not been allowing obvious exceptions, since "on a talk page about a policy related to such links" is about the most obvious exception I can imagine.

Yeah, we've been more sensible about it before the proposal, but I don't believe that "even if this is promoted, obvious exceptions... will be allowed in the usual manner". The mere existence of the proposal has already kept obvious exceptions from being allowed. Ken Arromdee 04:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

My observation, and the reason for my strong opposition to this proposal, is that various would-be Judge Dredds have, at times, showed a complete lack of common-sense discretion and felt compelled to be utterly draconian in suppressing links to disfavored sites regardless of context; this very talk page has been the victim of this. *Dan T.* 23:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, that seems to be where almost all of the opposition is coming from. Let's go to the history: the "essay" was promulgated, and immediately thereafter 22 articles were modified with this proposal as justification. All this was done by one user. And we've been back and forth over this, and have established that if this were applied on a page instead of site basis, nobody would have a problem with it. But whenever push has come to shove, the intent has been to interpret this absolutely strictly. Just about the only "flexibility" I've seen is that nobody has seen fit to go back and re-break the link that brought this to my attention in the first place. But attempts to make a similar link in the course of this discussion have been met with erasures and in one case a wholesale reversion of a reply. Mangoe 02:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The newbie user who IMO mistakenly and zealously tried to promote this has now left. IMO said user is indirectly respopnsible for the whole DB unblocking situation too. I am not convinced there is now any energy to promote this proposal into policy, SqueakBox 02:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can't see myself linking to the Unspeakable Site myself, and I'd be hard pressed to suggest that there is much there that is linkable. I too have backed away from this page for a bit to re-evaluate my position. And after doing so, I still believe that this proposal in and of itself is severely flawed. For example:

• It does not address whether or not the same policy applies to users who edit under their own names or who provide personal details in their edits or on their user page.
  • In particular, there are many notable Wikipedians here, and some regularly used news sources have been very derogatory about some of them. The way this proposal is written, any links to those news sources would be considered an attack site. If Conrad Black edited here, we'd have to put every major newspaper in the English-speaking world on the spam list.
• The definition of an attack site is so broad that many regularly linked-to sites fall into the definition. In one case I found more than 1000 links to a site that fits the current criteria.
• At one point, the terminology changed from "attack site" to "hate site." Even at its worst, the Unspeakable Site is just a gossip page. Nasty gossip, yes...but it doesn't advocate causing actual physical harm to any group or person because they are Wikipedians or Admins or anything else. Unfortunately, most definitions of the terms "attack site" and "hate site" are pretty well interchangeable, even though I bet most of us would come to the same conclusions in classifying a random list of 20 of these links.
• Defamation has to come out of the definition because it is a specific legal term that requires the hypothetically defamed party to sue the alleged defamer - and win. (Slander, by the way, is spoken and does not include anything that can be found on the internet. That's libel.)
• There is no clarity on where links to sites that meet the current definition are "forbidden." Can they be used in articles? Article talk? Other project areas?
• Who gets to decide whether or not a site is an attack site? I can see some unsuspecting user linking to one of the less obvious sites that meet this description in a perfectly innocent way, and getting themselves permablocked because they ran across the wrong person. (And heaven forbid we create a list!)

At the end of the day, I believe there are sufficient protections already in the existing policies to manage harassment or abuse of any editor while here on Wikipedia. If I was having a debate with someone named on WR and linked to a thread containing derogatory statements about that editor, I would be harassing them and would deserve to be warned and have that link removed; if I kept doing it, I would deserve to get blocked. On the other hand, I have included a link to another site that meets this description in at least one article I have edited - and I discussed it with another editor on his talk page before proposing it on the talk page of the article, just to get a feel of whether or not it was going to be helpful. The link was widely considered relevant to the article, and I would be very disturbed if I had been blocked simply for doing normal, day-to-day review of reference sources that, unbeknownst to me, happen to have a page somewhere that takes some Wikipedian's name in vain. This is about proportional response. To be honest, some of these sites have undoubtedly received more visits in the past week or so than they have in the previous six months - strictly because of this page. The less attention paid to them, and the more proscribed our reactions to them, the healthier Wikipedia will be. --Risker 01:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to yesterday re HM but decided not to and then another HM subject who hadnt seen the latest at WR got the wrong end of the stick and so an admin did link to the page but really it would have been better for me to have done so, SqueakBox 02:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be obvious that if you start posting links to Brandts hivemind they would be reverted on sight.--MONGO 07:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope this was a link to WR as what I was telling Jimbo is that the HM site has been pulled. This HM page that included private info on folk like me was linked to on Daniel Brandt till I removed it as a 404 but there are certainly still other links to WW there and, as I say, the HM site was itself linked to before and nobody had removed it while live. The WR link introduced by another editor to help clarify the HM situation has not been removed from Jimbo's talk page, not by him (he has edited his talk page since) or anyone else, SqueakBox 16:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I used to have a link to the Hivemind page on my user page, in a list of places that have made baseless personal attacks on me, along with Jeff Merkey's page. However, I took down the Brandt link when he started redirecting all accesses with a Wikipedia referer, and took down the Merkey link when that site underwent one of his frequent complete changes of content and no longer had the attack on me. I never bothered to re-link the Hivemind page after the redirect was removed, and now that it's 404 Not Found it's a moot point anyway. The original link, however, was part of my general philosophy to deal with personal attacks, not by trying to bury or suppress them, but by pointing at them in broad daylight and laughing heartily. *Dan T.* 16:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Risker makes most of the points I would like to make. I think existing policy is pretty clear on what ought to be linked and what ought not to be linked, and that this proposed policy and the attendant discussion seems to have become a very effective source of free advertising for some of the sites in question. I would also note that any website allowing user-generated content either is or has the potential to become an "attack site" under this definition, as there aren't any laws I'm aware of that prevent attempts to divine the real-world identity of a particular user (in fact, we at Wikipedia do it all the time in COI and sockpuppet investigations). As I've mentioned elsewhere in this discussion, Free Republic is a good example of a site with a very active message board that contains multiple instances of clear (and, in some cases, quite nasty) attacks against Wikipedians, although it's certainly far from the primary focus of the discussions there. Hence, this proposal appears over-broad to me, and I don't see any obvious way to fix that without making it clear which site(s) are the specific targets of the proposal (which seems counterproductive, for what I think are relatively obvious reasons).

As with Risker, I have never linked to the site which seems to be the primary topic of this discussion, and see no reason why I would be interested in doing so in the future, but I do note instances in which people have done so in what seems to me to be an appropriate manner (primarily, as evidence of off-wiki conduct relevant to various proceedings and investigations).

I would also concur with others above that this discussion has taken an odd and unfortunate turn recently. There's no need to bring conspiracy theories and accusations of conflict of interest into the conversation, and I would ask Mangoe especially to reevaluate the appropriateness of some of his statements and arguments. JavaTenor 18:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this proposal adds nothing, and is a reiteration of existing policy. I agree that, had it not been proposed, it would not be affect administrator actions against attack sites. However, we have come this far, perhaps unnecessarily, so the question is: can something of value be salvaged from this essay? --Mantanmoreland 18:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe it can still serve as a good disambig / go-to point. After all, it combines what policy and the ArbCom say on the matter. It's definitely more than an essay, yet less than a new policy. Couldn't it be a permanent "disambig" page of sorts that concentrates certain aspects of existing policy with regard to attack sites? —AldeBaer 21:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That is one possibility. I am not clear why this essay was written in the first place. The author has not participated in this discussion recently, so I cannot ask him. In fact I emailed him a few days ago and received no response. Was the essay to be an end in itself, or was the idea for this to be a Wikipedia policy? There are many essays on Wikipedia that are not official policy and I think this one is reasonable enough just as that.--Mantanmoreland 23:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I would argue for this page to be a guideline to start with. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

An example

[24] Should this diff be removed? This person is posting material imported from an attack site, which is clearly in violation of this proposal as written. Common sense says no, but this proposal says yes. Frise 00:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The material has also been posted to the wikien-l list, so it could be sourced from there without need to reference a so-called "bad site". *Dan T.* 01:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

He could easily email Jimbo to reblock him...so that link from WR still doesn't substantiate why we need to link to WR. We don't and I have yet to see any decent examples of why other avenues of communication, such as email, aren't effective.--MONGO 04:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point. That diff contains material that was reposted from WR. Should it be removed? Frise 05:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The quoted content itself could be taken as a referential "link" to WR, just not a hot one. But I don't believe WR content is published under a GFDL license, so their material may only be legally reproducible with appropriate permissions. —ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 05:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about any sort of referential link. This proposal states "Links to, promotion of, or material imported from any attack site should be removed." That is material imported from WR. Does anyone here think that it should be removed? Frise 05:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

But when you think about it, the questionable legal grounds for reproducing off-site content here becomes another pragmatic basis for the abolition of this proposal. If we can't legally replicate certain copy-protected content here, the only way we could discuss it in a public, communal context in user-space would be to link to it.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 05:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone honestly think that this idea could gain consensus?

I think this is really the underlying question here. .V. _[Talk|Email] 04:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Depends on how many ED and WR partisans try to get it deleted. The loudest of those in opposition are regular contributors to the very sites I and a number of others here which to ensure aren't linked to. It can remain as a Wikipedia page, as there are a number of pages like that. WP:SNOW is one example.--MONGO 04:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy and Wikipedia:Youth protection are others. In view of which, WP:SNOW well applies to the likelihood of this proposal gaining consensus. —ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 05:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, this is the kind of claim that is helping to keep the string of RfC/RfA actions against you going. As far as I can tell, the only opponents to this proposal who are/were at all active there are me and Dtobias. His first post was back in February, and if anyone looks at it instead of accepting your vague allegations, they can see that he joined specifically to engage them as an opponent; his first post was in a thread titled "Dtobias belongs in a free-fire zone". I showed up there on 9 April with a post in a thread titled "Portals and WikiProjects", two days after my first objection to this proposal. Meanwhile, a whole range of proponents for the proposal (or for doing what it is being used to justify, whether or not the proposal passes) are people such as yourself who are among the people they "attack".

All of this can only be substantiated (he says in a weary tone) by links to specific threads, some of which are pretty rude. I'm not going to do so, since it seems to be permissible to make fairly vague insinuations about my/Dtobias participation there without proof. Sauce for the goose and all that.

At any rate, the opposition goes well beyond the two of us. I haven't seen any indication that the other opponents are changing their minds. Mangoe 12:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed your posts at WR, and your comments on the Rfc...surely, with the incivility you have displayed at times on this discussion page, an Rfc on your commentary and accusations is probably in order as well, Mangoe. I'll see what I can arrange, and it won't have to involve any links from any off wiki website. You've been warned and asked to cease underminning the integrity of those who have opposed you here on this proposal multiple times, and have been asked to stop violating WP:POINT by adding links from these sites while we have been in discussion to not add them. I haven't seen any indication that those in favor of this page are changing their minds either, they just seem to be less vocal than you about it.--MONGO 13:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, as I explained above, I changed my mind and am now actually for the preservation of this page as whatever can gain consensus (be it policy, disambig or essay), but disregarding the dispute opposition by calling them "partisans" is not helpful by any means. —AldeBaer 12:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

And deleting links used as examples of why banning them is a bad idea, during discussion of same, isn't a WP:POINT violation? And insinuating about opponents being participants on "bad sites" and how this makes their ideas worthless isn't "untermining the integrity of those who have opposed you"? Mangoe is dead-on about "sauce for the gander". People on both sides seem pretty vocal about it. *Dan T.* 13:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't deleted any links...have no plans of doing so. If this were promoted to poicy, I have no intention of seeking out links and deleting them, just support the proposal for future actions.--MONGO 13:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

For the safety and well-being of the Wikipedia community, attack sites should neither be linked to nor promoted. - I think most of the community supports that. Certainly it is a kernel around which consensus can form, subject to details of implementation. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This entire discussion has been about the ramifications of that. Can they be linked to arbcoms, or the myriad of other places they could be linked in good faith. can a linked essay linked to a user page be considered an attack, etc. I've been watching this discussion, as many people are, and really it is a few editors going in circles. I think there was talk of people recusing themselves from the conversation earlier, that really sounds like a good idea. It needs fresh eyes to establish: a) if anyone really cares and b) if the ramifications and unintended consequences are something people want. The longer it goes on, the less I care really. That may be the intention of this. El hombre de haha 14:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

If the major contributors to this page did recuse I doubt if there would be sufficient momentum to take this guideline/essay/whatever much further. In so far that there appears to be a tentative consensus forming around having it as an essay, I think that the previous participants should be encouraged to talk it through and come up with something that they can both agree on. Taking both parties out of the equation is unlikely, if it got that far, to provide a document either will agree on and any one participant recusing themself unilaterally is going to unbalance the input.

I really don't want to wade through a page like this again. I know where I stand on the matter, but I am not going to be so foolish as to say what it is. The amount of passion and energy expended here should have meant that there should have been a decision to adopt or delete, but that is evidently not going to happen. I just want the people here to, if they cannot come to consensus, arrive at some compromise. LessHeard vanU 21:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, my Wikipedia username has never appeared on the pages of any attack site, including WR. (Frankly, I am too minor to be noticed, and have already declared that I have no intention of becoming an admin, so I'm of no interest to them.) I am, however, a senior member of a site that meets the definition of an attack site - the main subject of the site edits here under another name, and has definitely been the subject of some pretty slimy gossip there. Interestingly, he also owns the site but is secure enough in his sense of self not to take it seriously. And yes, there are links to this site on Wikipedia. That is what originally brought me to this debate - the unplanned side effects of this proposal. I certainly hope this proposal could never gain consensus here. Risker 23:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Partisans

If everybody who has ever either participated in one of the so-called "attack sites", or been personally attacked by the people on one of them (I'm in both of these categories myself) were to recuse themselves from this discussion, I suspect this page would become much quieter, but probably much more civil as well. I have no idea what consensus whoever remained would arrive at. Anyway, I've been trying to stay out of this page for the last couple of days in order to avoid diverting my efforts to pointless fighting instead of less-controversial parts of this site where I can actually be helpful (such as in finishing up the task of adding infoboxes to country code top level domain articles), and will try to continue to do so (although it's hard to keep resisting my inclination to put in my two cents (U.S.; two euro-cents would be more valuable these days) here. *Dan T.* 14:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, nothing posted about MONGO on WR is a big deal to me. Seriously. I cannot be attacked via my username, and no one has made any overt effort to either identify my real identity, threaten to sue me or do anything else that really constitutes harassment. Some of the comments there have actully been spot on about me. Things posted on MONGO at ED are, well simply stupid, childish nonsense...but they at least claim to be a parody website. On the other hand, things that have been either originally posted on WR or have been mirrored there from another site, have definitely been harassment of others, identify (or attempt to) the real life identities of Wikipedians and other forms of outrageous incivilities. There is no reason to link to these kinds of websites.--MONGO 14:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I found the attacks on "Mr Squeaky" at WR hilarious, and while mildly insulting nothing about me there was a big deal to me either. On the other hand I objected strongly to the inclusion of my name (which I have never openly stated while being SqueakBox) and my city location on the WW HM page. WR is a forum which it is relatively easy for nearly anyone (with a non-free email address) to edit whereas WW is a site controlled by a webmaster. But I understand the dislike of the site by those whom WR has tried to out etc. The best idea I have seen here is to limit attack site to attack page and specifically those pages that try to out wikipedians or gravely insult them (eg you are a cxxt is unacceptable, you are a nut-job (as I am called) much less unacceptable), SqueakBox 18:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

May I suggest the following as a consensus? - This proposal be reverted to "Essay" rather than remain forever a proposal; and for the wikipedia community to continue doing what it has always done with regard to attack sites (which I choose to characterize as evaluating edits on a case by case basis that results in almost all such links in being deleted). WAS 4.250 15:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that at this time. That is much preferable to having this deleted. Can we wait at least half a day to see what thoughts others might have?--MONGO 15:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Going back to essay status is easy. I would argue that it does not harm to have this as aproposal for a few more days, to elicit further comments from others. A message at the WP:VPP could be useful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Message posted at WP:VPP ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

If it gets reverted to an essay, it is going to have to be rewritten as such. Part of the initial flap, remember, was that it was claimed to be an essay but was being used as a guideline. Mangoe 17:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I would concur with that. Particularly I am interested in the, seriously neglected, copyright angle into all of this. Now, under the WR forum thread titled "Wikipedia's being mean to us!" the first post by Somey explicitly and in bold print says

(removed WP:COPYRIGHT#Linking_to_copyrighted_works violation)

So, if anyone wants to, I would enthusiastically support the removal of any quoted material from WR anywhere on WP. That, along with removal of links, should pretty much keep us innocents on WP "safe" from whatever they are saying or doing over there. —ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 19:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I support it being made into an essay again, SqueakBox 20:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what is the situation of essays where the original author has elected to use the right to vanish? DennyColt has not edited for over a week, and I somehow doubt we will see him reappear. I agree that for this to remain even as an essay, it needs to be rewritten; however, I have a hard time figuring out who would be willing to do so. I do not support reflexively removing links to WR. There should be a clear reason for removing links, and any discussion of them (otherwise removing them is pointless), particularly in the project space. Users can delete anything on their own pages themselves. Risker 23:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fine for those interested to edit the essay, especially since it's in project space and not in DennyColt's userspace (not that it would be difficult to move, if it were there). I think there are people here representing both sides of the dispute, who can yet all be characterized as "Wikipedia partisans". Why don't we toss out some ideas about what major edits need to be made? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed Denny had the right to put it in his user space, and was made aware of this. He wanted it in the wikipedia space and therefore can claim no rights over it if he does return at some point in the future, SqueakBox 02:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Barrett v. Rosenthal

I've been doing some research, and it seems to me that the spirit and the letter of this "project page," as a "proposed policy," concerning libel, is inconsistent with the California Supreme Court decision in Barrett v. Rosenthal. For a brief analysis, check out the commentary on The Volokh Conspiracy, a popular hate/attack site among the legal-minded [25]. Also, per existing WP:COPYRIGHT, I am seriously considering scouring WP of any material quoted from WR, and telling complainers that a link to the material would allow us to comment on it without reproducing it, whatever the status of this page. I will leave it up to them whether they want to follow through on that, and may alert Crum375 or MONGO if they do, but I am of the firm belief that all our pages should be consistent with policy, and that policy here should be consistent with existing law.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 18:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The opening statement at The Volokh Conspiracy is

The California Supreme Court just held, in Barrett v. Rosenthal, that Internet users who post (to Web sites or discussion groups) material created by others are immune from liability.

for those who do not wish to go to the link.

I would comment that while websites may post such material without liability, there is no duty to do so. Websites, as I understand matters, may impose their own standards or policies, within the law(s). What we are discussing here is whether we should create such a policy or guideline for Wikipedia. LessHeard vanU 21:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. The fact that the law does not prohibit something does not necessarily mean that we shouldn't. We can't be less strict than the law, of course, but we can be more. -Amarkov moo! 22:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, it means that libel (from some original source) reprinted elsewhere (such as here) is not legally actionable. It is true that we could prohibit against reprinting libel (through policy) ourselves, but there is no legal basis for doing so, at least in law I am aware of. (I am interested in learning about any legal precedent for this in other countries.) —ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 22:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't recall anybody in this debate actually claiming that the law required any particular policy on this issue; the debate was in terms of what we ought to be doing, for the good of the encyclopedia and its editors, not in terms of being required to enact (or not enact) a policy due to legislation or litigation. *Dan T.* 01:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right, I may have overstated what is at most only a personal preference/opinion of mine. But still, food for thought: If WP:Policy does not have to reflect existing law, I'd rather have it at least considered/developed/executed in context of existing law/legal precedent. —ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 01:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What we could do......

per GTB above - i've been thinking about what this policy page could usefully say.....

I think the page in a nutshell bit makes good sense - it's only as I read through the page that i find myself thinking 'but who decides that?' or 'jeez, that could be abused badly', and ultimately 'a badly constructed policy has been built on a seed of a decent idea, and i can't see how this poor construct would ever do anything but harm to the wiki'...

how about we just cull everything after the page in a nutshell? - i think that idea could immediately gain consensus, and we keep the baby when we throw out the filthy water.... thoughts? - Purples 02:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Then someone gets to use their own definition of what an attack site is. Of course, as just an essay, it may not be so bad; however, I have often seen people use essays as their defense to delete something (even block people on occasion), particularly new editors who haven't figured out that essays are just opinion pieces. Frankly, I don't think there is anything to salvage here. The language is so inflammatory and addresses a problem that already has solutions within Wikipedia. I'd flag it for deletion except that I don't think it would be healthy to have this debate continue to rage on at this time. Risker 04:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fine too leave it with the rejected tag on it, sends a pretty clear message. — MichaelLinnear 06:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is fine.--MONGO 06:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. — MichaelLinnear 06:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I take your points, Risker - though how would feel about this;

purples' proposed alternative for the page

This can be a controversial guideline, because individual's definition of attack sites will vary, and the ultimate decision will always be subjective. It is probably best to only refer to this guideline in cases where you are not only certain that a site is an attack site, but also certain that no reasonable editor would consider otherwise.

Any links or references to an attack site can be removed at will, in the same way as vandalism.

Add current 'see also' info + precedents etc.

-- keeps it simple, no? - Purples 07:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I like it. I'd add a little something like... if people disagree with this justification, and restore a link that you removed as being from an attack site, then the question should be brought to AN/I (or another more appropriate location?) for a swift decision as to whether the link in question does in fact need to be removed. This isn't the sort of issue we want to waste time with by letting people edit war when some informed input can take care of things quickly. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, this is still a "guideline disguised as essay" version. If it is going to be an essay, it needs to be purged of any hint of authorizing people to take action. That, after all, is what got it changed to a proposal in the first place. Mangoe 10:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Essays can still quote existing policy, or existing ArbCom rulings, and can make recommendations on actions based on such policy and/or rulings. ElinorD (talk) 10:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

GTBacchus, I think you've forgotten something really, really important. The whole problem that Denny (as far as I can tell, though it's just a guess) was trying to solve was that of people's private details being posted. I've seen various examples of someone coming along and posting that a certain editor's real name, or address, or phone number is XXXXXXXXXXXX. A well-meaning editor in good faith reverts, doesn't know about WP:RFO where you have the possibility of sending a single email that goes to all the admins who have oversight, and goes to AN/I, and posts the diff, saying that it will have to be oversighted. The personal information might be gone within fifteen minutes, but in the meantime, everyone who was looking at AN/I has had an opportunity to find out the real name and address of an editor.

I recently removed from an admin's talk page a post which called her a "little slut" and hoped she'd "get breast cancer". I reported the single-purpose attack account, and it was blocked. I felt absolutely no need to request oversighting. If the post had given a real name or address, I would have emailed the oversight list, and would definitely not have posted publicly about it on Wikipedia. That shows the difference in need for discretion and sensitivity with regard to different kinds of attacks. "You nasty slut" doesn't need to be removed from a page history. "Your phone number is XXXXXXX" does need to be removed.

I think Denny's big mistake was in pushing for a policy that would allow removal of all attack sites, while insisting on too broad a definition of "attack" or "hate". For the record, I support not linking to any site that attacks or ridicules individual editors, but a calm removal would suffice. I am confident that most administrators would enforce removal of the kind of site I have in mind, without necessarily forcing removal of a site that engages in respectful criticism of how Jimbo runs things. But the last thing we want is an open discussion on AN/I as to whether the removal of a site that gives a particular editor's real name and phone number was appropriate — with the whole community clicking on the link and going to the site to see if it really does contain inappropriate information, so that they can feel that they were involved, as a community, in making these decisions. I am sure that that is not what you intend, but am concerned that it could be the result of a rule that before removing the link a second time, you have to bring it to AN/I. Remember that the ruling in the MONGO case was that you could remove such links without regard to 3RR. Please bear in mind that I am talking about sites that identify editors who are trying to remain anonymous. The news sites that reported on the Essjay case do not apply here, because the person who originally, publicly posted his real name on his Wikia page, and then confirmed it on his Wikipedia talk page was Essjay himself. I'll post more thoughts later about the problem of having to bring it to AN/I for discussion. ElinorD (talk) 10:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a mistake we are having trouble getting past. We've already been around links to attack pages. Everyone agrees that specific attacks cannot be linked to; but there seems to be a consensus that we don't need any new guideline/policy or maybe even an essay to cover that. The sticking point is links to a site where personal information is revealed, but where the specific link isn't to such information. We are stuck there because it is clear that there is never going to be a consensus about that point, but the proponents don't seem to be willing to edit this to take out the authorization to delete links on that basis. And since that authorization seems to have been the only point of this, we aren't making progress. Mangoe 10:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Elinor, it's not a matter of forgetting. I didn't know there was such a thing as an "oversight list". I'm certainly not worried about the "three revert rule"; I just think it's a waste of time to go back and forth reverting someone when one could be bringing the situation to the attention of those who can block, delete, etc. I'm pretty sure than "somthing like" posting on AN/I would include clever options like emailing the oversight list.

Whatever the best thing to do in such a situation is; that's what this page should recommend. I'm not married to AN/I. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"Take it to AN/I if the link you've removed is restored" ???

I don't know how much different people would mind if their details became known. Some editors voluntarily link to such information; others don't but still do not feel they have a great deal to lose if their details are made public. Let's imagine, though, that you (this is addressed to everyone at this page) very very very badly want to remain anonymous because you're afraid of real life harassment. People at one of these sites start trying to out you.

Did you notice that he posted on 6 July 2004 that his mother is French? StalkerA

Hey, he used to say on his user page that he graduated from the University of Sussex in 1997. StalkerB

I think his degree is in geography. StalkerC

We should be able to find out. There were only seventeen geography graduates in that university in 1997, and eight of them were women. Stalker B

Oh, and he says on someone's talk page in March 2005 that he lived in Japan for two years. StalkerA

Look, he says here that his wife is a lawyer. StalkerC

In November last year, he forgot to log on, and posted from an IP that resolved to Manchester. StalkerD

The circle is closing round you, and you're beginning to panic. Oooooooooohhhhhhh, they've discovered who you are!!! Now there's a photo of you on that website as well. Oh, they've added your home address and your phone number. Someone posts a link to that site — perhaps not to the actual page, which has your name, address, phone number, work address, email address and phone number of your boss, your wife's name and photo, your children's names, and where they go to school. The link which is posted is to the site index, from where you can get to the page about you in three clicks. (Or perhaps it's to an inoffensive discussion page, from where you can get to the site index in one click, and to the harassing page in three more.) I revert it. (Yes, I'd do that for every single person here.) The person who posts it restores it, talking about censorship. Would you want me to ask for help discreetly (perhaps by checking the contributions of friendly admins to see who seems to be online, and then sending an email, as well as an email to the oversight list)? Or would you want me to bring it to AN/I, where there could be a twenty-minute discussion, read by hundreds of people?

I'm bringing this here, because someone added a link to a website which harasses User:X, and I reverted it, but I was reverted, so I'd like everyone here to look at the link and see if it really is harassment. The link is [link removed by AdminA] ElinorD

This is ridiculous. We don't need a nanny on Wikipedia. User:A

I clicked on the link, and I don't see in what way it's harassing someone, or who's being harassed? User:B

Oh, but it's not on the main page. The main page links to "Lulz" at the top right, and then, when you're there, if you click on "Wikipedia Lulz", you'll see the name of this editor. If you click on that link, you'll see a page where they have this editor's real name, address, phone number, etc. Oh, if you can't find that link easily, it's at the left, on the second from the bottom. Or would you prefer me to paste in the URL here, in a nowiki'd form, of course. ElinorD

Elinor, please don't do that. You've made things much worse for the victim. AdminA

Sorry, but the policy says that if I'm reverted, I have to bring it here. ElinorD

I've found the actual page now, and I agree that it's harassment, so Elinor was quite right to remove it. UserB

Yes, but she posted it here, and this page is read by far more people that the page she removed it from. AdminA

AdminA, you have no right to tamper with other people's posts. This is blatant censorship. UserC

Actually, I'm happy that she did, but it's still in the history. ElinorD

(Resetting indent) If people are going to start removing links, I think the whole community has the right to know what the links are, so that we can decide if they really are harassment, and if they really should be removed. It's arrogant and patronising for administrators to be taking this decision on our behalf. And Elinor isn't even an admin. UserC

I've seen the page too, and I think it should have been deleted. UserD

I've seen it too, and I agree. User:E

I disagree. The link that Elinor removed wasn't to the page that gives User:X's name and phone number. It was to the site index. And that site does have other useful things. To suppress it looks like censorship to me. UserC

Besides, how do we know that it really is his phone number. Someone should try phoning the number to check. UserC

UserC, stop trolling or I'll block you. AdminA

Stop trying to intimidate users. This is a legitimate discussion. I think someone should phone that number. UserC

I've blocked UserC for 24 hours. AdminB

I've sent an email to the oversight mailing list. Elinor, please go to WP:RFO next time. AdminC

I would have, except that the policy says that we have to bring it here, to get feedback on whether or not the link really is inappropriate. ElinorD

Looks like it's been oversighted now. AdminB

Um, could we have this noticeboard oversighted too? ElinorD

I'm posting this not to make fun of people who think that the community should be allowed to decide whether or not a certain link is harassing, or who think that it's okay to link to a site that hosts such harassment, as long as we don't link to the specific page, but to point out how dangerous that might be for the affected person. Sites like BBC News or The Times don't have subpages that are devoted to trying to "out" Wikipedians. Now, if some reputable site like the BBC has an article about criticism of Wikipedia, and that article has one link to the main page of a site which has within it another page which contains a link to another site which has whole pages devoted to trying to "out" and stalk Wikipedians, do we remove all links to BBC News? Of course not. But we do remove links to the sites that host pages devoted to "out"ing Wikipedians. There is absolutely no way that BBC News is going to have a page within it saying what it thinks my full name and address are, and what kind of detective work it did to find out. And I say once again, NO news site published Essjay's real name until he posted it himself on Wikia and confirmed it here.

One final word. People have argued that we should be allowed to post links in certain places, like here, where we're discussing whether such links should be posted. Someone who starts getting threatening phone calls, or whose employer is contacted as a result of a stalker finding their details on a site which he found by clicking on a link on this page is not going to be comforted by knowing that the link was posted here rather than at an article talk page. And if such links are need as evidence in ArbCom cases, or to bring to the attention of Jimbo and/or the Foundation, there is no reason why they can't be supplied in a private email. ElinorD (talk) 11:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think you've made this point very clearly. Let's strike AN/I from my thought above and replace it with RFO. Actually, better still would be to email a trusted admin, or to ping a trusted admin in IRC, if you happen to be set up with that. In my initial thinking, I was considering that the admin you choose to email might be asleep, or something, so it's nice to be able to get the attention of several at once. Clearly AN/I isn't the best place to do that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Clever arguments... and pretty good simulation of the kinds of debates that erupt every time the issue of linking to "attack sites" comes up. But, basically, if you get "outed" online, you're pretty much screwed whether we link to it or not; when it's out there, it's out there, and you can't put the genie back in the bottle. The more fuss you raise about it (and hence draw people's attention to it), the more screwed you are, but even without a direct link, pretty much everything on the Internet is a few clicks away from everything else (like the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon), and probably an easy Google search too. *Dan T.* 23:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a further problem with repeatedly reverting an inappropriate insertion, too. How many times do you really want the insertion and removal of an inappropriate link to cross "Recent changes", where you know many eyes are watching? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

But, I still haven't seen an argument that makes sense as to why we need to link to attack sites. Why import anything into this project from them. Why can't useful (if such exists) information simply be emailed?--MONGO 03:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not all discussions of such need to be "behind closed doors." I would say if any item of information published on another site can be aired out and discussed in public rather than in private, esp if it is already "public" on other sites, why try to restrict acess to this content if it is not "outing" or any other attempt at harassment? As I see, entirely "banning" links to sites hosting such attempts sounds like "punishment," which is not something I understand us to be especially interested in on WP.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 03:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

IMO the question needs to be "why not link to these sites" rather than "why link to these sites", SqueakBox 03:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not? Because they actively engage in allowing editors to make efforts to out the real life identities of Wikipedia editors. They use their websites as gathering places for evidence about people's identities.--MONGO 04:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

True, but that's not all they do over there. In any case, it's not something this linking policy, as is or in any other foreseeable form really, could control.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 04:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

IMO, the question of whether something is ever a good idea is distinct from the question of whether it's a good idea to ban it. What if the ban, in and of itself, brings about harm to the project? Then would it be a good idea? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Status of this thing

The only edits to this thing since it was unlocked have been changing the status template. Personally I'd say that it evinces a lack of consensus, but in the meantime, can we leave it alone until it either gets resolved as a policy proposal or gets rewritten? Mangoe 18:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with it as either an essay or as a policy proposal, but prefer the latter. Thank you for your efforts to keep it listed as a proposed. Maybe we are nearing a point at which we can do a straw poll, listing the poll at AN and AN/I and offering several options: Promote to policy/reject/leave as an eassy.--MONGO 18:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer also to keep it as a proposed policy or even as a proposed guideline. I think there's quite a lot that needs to be changed, but there's basically something worth working on. What I think we need is something that will give more protection to those who want their privacy protected — something we can point to immediately if someone challenges the removal of a link to a site that gives an editor's name and contact details, so that there won't be lots of reverts, followed by extensive discussion at AN/I, generating further publicity and ensuring that anyone who mightn't have seen the link at the page where it was originally posted will have seen it now! ElinorD (talk) 19:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think the semantics of the thing need clearing out. It seems to me that there are two major "no-no's" or taboos this "project page" is attempting to articulate:

• Attempts off-site to reveal identity (outing attempts) of users on Wikipedia.
• Attempts to reprint or link-to actual libel or to conduct other (possibly legally actionable) harassment in conjunction with the above.

It seems to me that, to begin with, the best defense is, well, "defense" which would mean not revealing items of personal information on your user page (or anywhere in WP user-space) which could lead to real-life stalking. I mean, when it seemed to me that I could run into one of the WP trolls I've engaged with in real life, I ceased interactions on WP through my prior account and no longer edit in those subject domains. If you already edit using your real identity or if your real identity is guessable from the subjects you edit (such as your own biography!) I don't mean to say that "you're asking for outing attempts" (or other harassment) but still you should expect that if your account becomes popular or controversial on WP.

If you are concerned about privacy or off-site harassment, don't make yourself an open target, and save Wikipedia the problem of "protecting" you from your indiscretion. Beyond that, anything else that becomes legally actionable as a result of anyone's editing on WP can be handled without specific policies against specific criminal activities, per WP:BEANS, WP:CREEP, etc.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 20:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Have there been cases where personal information has lingered here longer than it should have, that some additional policy would remedy? I see people making the argument that we need "more protection", but are we actually slow or equivocal about removing personal info now? In cases I've seen, admins will race to be the first to delete personal info. Is that not the usual way of things? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't know. I'm actually not that experienced, but from my observations most admins don't seem particularly obstructed from removing links to items of personal information or harrassment by the lack of an explicit policy on it. As I see it this proposal in its current form is mainly a way of retroactively and symbolically militating against outside sites hosting such attempts at harrassment... it may be noble-intentioned, but it seems to me useless as to its own aims of halting the spread of such information "for the safety and well-being of the Wikipedia community" or for any other reason, not to say counter-productive to the community's abiltity to conduct informed critiques of any useful items of (non-harrassing, non-"outing") information where it may be relevant on WP user-space. (We could also comment on and critique their activites in appropriate spaces here, which I believe we have been doing already.) It seems to me that we could just ammend WP:NPA#Off-wiki_personal_attacks to prohibit links to specific instances/items of off-site harassment and the problems created by this page would be solved entirely.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 01:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like we're largely in agreement. I would support an appropriate rewording of NPA to reflect the reality, confirmed above by arbitrator Fred Bauder, that links to harassment may be removed on sight with no need for a specific supporting guideline, per WP:COMMON, WP:NPA, WP:IAR, and basic knowledge of right and wrong. The potential increased protection is minimal to nonexistent, and the potential increased harm is real, in my view, so I think promoting the page would be bad for Wikipedia. -GTBacchus^(talk)

Concur. Will wait for other opinions before proceeding. —ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 04:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This is very different than the NPA policy. This is explcitily about attack sites...websites that we shouldn't link to. I defintiely believe we need this to be at least a guideline. It appears that ElinorD and Jossi are also in favor of this as a minimum.--MONGO 04:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, is there any evidence that the current lack of explicit guideline has ever stopped any administrator from doing the right thing in such a situation? Aren't we generally pretty good about taking care of harassment without worrying whether we've got specific policy justification? That's been my experience, it seems. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The entire MONGO arbcom case was commenced from my efforts to remove harassment from the ED article we had here. I had to delete an image made of their webpage that had the featured article about MONGO on it, four times. I had to remove the harassing link to that website which went to their mainpage article about me. I was confronted by numerous editors who were ED partisans who declared that my actions to keep from being harassed were unilateral, and even "wrong". No one should have to again have to explain why they removed harassment from this website. ED was the situation then and now we also have WR doing what I see as even worse transgressions. At least ED justifies it's efforts as essentially a parody. WR makes no such distinction...their efforts to harass and compile evidence about Wikipedians is as plain as day...and this has happened to many editors from this website. I could care less what they say about MONGO...in fact, I can't believe I am so often examined there...they must be really bored.--MONGO 05:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, I think we're on the same page as far as wanting to minimize harm to Wikipedians. I sincerely believe that this guideline would do more harm than good, and that it would lead to an increase in the damage you seek to prevent. That's the only reason I oppose you on this matter.

You cite your own experience with ED as evidence that we need a specific guideline. I think I understand where you're coming from. However, it's not clear to me what an additional guideline would have done. It seems to me that its talk page would provide a nexus for people with shady intentions to protest, and wikilawyer, and spend weeks and months thinking of new ways to shove BEANS into their noses. Think of ElinorD's reproduction of a possible AN/I thread if someone were to bring a case of harassment there - imagine a talk page devoted entirely to such threads. Are we really better off with such a thing on the Wiki? Since we've got an oversight mailing list, isn't it better to go straight to it, rather than creating a new rule for people to argue about?

All we need to say, in some clause in NPA, is that harassment may be removed on sight, and that RFO (not AN/I; thank you, ElinorD) should be the first response to any repeated posting of harassing information or links. That way we avoid dedicating a specific policy to harassers, and thus empowering them to control one end of a dyad that we're stuck at the other end of.

Remember, prohibition supported the mob. The "war on drugs" enriches Columbian drug lords and the Taliban. Outlaw guns, and only outlaws will have 'em. The war on terror has bred a new generation of US-hating terrorists. Please, let's not make that kind of mistake here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, but this isn't about the same types of things you relate it to. Wikipedians make zero for all their hard work. I think we need to do all we can to ensure what I had to deal with is lessened. Trolls may look at this and sneer and be challenged by it to post links just for the sake of abusing policy, but the ambiguity of being allowed to remove the links is something I had to contend with...I don't want others to have to explain for months why they felt justified in removing links, and making this a guideline will allow editors to be able to point to this and say, I removed that link because it was from ED or WR...that website deliberately harasses Wikipedians and I didn't want my privacy violated.--MONGO 05:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems to me this ambiguity you are referring to could be adequately and appropriately addressed via a one or two line amendment to WP:NPA against linking to attack content or an attack page rather than a whole policy specifically to criminalize links to entire sites whose users, yeah, will obviously and intrepidly find ways to undermine, so we've seen, by linking to critical essays posted on such sites to make WP admins look like they are repressing free speech or free access to sites critical of WP. It seems to me the obvious trolling this page causes could best be mitigated by rejecting it soundly and adapting the explicit prohibitions against linking to any items of harassment or outing to WP:NPA, leaving other cases of links to essays or other critical commentary on these sites to be evaluated on an individual basis. —ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 07:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

We've got an arbitrator on this very page saying, "Links to aggressive attacks on Wikipedia users may be removed. No one needs permission, no one needs to spend time making a policy about it, or arguing about it." That seems to me like endorsement enough, without adding the negative effects that making this page into policy would bring about.

MONGO, you say above that "this isn't about the same types of things you relate it to," but I don't see the difference. What I see is that passing rules attempting to ban some kind of unethical behavior is almost always a terrible idea, prone to backfire in unexpected ways. I understand what you're working towards, but I really don't think you'll get that by promoting this page. That's just not how the world works, from what I've seen.

What's going to help the most is (a) helping people understand the dangers of posting their personal information online, (b) helping foster a culture in which Wikipedians support and defend each other, and (c) making sure that people are made aware what to do if links to harassment, or other harassing content, is posted, no matter what website it comes from. (Specifically: Remove it once, and if it's restored go straight to XXXXX, do not pass Go, do not collect $200. By XXXXX, I mean either RFO, or IRC, or whatever forum is deemed most appropriate to get help without attracting undue attention by reverting repeatedly or by posting on AN/I.) -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No long winded response from me, aside from the fact that arbcom does not make policy. It appears that the numbers in favor of this becoming policy are only marginally smaller than those not in favor of it. Myself and others have just been less vocal about it overall. I conmpletely fail to see what the negative effects of this becoming policy are...no one has demonstrated what these would be. Sites like ED and WR are attack sites...they should never be linked to...not unless they start cleaning up their acts, which I highly doubt.--MONGO 04:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It's true that ArbCom doesn't make policy. I mention Fred's words because the point he was making deserves a response; he's not a dumb guy, and he didn't say that on accident. (I know that you weren't implying that he's dumb.) I'm happy to tell you what I think the negative effects are, but it will have to wait for tomorrow. For now, I have time to say... just because I opposed promoting this page, that doesn't mean that I'm against the removal of harassing links. I do wonder whether you think my (a) (b) and (c) above aren't good ideas? Do you agree with the part in parentheses, about not passing Go? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I am opposed to excessive rules and policies generally, but I do think that things need to be spelled out in black and white on some matters. I do not think NPA allows us to be specific enough in detail about attack sites. I am opposed to only removing links from these websites that are harassing and feel that this will lead to battles regarding what is and what isn't acceptable as a link from these websites...it is best to not link to them at all. I prefer to have this spelled out, plain and simple. I agree with your three points, but believe that we need policy to back it up in this circumstance.--MONGO 05:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand your sentiment, but I honestly don't follow your logic. "Plain and simple" prohibitions against "attack sites" aren't going to work against sites where the content is primarily user-generated and multi-faceted. I mean, Fred Bauder and other respected WPers have responded to claims and criticisms on the WR site directly. I am not saying I support outing or other harassment attempts, but I think these can be prohibited against without setting into policy an apparent "digital curtain" between WP and its biggest off-site detractors. —ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 07:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Forked some content to WP:NPA

I went ahead and made an initial edit to WP:NPA forking some of this content: [26]. Please critize, critque, condem , etc. Best, —ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 19:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Conflict breaks out yet again

Once again, this wrongheaded not-a-policy, and the judicial activism by ArbCom that preceded it, led to conflict and censorship. This time, the victim was an article in Wikipedia Signpost, where an editor saw fit to "enforce" the alleged policy by suppressing a relevant link. *Dan T.* 00:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and it was news to me that WW is on the BADSITES list though I would personally rather see it (as a whiole site) there than WR. Shame it wasnt handled more discreetly as was the intention of the admin, and even more of a shame that she didnt first talk to me as a fellow editor, SqueakBox 00:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox, I have taken the liberty of changing the "they" back to "she" in the above post, as that is what you originally had, and apparently changed just because you weren't sure that I am female.

I have now talked to you "as a fellow editor", in an extremely long post on your talk page. I would have been happy to do so at the time, but you made it very difficult by jumping in and reverting. If somebody removes a link on the grounds that it's an attack, could I appeal to everyone not to revert immediately. You didn't revert on the grounds that the link wasn't to an attack; you reverted on the grounds that BADSITES is not policy. I removed links to sites that tried to identify Wikipedians long before the MONGO case, and I expect to continue to do so, whether this essay / proposed policy / proposed guideline is upgraded or not. Fred Bauder, from the ArbCom has said on this talk page that we don't need a policy in order to remove links.

This is not particularly addressed to SqueakBox, but to everybody here: if a link is removed on the grounds that it's to an "attack site", do not jump in and revert if you disagree. If you really have a problem with the removal, a private e-mail to that editor is probably best. Failing that, a discreet message on his/her talk page. The idea of insisting that the link should stay in public view until you have been told exactly what and where the problem is is bizarre. Read Elinor's hypothetical case of bringing it to AN/I. If you revert, and revert again, and tell people to go to the talk page, you are making it almost impossible for someone to deal with it discreetly.

I am fully aware that that site no longer has the hivemind pages. However, this is not the case of a site having been taken over by a new owner with different moral principles, who's opposed to the violating of privacy of our editors. Nor is it the case of a webmaster having had a massive religous conversion and being full of repentance for the harm he caused. This is simply a decision taken by someone who has no remorse for the harm he has caused, but who is involved in negotiations at the moment. What if the negotiations break down? My stalker sometimes took down his pages about me, and then put them back up a few weeks later.

By the way, there is no list of official badsite links that are to be removed. It would be impossible to keep such a list updated. We delete sites that try to "out" people. We don't have a list of URLs. Musical Linguist 02:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Your changing my comments is fine, I wont comment otherwise till tomorrow (bit knackered), I actuually had figured you as a woman (and a classical musician which is about as cool as you can get!) see my email, SqueakBox

"Fred Bauder, from the ArbCom has said on this talk page that we don't need a policy in order to remove links."

NO, he *did not*. This is what he said:

"Links to aggressive attacks on Wikipedia users may be removed. No one needs permission, no one needs to spend time making a policy about it, or arguing about it."

There's one big difference between what he said and what you're saying: he's saying we can't link to *attacks*, not to *attack sites*. Linking to an attack is one thing; linking to a site which contains an attack on it somewhere, or even linking to a site which had once contained attacks and may do so again but doesn't at the moment, is very different from linking *to an attack*. And a ban on linking to attacks is much less controversial than one on linking to attack sites.

Besides, saying "you don't need a policy, but remove them anyway" is contradictory. If you authoritatively tell people to remove the links without a policy, then you've just created a policy, because telling you what you can and can't do is the very definition of a policy. And Arbcom can't create policy. Ken Arromdee 06:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Tagging as rejected

I think it's time to say that the proposal, in this form at least, is rejected: it has failed to gain consensus and is unlikely to do so. It's been debated in many places for several weeks now, and hasn't achieved consensus anywhere. There has been very little progress in altering the proposal so it might gain consensus.

Normally it would be ok to just let discussion continue, but some people are starting to treat this as if it was already policy (in its entirety) and so I think it's necessary to say that this wording at least is rejected.

I think the way forward is to develop some wording that is not a strict liability blanket prohibition, but one that is specific about what content is linked to, and also specific about why content is linked to. I think that linking to external sites containing personal attacks in order to make those personal attacks, to give an example, is already adequately covered by existing policies, but there are gray areas (such as innocently linking to threaded discussions which partly contain personal attacks, to give an example) which could do with clarification. --bainer (talk) 05:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That's why this proposal should be promoted to policy. The fact that people are going to remove links from attack sites no matter what and the fact that some are going to revert that removal is why we need to have this as policy. It's best to simply not link to these sites at all rather than spend hours arguing about why a link is either good or bad. If these websites are posting personally identifying material about Wikipedians on them in an effort to "out" people, that is bad. If they is anything that is redeemable about any info on those sites that may need to be considered by arbcom or similar, then links can be emailed to them.--MONGO 05:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, policy follows practice, but that requires a well-established and accepted practice. That's simply not the case here; there's been substantial disagreement every time the proposal in this form has been discussed or invoked. --bainer (talk) 05:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The practice of removing links from attack sites isn't new...it's been going on for some time. This policy proposal makes it clear that it is to be expected. There is no reason anyone removing a link to an attack site should ahve to do anything more than point to this as an explanation of why they removed the link...otherwise, we spend hours arguing about what should be common sense. The disagreements won't stop just because this gets rejected.--MONGO 06:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If I may ask, what do you want to do through this policy that can't be done by amending NPA? You've said you "fail to see what the negative effects of this becoming policy are...no one has demonstrated what these would be" as revert wars and bad faith violations caused by conflicting interpretations of this page fly out in abundance around us... you do see this associated conflict as basically disruptive to Wikipedia, right? —ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 06:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Incidental support for the reject tag. A solution to the problem of "attack content" hosted off-site cannot realistically be achieved by blanket prohibitions against linking or designations of such content providers as "attack sites" in their entirety. —ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 08:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Agree with Thebainer. Support tagging as rejected. Frise 08:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Agree; support tagging as rejected. Having a crutch out there for those who want to invoke a zero tolerance policy in a moral panic is exactly what many of us don't want there to be. *Dan T.* 11:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Agree with Thebainer. Support tagging as rejected. WAS 4.250 12:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Isn't going to get consensus, so agree with the above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• There is a broad consensus for this policy as it is expressed in the nutshell, and it reflects existing practice. I don't think it can be said to have been rejected by the community. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps existing practice isn't jiving with community desires, then. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Agree, Inappropriate links will continue to be removed without this as policy and it won't bring out any major disruption like this policy proposal unintentionally did. hombre de haha 13:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Agree, we don't need an additional policy to deal with this. We have WP:NPA, which already allows us to remove links that reveal personal information of Wikipedians. Marking this as rejected does not mean that we are allowed to link to such pages all of a sudden. --Conti|✉ 13:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• This is clearly not gaining consensus. There seems to be some theory that the lack of consensus justifies holding this open indefinitely, meanwhile applying it as if it were policy. It's time this was brought to an end, and marked as rejected for lack of consensus. Mangoe 14:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Agree, WP:NPA covers this ground already -- so it already is policy. What we have does the job... refactoring it into a new page isn't really necessary and borders on instruction creep. --Chris (talk) 22:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Agree to tag as rejected and move the debate to Talk:NPA as appropriate, SqueakBox 23:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Agree, atag as rejected, do not redirect. DES ^(talk) 11:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Agree, tag as rejected. Redundant, covered by WP:NPA LessHeard vanU 12:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think that a redirect to WP:NPA is the best solution. The specific subject matter is addressed at NPA, and that's where it should stay. Tagging this as 'rejected' would send a message that the community somehow endorses attack sites, which it clearly does not. In addition, per current practice and clear ArbCom decisions, we may remove any link to an attack site. So it seems to me that the redirect best handles these issues. Crum375 12:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• • I think that a redirect is highly inappropriate. There was a policy proposal, that proposal was soundly rejected. This discussion page is beign preserved. Keep teh proposal page with the rejected tag, to document exactly waht proposal was rejected. The redirect hides this debate and the rejection, in effect. A note on the page saying "for current policies on this topic, see WP:NPA" m ight be a good idea, it would direct users to the peroiper place but also documetn what was not accepted. DES ^(talk) 01:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• People coming across the discussion in the future should be able to see the proposal as it was put. It should also be clear that this particular wording was rejected. We can certainly say in addition that the subject matter will now be covered at WP:NPA, but I don't think a redirect is the best option. --bainer (talk) 01:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Crum375's reasoning. And I don't think that the proposal was by any means "soundly" rejected. ElinorD (talk) 01:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Eh? The proposed policy did not even get close to gaining consensus, thus it was soundly rejected. LessHeard vanU 18:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• I'd support keeping the page accessable with a "no consensus, for historical interest only" sort of tag.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 01:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No, holding a vote on whether to stick a tag on this page won't stop this being policy if it is, and it won't make it policy if it isn't. Let's see how the discussion, which seems to be ongoing, works out. --Tony Sidaway 18:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I see lots of peopel who support leavign the proposal up, tagged as rejected, adn only two who suppoort convertign it to a redir. I think ther is consensus to restore the proposal page, with its rejected tag. DES ^(talk) 08:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

From looking at the page history, and at the discussion here, it seems that those who support or supported having it as a redirect include Tony Sidaway, Crum375, Jossi, Tbeatty, myself, Tom harrison, and possibly MONGO. There may be others — perhaps SlimVirgin and/or SOPHIA. But since the discussion has moved to WT:NPA, people may no longer be paying attention to this page. ElinorD (talk) 09:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Policy

I don't know why this hasn't yet been tagged as policy, but I've taken the step of tagging it as such now. Fundamental policy isn't subject to negotiation. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. --Tony Sidaway 14:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Link farms have nothing to do with this. All of the actual examples are single mentions; some are citations. THere is no consensus that this represents policy. Mangoe 14:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

In the sense that links to attack sites don't hang around on Wikipedia, it is policy. --Tony Sidaway 14:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and WP:NPA covers this quite well already. We don't need an additional policy page for this, we have one already. And in that sense, this page is not policy. --Conti|✉ 14:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. No personal attacks does cover it. --Tony Sidaway 14:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If policy "isn't subject to negotiation", just where does it come from? Did God inscribe it on stone tablets to be brought down from Mount Sinai? Declaring that something is policy when it not only fails to have consensus for it, but in fact has what seems to be an overwhelming consensus against it, is highly arrogant, making it seem like you consider yourself qualified to declare something policy just because you say so. (But your later move of redirecting this to WP:NPA is much more reasonable.) *Dan T.* 17:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

New forum

This debate is now being reopened at Wikipedia:No personal attacks. See Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks#Attack sites DES ^(talk) 19:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

...and is already going around the same circles as the debate here. That's the downside of doing this redirect... it just moves the argument, like a lump in a carpet that is stomped on and which then pops up at a different part of the carpet. It doesn't seem like it's ever going to end, at least until somebody with greater power (like the ArbCom or Jimbo) steps in and orders everybody to just sit down and shut up and accept whatever variant of the policy they impose from up high. *Dan T.* 21:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

In that this proposed policy has any validity, it is an instance of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. It's appropriate to concentrate discussion in one place rather than distribute it.

Needless to say, we all feel in good faith that personally attacking Wikipedians is very wrong indeed, and obviously we don't support the use of external websites as a proxy to perform such attacks. But we may have quibbles over the dots and commas so it's appropriate to discuss it in the right place. --Tony Sidaway 22:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem I have with that is that there have been a rash of changes to the WP:NPA policy since this discussion was moved over, there without any clear consensus on the talk page for that policy. I'd rather this get hashed out somewhere other than the middle of a currently accepted policy, personally, although I agree that NPA makes sense as an ultimate destination for this issue. JavaTenor 19:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I've changed it to say "rejected" and point to the new discussion. Mangoe 02:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It hasn't been rejected. It is de facto policy, supported by arbcom and current practice. Since it is being merged into npa, redirecting there is the best choice. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus behind your claim, but that's beside the point. The fact is that in this form consensus could not be obtained; hence, it is rejected. Mangoe 03:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Just as a note of reference

I know know of the existence of many more attack sites than I used to. If I wanted to, I could do various bad things using the information I can find. So, I am now more exposed to attack sites by this proposal to lessen exposure to attack sites. There's now a meta-discussion somewhere about whether the NOR page should be protected in the version demanding no links to attack sites, widening the net more. Just wait until an Arbcom case, which will of course bring huge publicity to the attack sites we don't want people to see...

...does anyone get my point? -Amarkov moo! 05:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)