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..

Feedback

I personally don't like the idea of flatly banning all links to any particular sites, without regard to context. In particular, such bans have sometimes been enforced on talk and project pages, not just in article space, and can squelch free discussion about the sites in question and what's being said there. *Dan T.* 23:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, where do we draw the line on allowing people to direct others to hate material and attack sites/privacy violations? I can't see a good reason for example to mention a troll attack site except to remove it completely when encountered... we gain no benefit from linking to it, and every circular chat about whether we should link to it can't ever supercede the fact that a given site may be leading to direct harm against us personally. Personal safety and the privacy safety of contributors here always has to trump all other considerations. - Denny ^(talk) 23:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Why are you treating this like a policy when it isn't one? — MichaelLinnear 02:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe the essay represents concensus at this time as well as practice of the vast majority of editors here. - Denny ^(talk) 17:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You haven't been here long enough to be deciding what the "consensus" is, Denny. I think you've worded this a little too broadly for it to be acceptable as policy. While I'd agree that the consensus is that anyone who links to Wikipedia Review's defamations of editors here is asking to be hit with the banstick, I don't think you'd find much agreement that any site that "facilitated" that or any other site is an "attack site" itself. Grace Note 06:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

And the essay didnt last long either. I agree with Grace you have nowhere near the experience to be formulating policy and the initial draft showed this (we were in danger of banning linking to ourselves). Denny you should wait at least 3 months before acting in the way you are. You cannot be an admin because of your lack of experience, and nor should you be wrtiting policy which you claimed was an essay and rapidly changed tack to a proposal. I strongly recommend this page be deleted, SqueakBox 19:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Balance is needed

Denny, your energy and enthusiasm and useful work for Wikipedia is much appreciated. But balance is needed. Sometimes in the form of "moderation in all things" as in the Middle way. Sometimes in alternating between opposites as in the song Turn! Turn! Turn! (song) and its Bibical source. Sometimes conceptually as in Yin and yang. Take for example the link to Daniel Brandt's version of events in his break up with Chip Berlet that you deleted. The link itself did not lead to any attack content even though there is attack content on that site. The site Chip Berlet posts at attacks or exposes people and organisations they feel should be attacked and exposed. This Wikipedia exposes the identities of sockpuppets who we feel need to be exposed in order to know whether to ban them or not. Brandt and WR expose the identities of those they feel should be exposed to improve accountability. Naturally we Wikipedians disagree with them about that feeling that we can achieve accountability though other means. So do we make wikipedia a battle ground? Do we refrain from ever ever using as a source any site that is fighting us? Do we declare all out war and take extreme measures to defeat the enemy? Or do we try to take a balanced view and realize the point is to improve the encyclopedia and not just defending wikipedians at all costs? The source from WR that I added (I think I remember adding it) that you deleted was an attempt at a balanced presentation of a very complex issue involving a banned person and a person (Chip) that enjoys wide latitute at Wikipedia in presenting his point of view. I thought it best that Brandt be given equality in linkage in presenting his side of the issue. If we are to implement blindly some rule then your edit was indeed correct. If we are to use editorial judgement in each individual case on a case by case basis then either your edit or mine has enough merits to be a good choice. All I'm saying is Wikipedia should be about thoughtful editing and not a rushed black-and-white good-versus-evil approach. Thanks again for your very hard work in making Wikipedia better. - User talk:WAS 4.250 4.250.201.103 03:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a grey line, yes... the trick I suppose is to draw the line at a site overall, because of the nature of it's content as a whole--do we gain as an encyclopedia by linking to x, to illustrate y? I think that the collateral fallout of z also is a major consideration. If a given website was the best authority EVER on a subject that is notable, and passed RS for that--but one or two clicks away was a section dedicated to defaming, libeling, or harassing people here--should we in good conscience link to or advertise/promote that site? Does doing so perpetuate and enable that harm to our fellow editors? "Do no harm." We are living persons, after all. - Denny ^(talk) 17:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

That's nearly true but if someone blogs about Danny Brandt and links his libels of SlimVirgin, you are in fact suggesting that anyone who links to that blog should be blocked. It's just too broad, Denny. And I also feel there's a lot of merit in WAS's comment above. We need to allow ourselves the discretion to judge the "collateral fallout" of who we link to. And where. Articles are necessarily different from talkpages. Grace Note 06:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

In your enthusiasm you have neglected to notice something

I mean, besides the fact that writing an essay doesn't authorize you to make wholesale policy-based changes.

The people over on one of the sites you are attempting to ban are crowing over this particular edit [1] which you made, because from their POV you've just authorized them to sue the Foundation. I'd post the link, but lest you get delete-happy I'll merely state that it's easy to find their response. Oh, and I've not only also restored the reference in question, but fixed the citation.

Even on the basis of our essay I can't say I'd agree that you're justified in removing what is no more than a citation to a bit of quoted material.Mangoe 04:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Is your use of "them" similar to the "friend of a friend" euphemism? Are you making a legal threat? In any case, it's hogwash to say that we could be sued over refusing to link to a site. --Gmaxwell 17:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Instead of casting aspersions, why don't you go read what they (which is to say, those at the Infamous Site) said? They specifically raised the issue that, without the cites, the quotation is a copyright violation. I have no connection to them other than as someone who has read some of their posts; I haven't joined their forum and don't intend to. The guilty flee where no man pursues. Mangoe 17:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is anyone editing here in good faith acting as apologist for a site full of people who want to endanger us "IRL"? ;) Then, lets remove all imported material from the attack site as well. ArbCom has endorsed that. No material, no need to cite it. - Denny ^(talk) 17:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"Apologist" is way too polemic. I do not doubt that there may be members of that forum who may wish harm upon specific wikipedians. It seems to me, though, that you exaggerate. Mangoe 18:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you deny that they have multiple folders/threads dedicated to researching our real names? - Denny ^(talk) 18:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I've not only seen them, I've read them. Didn't find out much of interest though. In fact, I'd say that while some of what Daniel Brandt posts there is ill-advised, overall they show a sense of proportion about this that you do not. It keeps coming down to the same point: you look to be carrying out a vendetta against them, which is pretty much what they are accusing you of, so you're just giving them more ammunition. If you could bring yourself to jsut ignore them, you would be doing WP a favor. Mangoe 19:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure you really want to be doing this?

I am sure that even ArbComm would rescind its definition of an attack site - because now every news organization that carried a piece on the Essjay controversy and used his real name is, under this definition, an attack site. Do you really think the Louisville Courier-Journal is an attack organization, because it did research on a specific Wikipedian and published it? (Okay, there may well be some who feel that way.) I know it isn't fun to be the subject of so much drollery over at one of those purported attack sites, but I'm afraid this is overkill. Please stop removing links leaving behind an explanation based on your own personal essay being used to support your personal revision to the blocking policy. Risker 09:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the Essjay case was entirely different. I missed the beginning of it, so correct me if I'm wrong. But my understanding is that he was completely anonymous, in which case it would have been completely inappropriate to link on Wikipedia to any site that had people posting about how they had been searching for professors of theology in their attempts to find out who Essjay was, and comparing notes, trying to find IP evidence, etc. Essjay was then offered a job on Wikia, and put on his Wikia page that his name was Ryan Jordan. He volunteered that information himself. It wasn't an anonymous troll who vandalised the Essjay page by putting on it that Essjay was Ryan Jordan. He was then asked about it here, and voluntarily confirmed here on Wikipedia that the details about his identity on his Wikia page were correct. To link now to a site that says that User:Essjay is Ryan Jordan in real life is no more wrong than to link to a site that says that User:Mindspillage is Kat Walsh in real life. It's public knowledge, and it's acknowledged by the user.

So, no, a site that covers the Essjay controversy and uses his real name is not necessarily an attack site, but it may be one, based on other factors. If a site is stalking twenty people, and the personal details of one of the victims becomes public knowledge, there are still nineteen victims, and it's still a stalking site which shouldn't be linked to, unless it cleans up its act, deletes pages that speculate on the personal identity of other Wikipedians, and blocks those who are responsible for those posts.

I don't necessarily agree with everything in this essay, and I think Denny should take things a bit more slowly. But I must emphasise that if The Times reports that User:Jimbo Wales is Jimmy Wales in real life, and criticises some of his decisions, that is not even remotely to be compared to a site starting a thread on "Who is Risker?" "Any clues?" "I've been going through his early edits, and I notice that . . . "

Denny, keep up the good work, but go a bit slower, and try to get input. ElinorD (talk) 10:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree with you ElinorD that the Essjay situation is entirely different than the poking about that people do trying to figure out things about others. Unfortunately, the wording here is broad enough that some admins could have used it to block people who linked to legitimate news stories involving Essjay. And defamation is a pretty big concept to be tossing around here, in that the only way to prove it is in court. I don't think there has been sufficient widespread discussion about this to proceed at this point. Risker 11:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the concern here is a strawman attempt to shoot down an otherwise good commons sense policy. This concern could be reduced by exempting established sites so long as they are not eligible for S230 immunity in their publications and so long as they do not primarily use anonymous editors. --Gmaxwell 17:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Where/how would that determination be made? Even is a site is 230 immune, we are never under any obligation to link to anything. I don't know if that should be a factor. Something can be an attack site with or without that. - Denny ^(talk) 17:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, eventually it is likely that in some some sense Wikipedia will be obligated by its mission to at least acknowledge that some such site exists. The controversy over administration doesn't seem to be going away, and if it hits the major media, someone is going to be able to write a notable article in which (say) the NYT cites Brandt's site. And in that case someone will have you dead to rights in insisting on naming the site and giving its URL, if not linking directly to the offending page on it. And the thing is that the effort to establish this as a guideline is only hastening that day, because it gives Bandt and other detractors more material with which to construct a theory of administrator attempts to silence opposition to their (alleged, of course) misbehavior. Mangoe 17:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Overbroad

The essay as written seems overly broad in several areas:

• The idea of an attack site being determined when "some of the web site content is dedicated to any of the above" is unworkable in the context of large web fora. It's almost certain, for example, that, say, Slashdot contains defamatory content about a Wikipedia editor somewhere; does that make it an attack site, to be purged from Wikipedia? (It would obviously be
• More generally, this fails to make the rather important distinction between sites directed against Wikipedians as Wikipedians and sites directed against people who become Wikipedians incidentally. This becomes increasingly important as parties in outside disputes start editing Wikipedia. Particularly with the attempt to proscribe "defamation", we're going to get piles of sites that are quite notable in their own right but that would be considered "attack sites" because some of the people they were engaged against had wound up editing; see, for example, the Free Republic arbitration case.

In my view, we can't really define "attack sites" without examining intent, at least to some degree. Sites that set out to attack editors because they've encountered them on Wikipedia are clearly attack sites in the sense we want to consider; but sites that attack known individuals who may incidentally be editors aren't such a clear-cut case. Kirill Lokshin 15:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

And, not to mention that how are we to even rationally discuss some site, even for the purpose of determining whether it is an attack site under this definition, without sometimes citing, quoting, and linking to specific material on it, thus violating the proposed policy? *Dan T.* 16:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

What is there to discuss about an attack site but to determine, "Does this site, a group of their users/membership, or a component of their content, cause, or seek to cause, harm to Wikipedians?" If a site aims to harm people here in 'real life', why support them in any fashion, be it promotion or linking? We are volunteers. If the project can't even try to protect us on-wiki from off-wiki harassment, that is a major problem. - Denny ^(talk) 17:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The project cannot protect anyone from harm in "real life." If that is your chief concern, then I think perhaps more value would come from some form of notice when registering a user name or even hitting the "edit" button the first time. Blocking these sites (and the editors who refer to them) does not remove their ability to try to figure out who wikipedians are in real life. Risker 17:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

And Denny, aren't you getting awfully close to a legal determination in that? Having actually looked at the site which you so helpfully directed me to, I can't say that I agree with you that they intend harm in the legal sense. An administrator might well wish to keep his identity secret, but it's hard to imagine a judge granting prior restraint against a forum's revelation of his true name and any other public data about him. And such revelations surely do fit into their overall program of criticizing Wikipedia process and politics. You're just making things worse for yourself, because you are conceding that you can't take the heat. And it's especially so when you are erasing links which have nothing to do with any kind of personal attack, the only genuine justification for action in all of this. Those deletions aren't effective, but merely punitive. Mangoe 17:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Contributors to the hate site you are alluding to have harassed admins and editors here in real life: telephoning employers; telephone ex-romantic acquantances, triangulating who they are, who they are affiliated with, to discourage their anonymous participation here. What am I exaggerating? Do you disagree that Wikipedia should protect its editors at all costs on-wiki? Do you condone their actions to 'out' editors here? Post your real name, then, if you have no fear of "IRL" retaliation. - Denny ^(talk) 17:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I choose to remain pseudonymous, thank you. But then, I'm just a lowly editor here, so I don't imagine there's much demand for my identity. And while you allege all these things against the participants in that forum, I do not see these things in the posts I've read there, though of course they are speculating (fruitlessly, it appears) on your identity, but that is only to be expected. You are playing into their hands with your (in my opinion) high-handed attempts at administration here. But be that as it may, it simply stands to reason that actual attacks can be dealt with as they occur, rather than the kind of blanket censorship you propose. Mangoe 18:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you deny they are trying to out the IRL identity of anonymous administrators there? - Denny ^(talk) 18:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, have always used my real name in my postings, and (thank goodness) have yet to be harrassed in "real life" about it. *Dan T.* 18:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia

The definitions left it clear that wikipedia would be considered an attack site as to our letting anyone edit there are many attacks against wikipedia editors, stalking, harrassment etc, that daily appear on our site. So I have made it clear wikipedia is not to be considered an attack site, SqueakBox 18:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Spam

We have a spam blacklist and this could never be policy without a Attack blacklist as otherwise it would be highly debatabl;e and a cause for massive conflict as to which sites are or are not attack sites. Leaving this in the hands of individual editors would not fit with our current blocking policies, and indeed to me in its current form it looks like a way to avoid the spam blacklist and target any sitye that any particular ediotr disliked. That is a recipe for disaster, SqueakBox 18:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a recipe to protect editors from being directed to off-site attacks, and makes clear what is already practice: anyone can and should remove links to off-site attacks/attack pages per the NPA policy. - Denny ^(talk) 19:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is this needed?

Really, why? It's not like there are dozens of such sites, or that we get a new one every week. To the best of my knowledge there are less than a handful of "Wikipedia attack sites" out there, and we deal with linking or not linking to them quite well. An overly broad proposal like this will only create endless edit wars over what site can be defined as an attack site and what cannot. --Conti|✉ 18:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, Conti, and think this page should be archived/deleted, SqueakBox 18:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Why would we archive/delete a valid essay? - Denny ^(talk) 19:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with this being an essay. But it reads more like a guideline at the moment, saying "you can do this and that" instead of presenting an opinion on attack sites. --Conti|✉ 19:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup, as an essay it should go in your personal space. What I object to is it being in the WP: space where its kind of aching to become policy, and as policy IMO would be completely unacceptable for rerasons I hope I have explained already, SqueakBox 19:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately your reasons are contradictory to policy. Please explain why you defend the right to link to WR so insistently? - Denny ^(talk) 06:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Denny, that was uncalled for. You are very assertive, agressive and combative against well-meaning editors. Play nicer with others. WAS 4.250 07:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, if you feel the tone was too firm. I feel, however, the question is a question of merit (tone notwithinstanding), and within bounds: why defend the one source so firmly? It as as valid as asking me why I seek to put it out, which I have answered, but I have yet to receive a clear understanding of why its inclusion is fought for. - Denny ^(talk) 13:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You misrepresent the views of others in a negative way by suggesting that they "defend the one source". You have had many answers both here and on the mailing list explaining why this essay would be a bad guideline. That you claim to nonetheless still not understand is not due to a lack of explanation, so more explanation seems futile. WAS 4.250 12:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed

I see merit in developing this as a guideline. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

So do I. That's not to say that it's perfect as it stands, but there's certainly something there that should be worked on rather than trashed. ElinorD (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's work on it, then. It needs a lot of work... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

A good place to start is a) what is an "attack site" and b) whether an "attack site" can have merit. Wikipedia Review is a useful reference in some areas, for instance. Is a link to a page that isn't an attack okay on a site that hosts "attacks" on Wikipedians? What about articles about sites that have "attacks" on Wikipedians - can we link to them? This is enormously flawed and probably won't work, but we should really try to figure these questions out. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia review does not do much to stop editors there from posting personal information about wikipedians...threads there often start with efforts to figure out the real identities of Wikipedia editors...ie "Who is Jayjg?"...since they have chosen to continue this off-wiki harassment, they should not be linked to from this website. That not all threads there are about identifying the personal identities is immaterial...that they do this from time to time and fail to make much effort (if any) to remove the attacks, makes them an attack site overall.--MONGO 06:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal example

I'm conflicted on this essay, and a personal example may explain why. In the Criticism of Wikipedia article, an editor hung a fact tag on the assertion that some people have purposely inserted false material into WP to test the system. To properly source the assertion I inserted a nowiki reference to a site commonly considered an attack site. [2] This particular thread on the attack site didn't contain any material that compromised real-life identities of Wikipedians or was otherwise objectionable. The thread did contain an admission by a site member that he was inserting false material into WP to test the encyclopedia. The thread also contained some harsh criticism of that site member for his actions.

Later the link (which had been made live by another editor) was reverted by a Wikipedian who has been subjected to extensive personal attacks on the site. [3] I didn't have the heart to restore the link, even in nowiki form. But the assertion about testing Wikipedia is now unsupported.

So...long story short, I don't like a blanket prohibition of all material on attack sites. Sometimes this material can furnish valuable references. On the famous other hand, these sites do contain material which is unacceptable by any standard. If this essay becomes policy, I would prefer some reasonable wiggle room for very carefully chosen exceptions in nowiki-reference form. I'm not comfortable with ArbCom's no-exceptions prohibition of one attack site, [4] and I'm even less comfortable with extending the no-exceptions policy to any site which might be considered an attack site in the future. Casey Abell 22:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, don't like the wimp-out "solution" of "nowiki-ing" a link to make it not actually hyperlink; one should either link to a site or not link to it, but one shouldn't give an address and then purposely make it non-linking and think they're somehow taking a stand against linking "attack sites". *Dan T.* 23:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You didn't bother to read my comments at all closely, because I'm not "somehow taking a stand against linking attack sites." In fact, I'm arguing that we should allow links to attack sites when the particular linked material is unobjectionable and valuable as a reference. I would use nowiki markup to distinguish attack site links from normal links. That's not a "wimp out"; it's just a method to mark such links. Casey Abell 23:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this has potential

As I understand it, the ARBCOM ruling is the de facto policy, so this policy page should follow (and summarize) that ruling, and be presented as such. There are probably a lot of ARB rulings that could use a summary (if they don't already exist). As for the Essjay situation, clearly the ARBCOM did not intend to restrict the use of reliable secondary sources who might publish names in a legitimate pursuit. ARBCOM could even sign off on a clarification of that point, but I don't think it's necessary. - Crockspot 00:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom does not make policy. WAS 4.250 08:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Here, here. That is not their role, SqueakBox 18:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The arbcom case mentioned in this essay involving me only states as principles that attack sites should not be linked to...my understanding is that AGF is important with respect to those that post to attacks sites unknowingly...they should be shown the arbcom case and the importance of the findings there should be made clear. If they persist in posting to attack sites, then no doubt, they can be blocked from editing.--MONGO 08:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Which are the attack site?

When Denny failed to get consensus at Daniel brandt fro his allegation that WR was an attack site he rudhed off to the incidents page and tried to scrum up an alleged consensus there. Is the how we are to judge attack sites? SqueakBox 18:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where consensus is decided. Editors of an article don't own it. - Denny ^(talk) 19:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

What on earth does that mean? That editors now dont decide how an article is to be? Your comment makes no sense and show your lack of experience here, SqueakBox 19:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Please AGF. The editors do decide, but why does it matter what page it occurs on? Also, note the inclusion of links to attack sites per previous Arbcom decisions and standard precedent has never been a content matter. The matter of personal attacks is not up for concensus debate. Defense of personal attack sites is distasteful. You edit publically, and detail your employers information on your talk page. Many, many of us require our anonymity for various reason. Why on Earth would we link to a site that tries to uncover who we are? Can you defend that? Please provide *ONE* good reason why we should link to WR, or this conversation is pointless. Thanks, - Denny ^(talk) 23:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Denny saying you lack experience is not an AGF issue. I do indeed assume you are coming from a good faith space but that does not mean I have to think you are right or know what you are talking about. By confusing my criticism of your lack of experience with a lack of good faith towards you on my part is precisely the type of comment that shows what an inexperienced user you are. Assuming bad faith and thinking another editor is wrong are not the same things at all whereas you are confusing them! SqueakBox 15:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, life-banned editor Nathanrdotcom was talking about his return to Wikipedia, I assume you would have to link to conduct any sort of investigation. — MichaelLinnear 03:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no. His conduct prior to his ban, a long period of time in which to believe he may have reformed and a tight leash are all that are needed to allow his return. Linking to WR to examine his behavior there is not really fair to him since that website follows different protocol than this one. The MONGO arbitration clearly stated that we cannot regulate what people do off wiki....but those in the know might use comments others make in other websites to petition the arbcom to disallow his (or anyones) return, or in the case someone was here on wiki still, their promotion to admin might be jepardized if it is known they are attacking others in an off wiki forum, but that still doesn't require a link to the website or comments. I don't think anyone mentioning encyclopedia dramatica or WR or stating on their userpages that they edit there is grounds for any punishment...but linking to the website knowingly should carry incremental penalties, based on the severity of the linked page and the substance contained in it, and if they repeat the offense if they have previously been told not to link there.--MONGO 04:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If wikipedia review isn't a website that sponsors attacks and harassment, then I don't know what it is.--MONGO 01:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, since by the same standard Wikipedia can be construed as a site which is attacking them in return, I don't see where this is taking us. Mangoe 04:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

We have editorial oversight here and attacks can be edited out...we have no control over what is posted there. I don't attempt to say that people shouldn't be posting on ED or WR or elsewhere, only that since those sites in particular do little to remove harassment of others, then they shouldn't be linked to. If someone wants to post on their wiki userpage that they also blog at WR or edit ED, then that's up to them...so long as they don't link to it.--MONGO 05:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You guys are looking for "one good reason" to link to such a site? How about when somebody posts to one of those sites to the effect that they're planning on suing Wikipedia or its editors? Doesn't it make sense to call editors/admins/foundation staff/etc. attention to it by citing the link? *Dan T.* 04:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That can be sent directly to the foundation for their review via email...not needed to link it to anything on wikipedia actually.--MONGO 05:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont think that is an acceptable answer, SqueakBox 19:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. There is no need to link/expose people to nonsense on-wiki. If we are not allowed to protect ourselves and our peers here, whats the point? The only reason I can see to not support the policy is if one is sympathetic with/willing to turn a blind eye to harassment. - Denny ^(talk) 06:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Denny, you are putting protecting ourselves ahead of the point of the project. Our involvement as editors is only for the purpose of advancing the goals of the project. Wikimedia Foundation and the English language Wikipedia project do not exist to serve our needs - instead, we edit here to serve the goals of the project. If you are here to put your needs above the goals of the project then you are of no more use to the project than those who come here for the purpose of advancing their site though spamming or their reputations though biased editing. In short you act as if you have a conflict of interest in editing wikipedia because you are willing to sacrifice the goal of becoming the best encyclopedioa we can to the goal of protecting yourself and other editors at all costs. Balance is essential and "at all cost" is the opposite of balance and shows that your WP:COI is affecting your editing here at wikipedia. Maybe you should start over with a new user name so wikipedia review does not scare you so much. Or maybe just stop editing the policy pages that your COI involves. WAS 4.250 08:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The point of the project is to build an encyclopedia. Is it COI of interest to ensure that a simple clarification exists of what counts as an attack, hate, or outing site, which by practice we already can remove links to immediately? I don't care if there is an outing thread for me... but would you care if there was a "Who is WAS 4.250?" Do we not have a responsibility to do the little things to keep our peers safe? - Denny ^(talk) 13:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Are the "bad sites" going to go away if we don't link to them? Is anybody going to stop Google from linking to them, too, given that this most likely brings more people to the sites than an obscure little link in a talk page here? For that matter, as others have noted, the very fact that we're having a heated debate about linking to the "attack sites" has actually brought more publicity, interest, and traffic to those sites than would a simple link to them. *Dan T.* 14:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I noticed in my arbcom case that links (now removed) to ED were posted to help identify that the person who brought forth the case was also editing ED and attacking me and many others. Maybe this needs to be adjusted to ensure that links to these websites should be done only in specific situations. I'm not sure how to best word what those cases might be, but no doubt, anything that would endanger a wikipedian by way of having their real life identities compromised should not be allowed. In other words, we already take care of this here on wiki, but we shoudln't allow links from other websites that do this since we have no editorial control over that information. WR and ED both allow posts of information that has reveiled wikipedians real life identities...that is an issue. Since Denny started this essay, it's a bit unfair to tell him he has a COI...I don't see that he has been unfair or rude to others who disagree with him.--MONGO 08:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That would count as one of the instances where links to such sites serve a useful function, yes, and the reason why several people including myself are opposed to making flat, arbitrary rules and enforcing them with zero-tolerance zeal. One can also argue that it's a bad idea to censor those links after the fact, as was done on the arbcom case; our tradition of openness usually argues in favor of preserving the evidence so others can understand the case and the reasons behind the decision later. *Dan T.* 14:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

One reason to occasionally reread those attack sites is that on Wikipedia, we cannot easily do something against a certain breed of powerdrunk louts. Some of those sites may summarize actions, revealing patterns and hidden (or not-so-much hidden) agendas, and help us in identifying the black sheep. Nothing that's written there has to be taken for granted, but critical sites can serve as an additional input. At least, the people maintaining/posting on those sites are obviously sincerely interested in what's going on at Wikipedia. For everything else, the blacklist is sufficient. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I just read on WR an editor there claiming they are there to defend their principles. Zero tolerance towards the principles and beliefs of those we disagree with is surely completely counter to the open principles of wikipedia, SqueakBox 16:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Wholehearted agree. Plus, it's somewhat intriguing that the fiercest and (in my opinion) apparently most sincere criticism seems to be directed at a relatively small portion of users. Whatever that means... —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

What is clear is that those users allegedly being attacked on WR include people pro this page such as Denny and also those against it such as Dan and myself, SqueakBox 16:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Strike that last stupid remark of mine. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

my ignorance on this issue

The major cases of editor outings I know of are the Essjay thing, which may or may not have not happened for the good of the community, and the Siegenthaler incident where the editor who vandalized that article was outed.

Have there been cases where:

1. A person was stalked, i.e. a car sitting outside of their house, a person following them, black helicopters, etc. I don't mean someone getting your AIM screen name and calling you a fag over and over. :D
2. In another incident, or in relation to the stalking, was an editor ever physically harmed or in danger of being physically harmed?
3. Has an editor ever lost employment as a result of editor outing by one of these sites in question?

Another thing is the promotion that these websites are receiving as a result of this. Judging by the proposed policy and the comments here this is an unintended consequence. If this isn't settled soon then I fear that the only accomplishment has been to promote site(s) that others would not have known about if this wasn't initiated.

I say that because the site that is in question is an Internet forum, and therefore would not be a good source for anything anyway.

Are there web forums that are considered reliable sources on anything?

It just strikes me as common sense that the site in question shouldn't be used as a source, not necessarily because of its activities, but because of the nature of the site, i.e. it is an internet forum. Same with non-notable blogs, anyone can put one up and say anything. Actually, same with wikis too ;)

Apologies if I am retreading old issues or distracting this discussion in any way. Feel free to remove this if that be the case. Just having a hard time understanding what will be accomplished from this since they can't be used as sources in an encyclopedia anyway. El hombre de haha 08:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed WR is not a Reliable source nor is any other forum. And whereas I can understand how a site controlled by a webmaster might be considered an attack site (eg wikipedia watch) forums are full of the content of the forum users and this may violate the rules of the site, just as a lot of prejudicial material is to be found here including personal attacks though this violates our policies. Wikipedia Watch certainly outed me so outing is not just restricted to Essjay and Brian Chase. Of course Essjay was outed as a fraud and that kind of outing may be positive, SqueakBox 17:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know of at least two instances where personal information posted on WR was used by those that did the postings or others who read it to harass the person they idenitified in real life. In one case, the administrator, who had nothing wrong to anyone, was identified on WR or at least the info was posted there...that same person had their employer contacted and they had to explain the situation to their employer. They also immediately left Wikipedia. In the second instance, a well liked administrator suffered a similar situation and also left wiki. There have been postings on WR that also have tried to and in some cases had some success in identifying the real life identities of wiki editors and admins. Some wikipedians post on WR and are in good standing in this community, but they do not endorse or contribute to the harassment. WR has also had some valid complaints that wiki might learn from, but these are generally far and few between. Regardless, since that website and others like it permit and do little about those that attack wikipedians and try to out their real life idenitites, they should be considered attack sites.--MONGO 09:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me know when you start doing anymore edits such as this one. Things might not be so haha.--MONGO 09:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Such is the penalty for asking questions on a matter like this I suppose. Let it be noted that was on a talk page and a poke at the wikipedian tendency to make a List_of_(anything). Sorry I put myself in your crosshairs. :)

However, thank you for the examples. I definitely do not approve of someone losing or in fear of losing their employment over such a situation. I had somehow gotten the idea that some wikipedians had a reasonable fear of physical violence. Fear of losing employment can be just as bad, though.

Another clarification, does this policy ban the site from EVERYTHING, including talk pages, essays, etc. As stated before it's not WP:RS anyway. If a person could potentially lose employment over these sites then I could understand supporting the "ban." As I don't understand the various professions people hold I am unsure how losing employment over wikipedia would "come down."

Keep on haha'in, El hombre de haha 21:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It took some work to find that sin, I expect.

But it's Irony Time! I personally would never have found the Unspeakable Site were it not for the premature enforcement of this not-yet-a-guideline, when one of the articles I follow got changed. That brings us to the next irony: that the changed reference didn't fit the picture being painted here. Indeed, because of that helpful overreaction, I've learned no end of interesting things about the editing habits of the various players in this game, though perhaps not as much as anyone on either side would have me understand.

I don't really care all that much to get involved in the admin wars of which this is so very clearly, now that it has been helpfully pointed out to me by the very people who apparently wanted to make sure my eyes stayed averted, just the tip of the iceberg. But in yet another irony here, the people on the Unspeakable Forum are citing "bad" behavior here quite easily, while the allegations against them, lacking as they do citations, remain mere allegations. Of course, under the proposal nobody will ever be able to supply those citations here, so the net effect of this is going to be that the Unspeakable Site will be enshrined here forever (unless the admins commit the ostentatious sin of eradicating them from this article's history) as the victim of a bunch of vague allegations by patently interested parties. If it had been left well enough alone, it might have faded; but in the zeal to, well, persecute them for their sins, they've now been made notorious, which is the best advertizing money cannot buy.

I am growing tired of what is evidently a waste of typing on my part of warning against this folly, and at any rate it's apparent that the deletion of the bit that got my attention in the first place is just too outrageous to be repeated. So I am likely to bow out at this point. But I did want to confirm that, yes, this attempt to pursue what is more and more clearly a vendetta against the Unspeakable Site has indeed raised their profile, at least to me. Mangoe 12:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the laughs...if there is a vendetta, it is by the disgruntled who use those websites to posts harassing commentary and try to figure out the real life identities of others solely for the purpose of harassment. Maybe you would be better off helping them, since you seem apathetic to helping us protect others here on Wikipedia, where everyone should be able to enjoy an editing experience that is harassment free. Besides, who cares how famous or infamous they become in our effort to eliminate them from being linked to from here? I generally do prefer to ignore them, alas, no reason a guideline or policy can't be adopted from what is already common sense for some and has prior arbcom determinations as precedence.--MONGO 17:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there's more to it than only attacks and harassment by "the disgruntled". I believe there are two distinct points involved: A) Outright attacks which are detestable and must not be linked to, and B) valid criticism well worth considering. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, at the moment the only people who actually seem to be being "protected" in this are you, MONGO, and various others whom the denizens of the Unspeakable Site identify as your, well, co-conspirators. You aren't doing anything to protect me in proposing this policy, because I'm not doing anything that would make them want to expose me. And if they did expose me, it wouldn't be the end of the world. It would be rude and uncivil, true, but after twenty years I'm used to that. They "attack" you, and you "attack" them back, and the whole process is unedifying. I've tried to make sense out of the Arbcom, and frankly, what with all the deletions, there isn't enough left except for the numerous opinions offered by your fellows that you were overly zealous. I tend to agree with them, from what I can still see, not that it matters. Mangoe 04:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but since that arbcom case has already disallowed all links to Encyclopedia Dramatica, it isn't much of an extension to simply disallow links ot other sites that attack wikipedians by posting personal information about them. We routinely remove such postings anyway, but with a guideline in place, it makes it clear that the right to do so has clear support. I'm pleased those websites aren't attacking you, yet find that your belief that they attack me as if I did something wrong to them is due process. The people that did attack me did so because I may have blocked them in the past...this applies pretty much the same for others that are singled out there...banned editors go to wikipedia review to post their sob story, completely failing to accept that they were banned because of their own mistakes. I Have mentioned numerous times that I really don't care what is posted about MONGO on other websites, and frankly, the attention many seem to give me is quite fasinating...but we have a right to be able to edit here without that abuse, you and I and everyone else. Like any policy or guideline, there is always grey areas and I wouldn't support this if it was going to be misused to start banning every single site that has a critical analysis of Wikipedia, or news sources that are published and are reliable sources. We are of course talking about ED and WR and a very few other sites, that post harmful and in many cases erroneous misrepresentations about individual people. I don't think I was zealous at all at trying to protect myself from harassment...I would do the same for you or anyone else that was harassed in a similar manner. For the record, after 25 years of law enforcement and security work, I do know the difference between a physical attack and childish nonsense, yet I still feel that Wikipedians should know they can come here and edit in an environment that is as harassment free as we can make it. I have seen way too many people leave wiki simply because of onwiki harassmet, so no need to make ths situation worse by condoning the importation via links to harassment they have to endure outside this website. Should this proposal fail so be it, but no effort to protect wikipedians from harassment should be considered a vain one. If that is the way you feel, then that's really a shame.--MONGO 04:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

And the site contains both because it is a forum not a website controlled by a webmaster, SqueakBox 17:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Beware: Hypothetical situation

(copied this comment of mine over from DennyColt's talk page and tweaked it a bit for frame of reference)

What if a reliable source published the real name of a user, or the name of an attack site? Purely hypothetical as of yet, but it's not too farfetched and may happen any minute now, considering the media attention the Essjay story received. Wikipedia has become prominent, and prominent users may gain sufficient mainstream attention. I'm asking this question because if and when such an article appears, the information published in that article would be suitable for citation, effectively circumventing any attack site policy. Then we'd have a whole new conflict at our hands: We could not censor a reliable source, but the article would still pose a threat to the mentioned user/s - either through linking to an attack site or by publishing real names (or talking about agendas and whatnot). Again: Yes, it's still hypothetical, but it could happen real soon now and I believe we should be prepared for the impact - and hope it never comes to this. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Reference to WR

Regarding this edit: Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Censorship still mentions the site by name. Should it be censored changed to comply with this proposed policy? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That would be rich, to censor the part of Wikipedia that talks about censorship on Wikipedia. It would be a form of irony similar to the case where the government of Singapore responded to critics alleging that that government suppressed criticism through abuse of the legal system, by suing the critics. *Dan T.* 16:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty much my point, but we need some consistency. WP:BLOCK#Personal_attacks_that_place_users_in_danger forbids linking to attack sites, even if it's not a live link. I'm pretty sure that's meant to include writing out the name of an attack site, like it appears here. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need such a paternalistic system?

I think the intentions behind this essay are good, but how exactly will the blocking of these links benefit anyone? The websites will still exist. .V. _[Talk|Email] 17:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say such a paternalistic controlling policy proposal needs strongly opposing. As we live for the most part in a world where freedom of speech is sacred we can no more stop these sites than people from these sites can delete articles they dont like, such as Daniel Brandt. If these sites commit libel individuals can of course sue them but as they exist off wikipedia the only thing we as a site can inssist on is not linking to them, assuming thios page ever makes policy (which lets hope not in its current form where the definition of an attack site is so vague that any site could be blacklisted in an entirely opaque way), SqueakBox 17:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You've got a point about this needing to be WAY more specific. Perhaps it should read only links to specific harassment? For example, if www.example.com had no harassment, but www.example.com/harassment.html did, the second would be restricted but not the first. .V. _[Talk|Email] 18:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Right now any forum or wiki site containing one attack on wikipedia would be subject to a wikipedia ban even if that one poster was just trolling the forum, so if you dont like a wiki site or forum just post to it an attack on wikipedia and then the opaque system here will ban the site from wikipedia. Sounds like a recipe for Troll paradise outside of wikipedia subverting normal, reasonable process on wikipedia (by giving trolls off wikipedia so much power to negatively effect open sites they dont like and making the internet that bit less pleasant. Will Conservapedia be banned? as some of the editors there dislike wikipedia and one criticism by an enemy of conservapedia would see the site removed from wikipedia in an opaque way (no appeals etc), SqueakBox 18:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC) SqueakBox 18:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the essay or in current policy that requires a ban "even if there was one attack on Wikipedia." What is your basis for saying that? Maybe I missed something in the fine print.--Mantanmoreland 18:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You missed SqueakBox's point: One person may register with any Wikipedia-related forum, post attacks there and thereby change the site into an attack site, despite all the valuable opinions presented there by other people. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I understood his point completely, and don't get how he came to that conclusion. I don't see anything in existing or proposed policy that would allow such a thing. Do you? More importantly, are you aware of any site being banned (or seriously requested to be banned), under the circumstances you mention?--Mantanmoreland 19:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well there is no proposal at all as to how the sites will be identified and as I wont be going around trying to get sites banned I cant answer your last question, Mantanmore. Certainly WR bans personal attacks though I have no idea how that ban is enforced but that information may be difficult to obtain. I think the problem of on site attacks is much more serious and we would be better doing something to prevent that rather than trying to censore sites we cant control (except of course we can ourselves participate in forums and other wikis. My fear is that if this was passed next we would see people being banned for particicpating in these alleged attack sites, SqueakBox 20:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

WR does not remove attacks made on Wikipedians. The routinely permit postings that provide information on the personal identites of a number of people. Their attempts to "out" people is well known and transparent. I could care less what they say about me, most of it is drivel made by banned editors. Thety don't know my personal information...but for others who have had their identities reveiled, WR permits and some of the contributors there do feed off of those postings. No one is saying that they don't have a few comments which might be of benefit to wikipedia as an outside analysis, but those posts are fewer than the others where people are being attacked.--MONGO 21:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

WR is one such site that is rightfully labelled as an attack site because of several instances of outing identities etc. At the same time, while inevitable, it is also unfortunate to label the whole site an attack site, because it also contains some valuable contributions. Ambivalence is the word. Regarding current blocking policy: Criticism_of_wikipedia#Censorship still mentions the full name of WR and it should be removed according to the people who want this proposal as policy. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Squeakbox, what we seem to have here are objections on principle to a policy dealing with a real, not theoretical, problem. I don't see the harm. This is not Guantanamo. We're not talking about putting people in prison, just not mentioning/linking to their sites. I can't imagine any negative impact on the project. Since this policy has been followed for some time, perhaps you or someone else can cite the actual damage that has been done by that.--Mantanmoreland 22:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well no harm has been done by this proposed policy yet but I believe it would harm the project were this to become policy. I am not criticising things that are already policy merely this entirely unnecessary edition, SqueakBox 22:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess that what I'm having trouble understanding, which is how this is a departure from current policy. I don't see it that way. It strikes me as a reasonable interpretation of the status quo.--Mantanmoreland 22:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

paternalistic is not bad

"I would say such a paternalistic controlling policy proposal needs strongly opposing."

About those... BLP anyone? NPA? This policy is basically BLP/NPA for editors here in a sense. Why should editors not have protections defined? - Denny ^(talk) 21:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but it's also a form of censorship, isn't it? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal safety of users isn't censorship. - Denny ^(talk) 21:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty much the point: We have BLP, and we have NPA, an additional guideline is simply not needed. We already remove those links without this page per existing policy. --Conti|✉ 21:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

So you are saying per existing policy and precedent I can use a search like this to remove every reference to an offensive site that endangers the privacy of editors here? - Denny ^(talk) 21:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Per existing policy you can remove links that contain unsourced negative or personal material about living people (WP:BIO). But that doesn't mean you can remove every single link to a website that, somewhere, contains such material, and that's a good thing, IMHO. --Conti|✉ 21:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Denny: Censorship doesn't serve the personal safety of users. It's two distinct aspects. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

What benefit is gained from linking to those sites? Also that criticism section is atrociously sourced. The Wikitruth source doesn't mention WR at all, and the other source is an anonymous blog. Removing those there per RS/ATT. - Denny ^(talk) 21:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

(ec)If linking to a site gains no benefit tot he project that site wouldn't be linked to anyway. Why would wee need a policy for that? SqueakBox 21:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Because people DO keep linking to attack sites, and some defend that linking with explaining the benefit gained. - Denny ^(talk) 21:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

What benefit? Well, from what I can see, there's some substantial criticism there which is worth considering as I said above. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

(ec) My question was directed at Denny. I think there is useful info on both WR and WW, SqueakBox 21:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Good, when they stop endorsing/supporting/allowing rampant personal attacks and 'outing' they won't be an attack site. :) - Denny ^(talk) 21:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

And besides: Before continuing here, someone who is willing to "protect the privacy of Wikipedia users" should go and remove the full name of that "WR" attack site here. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Done five minutes ago per RS/ATT and attack site precedents. - Denny ^(talk) 21:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

OK then. Thanks. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps someone can explain to me how the "paternalism" of this essay some people are complaining about differs materially from the existing policy/arb decisions summarized here.[5] Seems to me some of us have a problem with existing policy.--Mantanmoreland 23:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Question for opposers

In relation to this, a question for the 'opposers': the current NPA and other policies already empower anyone to without recourse remove links to attack sites. Is your problem with that aspect, that removal/dismissal of the information, or that this proposed policy is attempting to set standards for what is the objectionable material? Because if you object to the definition but not the removal (which I suspect) then this policy is good because it would keep people from abusing the duty to remove hate/attack content and links. Only actual hate/attack content could be reasonably removed under this. - Denny ^(talk) 23:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Your point is correct and I think that your definition of "attack sites" is well drafted. If there is a flaw to it, I haven't seen it pointed out, and it adheres to existing consensus.--Mantanmoreland 23:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with that. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, oppose any past, present, or future policy that permits anybody to root through talk pages censoring all references to sites that are in disfavor. *Dan T.* 23:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you oppose the inclusion of 'new' links to attack sites per existing (stable) policy such as NPA/harassment? Do you object to a working definition of attack sites? If so, why, on the latter? - Denny ^(talk) 23:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

(ec):I support what is best for the project as an encyclopedia and I dont believe that this page in any way helps that and could disastrously hinder. Often plans with the best of intentions can lead to the worst of events. I also think ther only way to make this page even basically viable would be to radically change the attack site definition, ideally by creating a list opf approved banned sites availlale for public exposure (it doesnt mean I would support a page like that but I see the definition of attack sites being so vague and so open to interpretation as the worst feature of this page), SqueakBox 23:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

So your main objection is the definition itself? OK. What about the removal of such links, the ban on promoting/advertising them, and the ban of importing material from them? All of which as I wrote this was either done/supported in the past, and is intended so that editors here are not ideally exposed to any harassment on-wiki. - Denny ^(talk) 00:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

(ec)But which sites? And who decides? I personally think you need to distinguish between sites controlled by a webmaster and those which arent. WW is the former and WR is the latter. I am happy with your removing WR as not RS but not as an alleged attack site. If this were to be policy I would have thought a community decision (an ASFD?) on each alleged attack site would be the minimum necessary to label a site as such. I also think we need tot alk about talk pages because removing m,aterial from there needs a special section here if this page is to become policy, SqueakBox 00:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Any link or quote from a site should be judged on a case-by-case basis depending on its context and purpose, not just dealt with prejudicially based on an inflexible rule. *Dan T.* 00:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Better to have a consensus reaching page everyone can contribute to rathert han a strict policy page written and discussed by a handful of individuals, SqueakBox 00:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

NPA in particular allows removal of links to attacks. My opposition is simple - "attack sites" may be useful in any manner of discussion debate, or even sourcing. To blanket ban any links to "attack sites" - which is too broadly defined at best and open to really poor interpretation by people who should know better at worst - is not workable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we have to differentiate the different type of pages on wikipedia. Removing well defined attack sites from user pages is acceptable, removing them from the main space may be acceptable dependiong on who and how is defining the attack site. But to remove any link made in good faith and on topic to an article talk page is, IMO, simply unacceptable in every case, SqueakBox 00:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

There are many problems with turning this essay into policy

Like many legislators who have only good thoughts when they come up with new laws (in other words, the Real World equivalent of Wikipedia policies), the difficulty is in foreseeing how those laws can be used when put into place. I believe this proposal opens the door to being used for many purposes for which it is not intended; some of these purposes are harmful to the encyclopedia.

Let us first look at definitions.
Wikipedian - A Wikipedian is someone who participates in the various Wikipedia-related projects to any extent.[6] Anyone who has made so much as a single edit is, by this definition, a Wikipedian. Those edits could be made using an IP, a pseudonym or a real name; but since a Wikipedian has to be a person, only the actual person behind the IP, pseudonym or real name is a Wikipedian. Our belief in this is the foundation of our sockpuppet policy.

Defamation is a legal term. While the word is often used in the vernacular, there is no Wikipedia policy or definition relating to it, only an article describing its use in law.[7] Of note, in that article is a discussion of the finding of the California Supreme Court, which ruled that the applicable US law does not permit web sites to be be sued for libel that was written by other parties. This is very important, as Wikipedia could well use this ruling to defend against a defamation lawsuit in the future. Creating a policy that contradicts this ruling can put this defense out of reach of the encyclopedia, exposing it to considerable harm.

Let's look at some possible application problems:

• At least a few artists who have edited here have a policy of permitting personal information that contradicts their "official" biographies to be posted on their official websites. At Wikipedia, posting personal information is defined as harassment; thus the official website of the artist would be an attack website.
• For that matter, Wikipedia permits the sourced posting of personal information on its subjects. Some of those subjects are Wikipedians. That would make Wikipedia an attack website.
• Some Wikipedians have, in their real lives, been the subject of legal threats. Particularly if the Wikipedian in question is editing under his real name, any links to websites describing these legal threats would be leading to an attack site.

Now, you may say "no, no, we would never do that!" But that would be our policy, and would give the opportunity for any editor to delete otherwise valuable references and external links if they could find a single post or article on them that might possibly fit the description of an attack website. There is no way to avoid this if we have a formal policy on attack sites, because there is no way to write this policy that will exclude this possibility. The potential for harm to this project is, for this reason, significant.

Perhaps most seriously though, is the possibility that some Wikipedians may think this proposed policy will protect them from harassment, legal threats and defamation. This is completely false. This policy will have no effect on Wikipedia Watch trying to ferret out the real life identities of admins. It will not prevent Wikipedia Review from poking fun at any editors. It will not change the fact that Wikitruth will still have its rumour-laden articles. All of those things will still be there, they will still continue, and nobody here will be allowed to talk about them on-wiki. Wikipedia cannot protect anyone from internet stalking or harassment or legal threats anywhere but on Wikipedia - and it's questionable how effective Wikipedia itself could be, even on its own site. Let us not pretend that this policy would create a safe haven for editors. Risker 03:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

My arbcom case has already disallowed all links to Encyclopedia Dramatica, it isn't much of an extension to simply disallow links to other sites that attack wikipedians by posting personal information about them. We routinely remove such postings anyway, but with a guideline in place, it makes it clear that the right to do so has clear support. Like any policy or guideline, there is always grey areas and I wouldn't support this if it was going to be misused to start banning every single site that has a critical analysis of Wikipedia, or news sources that are published and are reliable sources. We are of course talking about ED and WR and a very few other sites, that post harmful and in many cases erroneous misrepresentations about individual people and make overt attempts to "out" people by coordinating efforts to identify who they are in real life. I still feel that Wikipedians should know they can come here and edit in an environment that is as harassment free as we can make it. I have seen way too many people leave wiki simply because of onwiki harassmet, so no need to make ths situation worse by condoning the importation via links to harassment they have to endure outside this website.--MONGO 04:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a reason why ArbComm decisions are not considered policy, Mongo. It is because difficult cases make for bad law. I have read that case, and it saddens me to see the extent of the personal abuse you sustained. Each editor draws his own line in the sand as to how much of himself to put on the line for Wikipedia - it is clear to me that your line in the sand was a heck of a lot farther away than most of us would ever imagine. Risker 05:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...but it shouldn't be that way. If we can offer them protection with a guideline or even a policy that will help to ensure they don't have to be harassed by links to websites that attack them, then we make wikipedia better for editors, not worse. I'm not trying to be a censor here or brownshirt this issue, just I think it would be best if we did what we can to ensure what I endured is minimized for others.--MONGO 05:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think that before anyone makes their first edit, a big screen should come up telling them that posting anywhere on the internet makes them vulnerable, and that Wikipedia is no different. I don't think that blacklisting these sites will protect anyone; making it clear to people that there are sites out there who do indeed dissect the every edit of those they consider "editors of interest" may do more to protect people than just hushing up their existence. There is a rather famous case here in Canada, I think it is called Jane Doe vs. Toronto Police, where a woman who was sexually assaulted successfully sued the police for failing to advise the community of the fact there was a known rapist attacking women in a certain area who met a certain description. I think that might be a more useful precedent to use on any internet site, including Wikipedia, than trying - and failing - to protect people from others outside of our control. Risker 05:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Question

If such a hard line is being drawn on this shouldn't WikiTruth be included? I haven't seen it mentioned here. — MichaelLinnear 05:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I have only glanced at that website...are there coordinated efforts there to try and "out" people's real identities as there are on wikipedia review or ED? I can't imagine why that website would be a reliable source anyway...but who knows.--MONGO 05:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is FCYTravis and Kelly Martin on that site, and some of it is pretty cruel. — MichaelLinnear 05:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

They don't seem to out people, just post about people. The stuff they gathered against FCYTravis seems to be all public knowledge for example (like the whole diaper blog and stuff.) .V. _[Talk|Email] 05:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I still can't understand what purpose it serves to link to that website. The article we have would be the only exception, however, if they posted harassment on their main page we link to, then no reason it should remined linked. It's not like they are a reliable source.--MONGO 05:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe the idea is to completely ban even mentioning sites that are clearly attack sites (with outing and stuff). At least, that's where I'd draw the line. While the merit of linking to other sites maybe not be immediately visible, there is a difference between (i) seriously attacking and endangering editors by exposing them and (ii) including some critical rants etc. Personally, I believe Myspace is also widely without encyclopaedic merits, but we don't need to ban it, so as a matter of course we don't. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Rights of editors and the critical need for this to happen: John Clarence Washington III

User:ThatExamplePerson edits Wikipedia anonymously. His real name is "John Clarence Washington III". He does not disclose this on-wiki. He has absolutely no desire for this to be known on-wiki. Using clues about his editing patterns... and interests, over time an intellegient person can tie the two together. Detective work. If someone were to post on-wiki--ANYWHERE--that User:ThatExamplePerson is John Clarence Washington III, or if they posted that, "Hey, if you Google about bloggers that write about Los Angeles politics (John's pasttime)", or other clues about who he really is, it could be:

1. removed
2. qualify for Oversight removal from the database
3. harassment

User:ThatExamplePerson has as defined by policy a right to privacy here. Anyone repeatedly linking the screen name to "John Clarence Washington III," would be soon indefinitely banned and justly so. A website called http://wikipedianstalkers.com exists. It sets itself up where a portion of its content is dedicated to finding out and exposing who various Wikipedians they don't like are (ironically and hypocritically while hiding behind aliases of their own). They make or repeat the connection that User:ThatExamplePerson is John Clarence Washington III on wikipedianstalkers.com. Now, various people, or trolls, link back to wikipedianstalkers.com from on-Wikipedia. With two clicks--the click into wikipedianstalkers.com and a click to their home page at the top (an extremely common web layout), they can see the front page of the site. From there, what do they see? A section entitled,

"Who is User:ThatExamplePerson?"

...and the Wikipedians who followed that link now know that User:ThatExamplePerson is John Clarence Washington III, which ThatExamplePerson did NOT want, and which was allowable for anyone to remove/Oversight out had it been posted on-wiki directly. But, since there was no restriction on the posting to attack sites, oh well. John's much lauded right to anonymity that Wikipedia trumps itself on is no a moot point.

Why is it alright and desirable to oversight/delete from the database out POSTED personal information about Wikipedians, but so many people seem to have a problem with simply removing from public view links to sites that post the same exact thing? - Denny ^(talk) 13:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Denny, you are completely failing to address any of the larger issues, like what else this proposed policy would affect within the encyclopedia. This policy is the editorial equivalent of using a bulldozer to remove a dandelion. I am not defending the right of people to link to Wikipedia Review, I am defending their right to link to the New York Times and CNN and People Magazine, all of which have revealed personal information about Wikipedians. I think you need to step back and recognize that the effects of this proposal reach far beyond turning off a few sites that have focused on a limited number of Wikipedians, and has the potential to affect just about every article in this encyclopedia. Risker 13:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you have examples where a reliable/reputable news source 'outed' the true identity of a Wikipedian that was anonymous? Keep in mind that if the Wikipedian outed themselves willingly, to tie their real name to their WP name in any fashion, this wouldn't really apply. - Denny ^(talk) 15:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Essjay could well have argued that he was being harrassed by the New York Times if the current version was made policy, SqueakBox 15:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The New York Times doesn't call women whores, or publish actionable libel on purpose. If it does it accidentally, it compensates the victim. If a victim complains to the editor, it doesn't publish the letter and hold the person up for more ridicule. Its journalists don't publish physical threats against individuals, or e-mail them to say "you better find a place to hide," I'm going to take you out," "we can do this the easy or hard way," "you have something I want, so I'm going to remove you," and "I don't think you'll survive this one."

The New York Times has also not published the personal details of any Wikipedian who hasn't themselves posted those details, so there is absolutely no comparison here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It's time for the Wheel of Reality

In the switch from one Unspeakable Site to another, the credibility of this has sunk another notch. I've looked at Encyclopædia Dramatica, and I agree that nobody is ever likely to cite it, even in talk, as anything but attacks on various people. I also think it's pretty stupid, but under "verifiability instead of truth"^TM I don't see that as something that can be demonstrated.

But the linking of the two sites leads us to two problems. The first is that current policy already gives anyone authority to excise references to ED on sight. The only thing I can see this proposal adding to that is cutting the process of defending these excisions a little shorter, maybe. That's likely to have to lead to a "critics blacklist" of the same form as the current anti-spam measures, and if it comes to that the reputation of Wikipedia will go down a huge notch. Such patent censorship would give the media a field day. Nobody needs new policy to cut ED out of the picture, at least until the day it hits the major media.

The other problem, though, is that anyone can look at Wikipedia Review and see that it is entirely different in character from ED, and that they only thing they have in common is being critical of the way WP is being administered. This discussion has tended to imply that references to the site are in article space, which isn't true; all of the excisions made by DennyColt were in talk space, though the one that caught my eye could conceivably have appeared in project space instead. And given that they appear as critics, reference to some of the material they produce is not unreasonable in discussions of ways to improve Wikipedia process. For example, one thread presents an essay on the cabal problem, with subsequent discussion of that essay (removed link to attack site). There's no legitimate reason to block reference to this material on its own merits or lack thereof. What's being discussed here is censorship of this material on the basis of other material (the "outing" threads). The thesis that these outings are only a couple of clicks away from the other posts is extremely lame, considering what turns up when you google MONGO admin wikipedia. Anyone who isn't a complete computer illiterate and who has the vaguest awareness that there is controversy about the way Wikipedia is being administered cand find any dirt they want to know in seconds.

That's exactly why I continue to read this as a punitive action against WR for not playing by the rules that a group of admins here have set forth. And it's why this proposal presents the appearance of a conflict of interest on the part of those admins. Mangoe 14:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't see any purpose to link to a blog that has either attacks or people opinions. WR is a blog and as such it is an unreliable source anyway. What puirpose does it serve? None...what example would be a good one where we would link to it? We don't even have an article on WR for the same reasons. This is a no brainer. But I can't see why anyone should be penalized because they say they contribute to WR or ED. Punishing anyone for mentioning their participation would be ridiculous...all I recommend we do is not link to it.--MONGO 14:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, first of all, WR isn't a blog; it's a forum. Not that this matters so much in the face of the way (exactly as I pointed out above) that you talk about mentions of the site as if they were in article space, which they are not. It would be (and indeed was) perfectly reasonable to refer to wikipedia criticisms in discussions of how to improve editing. Also, I didn't say anything about banning people for simply posting to these sites ("where none pursueth"). Mangoe 15:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, the fact is they attack people there...bottom line. The attacks are in some cases attempts to "out" people...maybe these are reposts from elsewhere and maybe they aren't. If indeed, that blog was a real attempt for truly constructive critism about Wikipedia or editors it would be less circumspect, but that is not the reality. They missed their chance to be what they could have been, namely an outside place for people to dicuss real Wikipedia problems and offer appropriate remedies that might not be as well received internally on Wikipedia. So what purpose does it serve to link to WR on a talkpage? Gee, lookie here what WR has to say on the matter? I don't get it...they aren't published or oversighted effectively, so their opinions are immaterial.--MONGO 16:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You're leaving out a crucial piece of the "bottom line", over and over, which is that you personally, MONGO, are one of the people being "attacked" (which is to say, criticized). You write here as if you are disinterested, but that just cannot be so. In a world of utter probity you would be recusing yourself from the discussion.

As far as the rest of your comments here, they are just opinions of yours-- even your assessments of their criticisms as "attacks". As for the reality, the citation dates back to the first days of September 2006. Your magisterial assessment is rather beside the point; other people certainly thought it was worth introducing to Wikipedia:Expert rebellion, and it was discussed for an exchange of some four additional responses. As a magisterium, frankly I'd go with those at WP:EXR. Mangoe 21:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Several people have cited that it's current policy to suppress links to Encyclopedia Dramatica without regard to context, but has that ever actually been decided as policy by consensus? It seems to me it was imposed in a top-down manner by an ArbCom that was grossly exceeding its authority, which extends only to deciding controversies between parties to a case brought before them, not making policy that is binding on everybody else. I was critical, then and now, of the maniacal zeal with which MONGO proceeded to draconianly enforce his interpretation of that decision, and I'm even more critical now that it's being extended to other sites as well. *Dan T.* 17:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Maniacal zeal...draconian...? Fred Bauder did 99% of the alterations to links to a ED...I actually altered only about a dozen out of hundreds. My interpretation is in keeping with the arbcom findings...the website is an attack site, much the same for wikipedia review. Maybe you need to reread our policies about civility and assuming good faith?--MONGO 17:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That's just the thing: this action looks like bad faith. Not content with defeating the opposition in an arbcom ruling (whose findings, particularly as they relate to this very proposal, remain controversial), it appears that you are trying to push through a punitive block against an external website whose objectionable content could already be barred under existing policy, but whose continued criticism of admin behavior is obviously a threat to your authority. Whether or not you view it this way, and no matter what you say in the matter, your attempt here to block their criticism will look self-serving to reasonable people. That's why you need to back off from here: your advocacy is tainted by rank self-interest, even if that be unintended. Mangoe 21:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Oddly, aside from some voices I am seeing now, the arbcom findings in the case brought against me haven't been seen as problematic. You seem to suggest I recluse from this, but I'm thinking that anyone supportive of linking to websites that harbor, aide and abet their attempts to out the personal identities of Wikipedians, can't possibly have much concern for the right our editors have to edit here without externalized harassment. I can't imagine how the argument you are supporting is in the best interests of this project.--MONGO 23:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Mangoe, I'm not getting the thrust of your arguments. This proposal is already de facto policy, apart from the spam blacklist part. Could you say what your main objections are, please? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, the problem lies with absolutist thinking. Attack sites should in most cases not be linked to. But this is an encyclopedia of all human knowledge. Sometimes such a link may be warrented. An absolute prohibition is unwise. WAS 4.250 22:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't think of a situation where a link would ever be needed. The only place these sites could be used as sources is in articles about themselves, and even then BLP and ATT (V) would disallow any link to material about third parties, so the occasions where the site could legitimately be used as a source about itself would be very limited. In these cases, we could simply give an ordinary citation e.g. Encyclopedia Dramatica, post by User:X, April 10, 2007. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Most of the debate here, however, has not been about using it as a link or reference in an actual article, but its use in talk and project pages -- for instance when referring to, discussing, responding to, and calling attention to things that are said on such sites that may be of interest to Wikipedians. *Dan T.* 22:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

And the argument is that there would never be a need for that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

We were quite happy to link to Brandt's site when he uncovered large amounts of plagiarism on Wikipedia. His site was used to remove copyright violations and plagiarism. Having this proposal become policy eliminates the chance of us using his research, however misguided you might think it is, to improve the encyclopedia. Frise 23:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Why did people have to link to it in order to remove plagiarism? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears that people enlisted some on-wiki help, considering the amount of work it took to review the material and determine what should be removed. Frise 23:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

What is this attacking MONGO here? Please AGF. I wrote the initial Essay, others--not MONGO--then promoted it to proposed Policy. I asked MONGO to take a look here, since his case was the first time the already existing practice of excising attacks/harassment was endorsed fully and publically like that. - Denny ^(talk) 21:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That is not true Denny. You promoted it here. Please take responsibility for your actions and dont mislead others. There was nothing wrong with with you making the essay into a proposal but your persistent misleading other people by claiming against the evidence that you did not promote it is wrong, SqueakBox 18:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:CREEP

This should be discussed on the talk page of WP:EL, not on a separate page. >Radiant< 14:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but this is a specific issue, not really one that is about El only.--MONGO 15:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL is essentially about article cites, and that's not the issue here. But this is WP:CREEP all right, at best. Mangoe 15:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Not really creep, a needed definition of what sites are harmful to link to. - Denny ^(talk) 15:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That page (WP:EL) just deals with what external links are appropriate in articles. It says nothing about what is proper on talk and project pages, which seems to be the main thing that's being proposed to be censored here. *Dan T.* 17:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I would not call it "censored". As a Wikipedian, I would expect the community to have safeguards in place to protect me from harassment. As the project grows in importance and recognition, the ability of Wikipedia to attract and retain contributors will depend to having such a safeguard in place. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This proposal doesn't protect anyone from any harassment. My protection against the abusive material on ED or WR is not to read it, which is already within my power. Anything that is genuinely hazardous that they can do, they can do without having a link to it from Wikipedia. Mangoe 21:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, SqueakBox 21:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It protects by not disseminating it ON Wikipedia. There is NO legal or moral obligation to include anything on Wikipedia, and includes outbound links to crap harassment websites. If consensus and practice is to remove those links, then, well, practice is policy as Slim said. - Denny ^(talk) 21:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you are missing at least three important points. First, by linking from WP into the attack site we are further promoting that site, which is a form of attack by itself. For example, instead of saying "you are a convicted criminal", I can link to your criminal record somewhere, and do the same thing. If the source I link to is questionable, it still conveys the message that I think you are a criminal, and I want everyone to see it. Second, there is a clear rule of "don't feed the trolls". Trolls thrive on attention - stop the attention and they wither and die (or go elsewhere). In this case, when we link and promote their comments from within WP, we are encouraging them and feeding them, perpetuating the abuse. Third, Google is very efficient at scraping WP, much more so (in my experience) than other sites. So by mentioning the links here, we are promoting their Google-ranking, making them more prominent. If you are the one being attacked, that's clearly detrimental. In addition to all of that, there is no good reason to quote or mention an attack site in the first place, since we are here to write an encyclopedia, and those sites would rarely if ever qualify as a reliable source. It is exactly because such comments by people saying "so what's the big deal in linking there", and not aware of the ArbCom rulings, that we need this guideline or policy in place. Crum375 21:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Very well said. - Denny ^(talk) 21:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with radiant in this respect. Andries 18:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Anonymity

The idea that anonymous ediTOrs get special rights over non-anonymous ediotrs is not acceptable as policy, IMO, SqueakBox 15:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

How does this proposal do that? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ahh see this edit for an explanation of my comment, so its what the proposal proposed (and my edit hasnt been reverted so it doesnt any more), SqueakBox 19:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Another problem clause

"For the purposes of this proposal, an attack site is a site outside Wikipedia that engages in [...], or condones [...] by failing to remove [...] legal threats toward Wikipedians."

OK, I would interpret this as a threat intended to discourage those active on other sites from taking legal action against anyone editing on Wikipedia. To take an object case, that of Daniel Brandt against SlimVirgin, this seems to be an admittedly fairly lame threat against the former taking the latter to court for whatever personal attacks she may make upon him in the forum of Wikipedia in the course their ongoing dispute. It does seem to me that such attacks are being made (and that indeed the substance of this proposal is an attack), but in any case, we're back to the issue of whether she and the various other instigators of this policy are acting in agency of the foundation. If they are (which I personally hold to be the case) then approving this is just an act of communal hypocrisy. But if not, then it puts the community in the position of trying to interfere with whatever legal action he may choose to take. I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, of course. Mangoe 21:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you a Wikipedia Review regular contributor...? ;) Your arguments unfortunately seem to be along the lines of "This might be bad" or "it's hypocritical". Unfortunately, none of them are grounded in actual practice... or examples. - Denny ^(talk) 21:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Our off-wiki lives are not relevant here, according to policy. Trying to out WR editors would be the same as trying to out wikipedia editors, IMO, SqueakBox 00:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you now, or have you ever been a communist Wikipedia Review contributor? *Dan T.* 22:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

As was said earlier in all of this, DennyColt, the only thing that brought WR to my attention was your attempt to excise it from WP:EXR's talk page. Before that I had never heard of it. As far as being a regular contributor to it, frankly, this exchange is making that sound like a good idea. Mangoe 23:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Mangoe: You said: we're back to the issue of whether she and the various other instigators of this policy are acting in agency of the foundation. What? What? I am not acting in agency of anyone. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Nor am I. - Denny ^(talk) 23:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I never cease to be mesmerized when editors make wild claims which suggest that some editors are acting on behalf of the Foundation. How preposterous.--MONGO 00:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I had let this one pass, but it has since occurred to me that what I said has been the victim of what appears to be a rather paranoid misunderstanding. I didn't mean to imply that the admins involved here are acting at the explicit direction of the foundation; the point is rather that since the adminstrators are acting on the behalf of and subject to the foundation, it is reasonable to attribute responsibility to the foundation for supervising them. Mangoe 12:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who believes in the goals of this project and wants it to succeed, would want to ensure that our editors have a safe and enjoyable working environment, and that they not be attacked or harassed from within WP itself. This has nothing to do with being an admin, or representing the Foundation. No admin here gets paid a dime, and all rational editors and admins have the exact same motivation. Crum375 12:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

some concerns.....

hi folks - sorry, but this proposal really seems to have the aura of 'not a good idea' to me.....

1. The title 'Attack Sites' - of course every right thinking person would be against these, but one man's attack site is another man's freedom-forum - the name of the proposal already seems to belie an agenda....

2. Overly Vague - generally speaking, I believe the on-wiki standards of harassment are not up to scratch - it's a very common wolf-cry. To take essjay as an example - it's certainly clear that he felt harrassed, but I found it hard to agree with him - who gets to decide?

3. The IRC issue - without opening a can of worms - is this proposal intended to remove links to the IRC channels, which seem to have well documented transgressions of these guidelines?

4. The 'Legal Threat' Bubble - legal threats are terrible for community building and collaborative editing, i guess that's why they've always been slammed so hard - however, they are.. er... 'legal!' - in taking this step, the wiki seems to be going a step further, and saying that not only are legal threats bad on-wiki, but they're bad period. The wiki has to live and breathe in the real world, not the world the way it would like it to be - and this step seems to be a further retreat into a bit of a bubble.....

..there're my thoughts for now.....

alot of this may well be solved by being less prescriptive, replacing rules and reg.s with discouragement etc. - i may have a go later! - thanks, Purples 22:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You've made 24 edits to articles in just under two years, so you'll forgive us for not taking your views seriously. Please post with your main account instead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what that whole 24 edit thing is supposed to be about, but that IRC comment is something I hadn't considered. Is this policy limited to websites, or does it extend to IRC and mailing lists and the like? I don't think anyone can deny there's been some nasty stuff on IRC. Frise 23:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The proposal talks only about websites and discussion groups. IRC isn't meant to be logged and linked to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

By linking to IRC, we link to a place where harassment of Wikipedia editors takes place. If the purpose of this policy is to shield editors from sites where off-wiki attacks take place, then we should figure out how IRC fits into all of this. Frise 23:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarified. - Denny ^(talk) 23:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

...and already reverted. Frise 05:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Slim - of course I want my views to be taken seriously - are you aware of how aggressively that post comes across? Purples 23:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether it's aggressive or just to the point. If you really have made only 24 edits to the encyclopedia in nearly two years, you lack the experience of the website and its problems with attack sites to comment. If you're a more experienced user and this is a sockpuppet account, it raises the question of why you don't post with your main account. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Purples has been here for over two years and may not comment on policy, but DennyColt can be here for 2.5 months and propose policy? I'm not sure I follow that reasoning. I think we should focus on the content, not the contributor. That is what we are about, after all. Frise 23:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I wrote an essay on what seemed like practice and the right way to do things. Others promoted it. - Denny ^(talk) 23:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

And you are right to do so, and purples is right to comment on it. Frise 23:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That simply isnt true [8], SqueakBox 23:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you did try to promote it yourself [9] Frise 23:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

And it was reversed, and I left it at that. :) I did not replace that, more experienced and knowledgeable Wikipedians did with the best interests of the project at heart. - Denny ^(talk) 23:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no, actually it hasn't been replaced. But that's beside the point, which is you should be able to propose policy; purples should be able to comment on it. Commenting on the contributor adds nothing to the discussion, especially when he or she has raised valid points. Frise 23:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Replaced with proposed, semantics... and you're right, anyone can contribute, as long as they are not obvious sock puppets that violate those rules. - Denny ^(talk) 23:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Frise, someone with 24 article edits over two years is an obvious sockpuppet account. There's no need to pay attention to the opinions about a policy proposal from someone who's violating policy elsewhere. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well whatever, YOU promoted it as nobody did before you. Please do make sure you remain as accuarate as possible about your input into the article, SqueakBox 23:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said before its not an article, article space 'rules' for V, OR, etc., don't apply. It's a discussion. - Denny ^(talk) 23:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Replies to Purple's points:

1. The attack sites title is the accepted standard from what I read on Wikipedia to refer to sites that 'attack' Wikipedians. Thats why I named the essay "Attack sites." People can call something freedom all they want, but when it interferes with a user's privacy here, freedom is moot. Wikipedia isn't a constitutional democracy. No agenda, simple policy and common sense. We don't coddle those who attack and defile the project and harass Wikipedians.
2. The decision would be made on the fly concensus, the same as everything, influenced by past precedent and common group concensus.
3. IRC issue is addressed in the current version.
4. Legal threats on-wiki are simply not allowed. There is no need to link to off-site legal threats on-wiki, as legal issues aren't addressed from what I understand on-wiki anyway. The WMF legal counsel doesn't debate legal issues with us in a Talk page. No need to link to/advertise/promote legal threats from hate sites on-wiki, thus. Thanks! - Denny ^(talk) 23:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

And people can call "censorship" by any euphemism they want... it's still censorship. *Dan T.* 23:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

On site legal threats arent allowed. Right now, to the best of my knowledge, off site legal threats are not prohibited, ie if I make an off site legal threat I cant be disciplined on-site for it. So this policy seems to be treading new ground re legal threats, and I am particularly thinking of WW in this case, SqueakBox 00:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You are missing the point... we cannot address/police legal threats off-wiki, but we certainly can address/police the use of WP pages to promote or advertise these sites. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not missing the point, I assure you. That is precisely why we are here (your point) and I for one dont have time to waste, SqueakBox 00:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you disagree that we cannot address legal threats to Wikipedia (i.e. "I will sue Wikipedia or THAT editor!") on-Wiki? That is the role of the legal counsel, not admins or editors. - Denny ^(talk) 01:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Previous precedent, ArbCom, etc.

Can we get some detailed listings here of more? I added one from a Blu Aardvark ArbCom that seemed very relevant. What others are there? - Denny ^(talk) 23:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

There's one at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba. Not sure if its "attack sites" though... --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 00:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll just list the arbcom cases to do with sources, and I'll let you guys decide if they're attack or just plainly unreliable.

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Xed 2
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 00:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Robert Priddy's homepage critical of the public figure Sathya Sai Baba and the website wwww.exbaba.com that I am affiliated with contains critical information with regards to an influential public figure. I think that lumping it together with wikipedia review under the label "attack site" is neither fair nor accurate. If you disagree, then please be consistent please also label all websites critical of George W. Bush as "attack sites". Andries 18:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Safety

This "for the safety and well-being of all Wikipedia users" should be removed as it makes the statement that blocking these sites will help saftey of users which I for one see no evidence of. If these sites are out there we should not pretend that not linking to them will protect our editors as this simply isnt true, SqueakBox 23:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Spam2

Is spam related to this or not? Because this page seems to be on the basis of stopping it. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 00:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No, spam seems relevant only in so far as we have rules about spamming in other website url's and this is about linking to other website url's but of course spam is very different from attack sites as spammers want to be attractive to wikipedia, SqueakBox 00:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The best way to deal with attack sites

The best way to deal with attack sites is to draw LOTS AND LOTS of attention to them and to their existence. Advertising how bad they are is especially important. Make sure everyone knows about these attack sites; the goal should be to give them as much attention as possible. I'm thrilled to see this page doing that so well. Milto LOL pia 01:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Doubt that will work. See WP:BEANS. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 02:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you missed the point of his comment... --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I only saw the first part then tuned out... --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 02:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

His point is that this is all WP:BEANS. There are a ton of webmasters that could not buy or luck into advertising like this. El hombre de haha 07:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

He's right, you know. There seems to be an idea afoot that allowing links to attack sites constitutes troll-feeding, but that passing special policies banning links to them isn't troll-feeding. That's a bad mistake.

The best way to stop the drama is to stop pouring energy into talking about how bad we think they are. Writing pages like this one is a great way to increase harassment. I doubt that's what it's authors intend, but when they prohibited alcohol in the US, they didn't intend to empower organized crime, either. It's still what happened.

Current policies (and simple common sense) allow us to remove harassing material - making extra rules about it is an invitation to greater harassment and to unintended consequences. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bacchus. I oppose making this page policy because I dont believe it would help ensure the safety and wellbeing of editors because I dont believe such a page as policy would achieve its intended goals but instead would cause unintended and negative consequences (such as an increase in harrassment). If we really want to address the safety of our ediotrs wsurely we should be addressing on-site attacks as a far more widespread, pernicious problem, SqueakBox 19:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

the proposed policy doesn't distinguish ordinary Wikipedians from the more problematic variety

A problem I see is that the proposed policy doesn't distinguish ordinary Wikipedians from the more problematic variety, who may not distinguish between "negative information, possibly reliably sourced" and a personal attack against them or their pet interests. Such Wikipedians tend to zealously guard certain articles, particularly when they are largely self-written WP:Vanity bios, and any item of pointed criticism may be interpreted as a personal attack by such individuals. Likewise, the policy avoids addressing the use of Wikipedia as an attack site against any semi-private individuals, corporations, public institutions, or religions. I was just in a conversation yesterday with Mantanmoreland, wherein he acknowledged this sort of thing is a real problem:[10], though we disagreed on the manner of resolution. I believe the proposed policy as written is myopic, insular and would serve no effective purpose in “protecting” any Wikipedians from criticism that may exist elsewhere. Existing WP:NPA policy adequately proscribes the use of offsite links to libel or actual slander against ordinary Wikipedians, while this policy would effectively silence informed debate of any pointed items of criticism that may exist against certain individuals posting here… before such items may be exposed in the mainstream media, to our collective embarrassment. Academy Leader 02:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If you are referring to the Essjay episode, there is nothing in this policy to prevent us from from raising doubts about the announced qualifications of any editor. Also, if any information is published on a reliable source, it is fair game. The specific attack sites that this policy addresses cannot be posted here, but there is nothing to prevent anyone from reaching them through Google and following on any useful information they provide. The point is that we don't want Wikipedia to become a promoter of these attack sites. I see no myopia, or insularity, in trying to protect our editors while contributing here without being attacked. It is bad enough that external sites attack them - there is normally not much we can do about that. But we can prevent the promotion of these sites and dissemination of their malicious content within Wikipedia space, and it is only reasonable and rational that we do so. Crum375 03:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, my contention is that WP:NPA policy is flexible enough to handle links to any actual, offsite prima facie evidence of slander, when directly used to slander or libel active editors. In all other instances, removing links to content that is not calumny but critique, whether of Wikipedia or Wikipedians, will create an unhealthier isolation between die-hard proponents of this project and any pointed exterior sources of criticism, however unmannered. While I understand that we don't want to promote any actual, linked-to "attack content" on these sites, I don't feel that the ArbCom's decision in the MONGO case was meant to proscribe informed discussion and debate of any critical items of information possibly gained from sites "with attack content," as opposed to sites constructed entirely for malicious purposes. The ArbCom decision does not distinguish an "attack site" from any site with "attack content," and neither does this proposal. Academy Leader 05:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding boring, we are here to build an encyclopedia. This goal does not require linking to non-citable sites, such as the typical attack sites. The only consequence of linking there, and often sole motivation, is to harass other editors and further the goals of the original attackers. There is no significant difference between a site that engages exclusively in attacks and one that does it sporadically. The only distinction we need to make is: is it a valid source for an article? If not, then it is precluded from being linked or promoted. Crum375 05:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, dare I say it, we are also here to have fun and enjoy ourselves, in an environment I would like to think is also open to informal critique and reflexive inquiry. I'm not trying to say that "libel is fun," but that, given the nature of popular inter-mediated computerized communication, if people are commenting on our activities in a critical manner, as opposed to slandering any of us individually, why not continue to evaluate any linked references to such content on a case by case basis, in appropriate user-space, as we have been before this policy was proposed? While I am not arguing for the use of these sources as citations in articles, I maintain that this proposal "as is" obliterates any relevant distinction that could be made between some item of information that may be critical re: the functioning of Wikipedia, as opposed to an already actionable item of slander or libel re: an editor.

I am not speaking of the WR or any such site in particular, but of the implications of this policy for every informal, social site out there. We've already got a worse enough reputation among posters on Slashdot that I'm sure any topical links to the nested message threads there would qualify as "attack" content here. The implementation of a policy like this is just the kind of thing that would set the administration here further off from the exterior world, and news of this is bound to blow back on the editing community once word gets around that any links to content critical of WP may be outlawed for discussion on WP, per this policy. Academy Leader 07:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

(Removed link to attack site. Crum375 03:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC))

My Oppositon in a nutshell....

It's not very wiki to have 'big-stick' rules.

This proposal would restrict discussion - presumably were it active 3 months ago, I could have been be banned for referring to a Wikipedia Review claim that essjay wasn't a professor?

It's unnecessary.

It reflects very badly on Wikipedia's maturity as an organisation - we can handle gossip.

I don't believe Wikipedia Review, Wikitruth, or any of the others can be sensibly catagorised as hate sites - it does us no credit to say that they're anything other than cheeky, inaccurate, aggressive, mischievous, etc. etc. (pick your own)

...this one has got me pondering a little more about the problems of creating a wiki-world removed from the real-world - anyways, that's my take on everything at the moment... Purples 03:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If sites are engaged in speculating on WP editors' personal lives, in trying to out them, and in endagering their safety, the promotion of such sites within WP space is harming those editors. There is no valid reason to promote those sites here. We are here to write an encylopedia, not to engage in speculation about each other, and not to attack each other. Such sites are essentially useless as sources for articles, and create real safety hazards and harassment for our editors. Promoting them here is tantamount to furthering their aim in harming the project by attacking its contributors. Crum375 03:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

And why would you link any of those in an article, unless you are talking about the criticism of Wikipedia? Even then, those sources would be unreliable due to their biases against Wikipedia. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 03:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Removing Legal threats and Defamation

We already have a policy addressing the issue of legal threats. There is no benefit to duplicating.

As to defamation, this is something that requires a finding by a court; Wikipedia cannot make its own determination. Further, one can only defame a real person; it is not possible to defame an IP address or a pseudonym, unless the pseudonym is known to be linked to a specific real person. And the only person who can pursue the matter in civil court is the person who is allegedly defamed. I really can't see Wikipedia paying anyone's legal bills because they don't like the way they're portrayed on another website. Risker 03:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

We are not asking WP to pay anyone's legal bills. But we are asking editors not to promote attack sites, which attack our contributors, within Wikipedia's space. There is no reason to promote such sites here - it does not contribute to encyclopedia building in any useful way. Crum375 03:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me add to my edit summary, that WP:NLT does not directly cover the point of this policy. This policy declares a site which attacks WP editors, including legal threats and/or defamation, as an 'attack site', which may not be linked or promoted here. WP:NLT prohibits making such attacks directly on WP space itself. Crum375 03:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I am severely disappointed that you have reverted this edit with a disingenuous summary. You refer only to the "legal threats" part, which should properly be a "see also" link to that policy. But more importantly you have returned the "defamation" line without explaining in any way why you feel it should be there. Only a real person can be defamed. Pseudonyms cannot be defamed, because they cannot be materially injured. This term should never have been added in the first place, has been removed with a justification, and now reinserted without any reason whatsoever. Please explain your actions. Risker 03:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You still have not explained your removal of "defamation." Please do so. Alternately, someone else can explain why they think "defamation" should be in there, responding to the points that I have identified above. Risker 03:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Assume you have an editor who chooses to remain anonymous, and works here for years and contributes heavily to the project under a given handle. Assume further that an external site defames the reputation of that editor under the known handle. The harm to that editor can be considerable, no less in certain ways than that of a person being named under his/her real name. The defamation also contributes to harassment, making the work environment for that editor less pleasant. Overall, the defamation amounts to an attack on a real human being who volunteers his time and energy to this project. We should not promote or condone this defamation and harassment in any way by linking to such a site. Crum375 03:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I will simply say that defamation - which incidentally nobody has bothered to define in the article, and I have defined above as a concept for courtrooms not wikis - involves only real people, not people carrying out tasks pseudonymously. There are many good reasons for editing under a pseudonym - I could not safely edit here without one - but when using a pseudonym one also loses the protection of one's own good name. Our friend *Dan T.* would have grounds to claim defamation under the circumstances you describe. I wouldn't, and neither would you (or most of the other people who have posted in this thread). Risker 05:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to be addressing my points above. Are you saying that my example editor would not be harassed by this defamation? If you agree that this is a type of harassment, then a site that engages in defamation is a harassment site. If you disagree and you feel that such an editor is not attacked or harassed by his longtime online Wikipedia identity being defamed, I suspect many such editors would disagree with you. Crum375 05:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing to address. I wasn't talking about harassment, I was talking about defamation. And whether or not your example editor was harassed, he was not defamed. He cannot be defamed unless he is using his own name. Our pseudonyms have no existence outside of Wikipedia, which is where defamation takes place. Risker 05:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't know whether pseudonym's can be libeled, and in any event that's not the point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to think as you will, but now you have changed the word to libel from defamation, and I will change it thus in the proposal. In fact, I have taken the opportunity to ask two different lawyers, in two different jurisdictions, and both reassured me that pseudonyms cannot be libeled, after they finished laughing at me. I understand from them that it is difficult for non-human entities (like corporations) to prove libel in many jurisdictions. Risker 05:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If your two lawyer friends laughed, they've not read up on the latest on that issue. What was the purpose of your changing it from defamation to libel? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Defamation is either of slander or libel. Slander is verbal, libel is written or made in a durable format (including recordings of speech). It isn't technically possible to slander someone on a website (any record of it would be durable). And the California Supreme Court ruling of November was specifically mentioned to me. Risker 05:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I know the definitions of libel and slander; I was only wondering why you changed it from defamation. It makes no difference, so no worries. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

boy oh boy!

....well that raised a smile from me! - I'm not sure if Crum intended it too or not!

I guess you're serious Crum, that it's ok to remove a link to Wikipeida Review in that fashion - but personally, i think that's more than a little rude (actually - so blatant that it made me smile!) - there was a point being made that you have swept aside with an aggressive, inappropriate action - either you're doing this to make a point, or... well.. you've made it anyway!

!! - Purples 03:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed okay to remove these links, per the ArbCom. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Links, maybe - but what about the point the editor was making? Purples 04:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, no personal attacks Purples. If you have something to say, address it civilly. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 03:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no Personal attack that I can see, but sorry none-the-less for any upset - let's stay on-topic..... Purples 04:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

background to the above.....

just to clarify for editors joining this discussion, KNcyu38 posted this....

merit of a link

I would appreciate being able to link things like [wikipedia review link removed] at least on user talk pages without risking to get blocked. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Then Crum removed the lot, I guess under this policy! It shouldn't be a big deal for Crum to recognise that this wasn't really appropriate - and it's a great indication of why this proposal is a bad idea! Re : the link itself - i wouldn't support it's removal, but don't really know about the precedents, and certainly wouldn't complain too loudly about its removal - but the suppression of discussion here was not right... Purples 03:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read the policy proposal. The ArbCom allows for the removal of these links. And please post with your regular account, and not as a sockpuppet. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe you when you say the ArbCom allows removal of these links - that's not a big deal, the more interesting point is what happened to KNcyu's point - can we agree that it was unneccesary of Crum to remove it? That it's still basically there above - would you have removed the whole point, Slim? Perhaps that was just an over-zealous mistake, but it should be recognised, surely?!

Also, we've spoken about the sockpuppet issue already - i think it might be a distraction here - Purples 03:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that it's a distraction, especially as you're not adding useful material. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think the issues are pretty clear - and it's not right to sweep them aside as 'not useful' - Purples 04:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Since some of you seem to be determined to dismiss some commentary based on ad-hominem assertions such as about their edit count, alleged sockpuppet status, and alleged banning of their original account, then what basis will you use to dismiss my opinion, given my high edit count, username matching my name in real life, and clean record? *Dan T.* 03:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with Purples that the sockpuppet issue is a ringer, I will just point to these sections of WP:SOCK.[11] and [12] Risker 03:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You're forgetting the "avoiding scrutiny" section. [13] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I do feel a little bullied, Slim - I'm trying to raise important (useful) issues calmly, and I understand that you feel that I may be hiding something. I'm not - we can continue this discussion about me on my page, or yours, or anywhere appropriate - but i don't think this is that space - perhaps we can move on here..... Purples 04:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're not hiding anything, why not use your main account? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop - i'm finding you quite agressive - i've got nothing to hide, and want to be allowed to contribute in this way - i don't think i'm breaking any rules, and i'm trying to raise issues that i feel are important - i'd prefer it if we stuck to talking about them..... Purples 04:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Purples, if you are in fact a sockpuppet of a banned user, and/or someone who regularly posts on an attack site, it would tend to color your views here somewhat. I think it would only be fair if you are posting here regarding policy issues to tell us your regular account, so as not to violate the 'avoiding scrutiny' rule of WP:SOCK. Crum375 04:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a sockpuppet of a banned user - nor do i think there's any indication that i possibly would be? - And i still maintain that i'm not doing anything wrong in contributing in this way - can't we just talk about the issues? - Purples 04:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I normally try to focus on the message, not the messenger, but given that you are the only admitted sockpuppet in this discussion, and clearly you have a reason for hiding your normal identity on this site, it only leads to the obvious question why. Since we are discussing the safety and well being of editors here, and attacks and harassment frequently involve sockpuppets, it is quite a relevant issue. Is there some particlar reason why you can't tell us your regular account, yet you make policy suggestions with a rarely used sockpuppet account? Crum375 04:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have just re-read all of Purple's posts. He makes some good points. What he doesn't do is admit to being a sockpuppet. Let's assume good faith here please, accusations of sockpuppetry are unhelpful and better addressed directly with the user outside of this article. Risker 05:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. How can one assume good faith in this case? A user with 24 edits in two years coming to express his opinion on this matter out of the blue? I have no motivation to address his/her comments in this context. Sorry. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Purples has admitted his sockpuppetry here. Crum375 05:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"Arguments should address the merit or lack of merit of the proposal." Frise 05:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

And just to add categorically that i am not an 'admitted sockpuppet' at all - that is not what i have said here or anywhere - i feel that some editors are being overly aggressive here and i really don't want to talk about whether or not i may or may not be a sockpuppet- please just deal with the issues.... Purples 05:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

And curious that many Brandt/WR sympathizers are opposing/most heavily questioning this essay/proposal. - Denny ^(talk) 07:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You need to lay off the ad hominem arguments. It's not a tactic that is effective or reflects well upon the user. Frise 07:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm actually one of those that Brandt has put on his "Hive Mind" page, and I've also been personally attacked on WR... I'd give the links to prove it, but one of the tinpot dictators would probably censor it. It seems a bit ironic, though, that the main thing that is allegedly being objected to about the attack sites is that they try to expose editors' identities, but when somebody stands up against the proposal, its supporters start making insinuations about who the opposer really is. *Dan T.* 11:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

for everyone's consideration

From what I can see, WP:SOCK expressly allows using sock puppet accounts for "Keeping heated issues in one small area". Constantly ignoring valid (or, indeed, any kind of) points of a user on the grounds that s/he is using such a legitimate sock puppet account is misrepresenting policy. I can see no "legitimate interest in tracking [Purples'] contributions", as she has not committed any wrong-doing. So please quit the ad-hominem arguments, it's a waste of time and an insult to the intelligence of all users on this page.

Denny: I'm not a Brandt/WR sympathiser at all, and we all agree that parts of WR mean it can only be treated as an attack site. So, I agree with Crum375's removal of my comment. It may have been a bit of a WP:POINT on both sides, but that's fine with me. I was trying to illustrate that some subpages of attacksites may contain funny/interesting/possibly even useful material that doesn't in itself deserve the "attack" label. I'm not questioning this proposed policy at all, as it is really just a more concise and locally concentrated formulation of existing policy. I'm just trying to say that "letting the chips fall where they may" in this case means censoring a lot of stuff that is not an attack, like the subpage I linked to. I, for one, find that unfortunate, while at the same time, I agree that it is inevitable. Ambivalence is the word.

Btw: I maintain that writing out the name is just as bad as a hot link. According to blocking policy, "linking to attack sites, or sites that attempt to "out" the identities of Wikipedia editors — whether the posted link is live or just a bare URL — is considered harassment, and users who do so may be blocked." I believe this is meant to include writing out the name, so please let's not do it. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"Sir?" said Harry. "I've been thinking... Sir -- even if the Stone's gone, Vol-, I mean, You-Know-Who --"

Call him Voldemort, Harry. Always use the proper name for things. Fear of a name increases fear of the thing itself."

J. K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's / Philosopher's Stone —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dtobias (talk • contribs) 11:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Policy is policy is policy. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Censorship is censorship is censorship. If that be policy, I want to formally propose to repeal it right now. *Dan T.* 12:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

girl oh girl!

It's rather sexist to just have boys in the section titles, isn't it?  :-) *Dan T.* 04:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

So..umm...What are we going to talk about here? --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 04:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

One question which should go away

In spite of MONGO and SlimVirgin averring over and over again that they cannot conceive of a reason for such links, the fact is that such a link was cited in the sixth response to this proposal. 300-odd edits later, there's no excuse for continuing to make this claim, especially since now we have another citation. The link in WP:EXR was already eight months old when it was damaged on the basis of this proposal.

I see no reason not to keep restoring that link if it gets expunged again in another fit of overenthusiasm. The passage is there; it is a quotation; the proper citation is easily obtained; the citation should be present. That, as far as I am concerned, should be the end of this misbegotten proposal. If it is to be ratified and codified, then the obvious consequence is that the offending passage would have to to be removed from WP:EXR so as to obviate the citation; and the reference that I made here would also have to be expunged. That takes us to the larger narrative, which has two subplots. In the one subplot is the WP:EXR concern over the treatment of expert editors; in he other subplot is the contest between certain admins on one side and various people who've had run-ins with them on the other. They come together at Wikipedia Review, and they come together there because the site's topic is criticism of the way wikipedia is being run. But they also meet up back at the arbcom case concerning MONGO, which is after all the principal authority that is being invoked for this. Contra claims, there were many reservations expressed during the course of that as to the enthusiasm with which MONGO exerted his authority, much like the concerns that appeared from the first few massages here.

And that is why I keep returning to the issue of conflict of interest. Right now the actuality of the matter is that some of those who are pushing this proposal clearly stand to benefit personally from it, because the manifest intent of this is to muffle some of their critics. And if the letter of this proposal were taken, and all trace of them were to be eliminated from the talk and project pages, then it looks just that much worse. I can only hope that the parties in question are simply being dense in not noticing the appearance of impropriety which their advocacy of this proposal is creating. If all the people whose administration is being criticized over on WR were to bow out of this debate, I think it likely that the proposal would conspicuously fail to gain adequate support; but it would also eliminate the appearance that they are simply trying to hurt their critics. As it is, what we have here is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Note that when I went back and reverted the damage I mostly left alone excised raw references to the site, mostly because I didn't think anyone was being hurt that much by the excisions (and because it was bloody obvious that censorship was being performed). The only other dubious case concerned User:Redwolf24/Linuxbeak and SlimVirgin, which has been subjected to a couple of revisionist reversions by SlimVirgin (See these diffs: [14],[15]). I feel these are unethical, but since I don't know the whole history of the affair I'm not in a position to contest her version of it. So I've let it be since her last change. Mangoe 04:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You keep making assertions of fact that are misleading, and I must say, offending. For example, this: some of those who are pushing this proposal clearly stand to benefit personally from it, because the manifest intent of this is to muffle some of their critics. I would ask you to stop, if you just could. Arguments should address the merit or lack of merit of the proposal. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Precisely, it is best not to make character assassinations.--MONGO 05:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Mangoe, I strongly object to your misrepresentation that my removal of ANY links or content from a hate or attack site is vandalism. Per policy, procedure, and precedent, such a defense of Wikipedia is never vandalism. Harassment content is to be combatted at all times. - Denny ^(talk) 07:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism by any other name still stinks. Most or all of the removed links were not at all in the context of harrassment. *Dan T.* 12:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that I don't like the use of the word "vandalism" as it is applied to willfully damaging edits. I've gone back and used a different word with more accurate connotations. So now that we have that out of the way, we can go back to the real issue.

MONGO, your assertion here flies directly in the face of what I said. Since I chose not to restore some links (I believe, though I'm too lazy to check, that I left about half in their censored state), the implication that you should be drawing is that I'm not contesting that some links to the Unspeakable Site are illegitimate. I'm not the absolutist here; indeed, I've said several times that the actually objectionable content of the Unspeakable Site can be forbidden- but without reference to new policy or even to the deprecated arbcom ruling.

Jossi, your complaint about my "facts" really gets to the heart of what is wrong with the way this policy is being pushed through. My analysis is not a fact; but I believe that bystanders are likely to be inclined to read it as negatively as I suggest it can be read. But the big fact problems remain:

• Nobody has dared (at least as of this exact instant) to re-damage the reference in WP:EXR. That's the particular problem I raised in this section: the evidence that the Unspeakable Site isn't just this nasty "attack site" has lain dormant in Wikipedia for seven months, yet when it was pointed to at the very beginning of the dicussion here, proponents of the proposal have continued to say "I don't see why..." in the face the fact that this link was already there.

• Far more serious are the attempts to supress the evidence that the Unspeakable Site is being misrepresented. The only evidence that could possibly be germane (as opposed to the "I don't see why" opinionations, which aren't facts) is actual material from the site, and presentation of that material patently requires linking to the site for citation. Yet editors are being harassed with threats of being blocked if they present this material properly, as in these edits: [16],[17]. Those threats are way out of line. I haven't fixed the damage wrought to my earlier response here because I have better things to do with my time than put myself through an appeal against an unwarranted block, but I would be fully within my rights to revert the damage.

I am trying to apply WP:AGF here, but the only "benign" interpretation that works in that case is that this is an exercise of Javert-like legalism. As an alternative to actual malice it is hardly an improvement, and an inference of malice is all too plausible. In either case, the hostility remains. And the conduct against me in this discussion is quite beyond the pale; I'd take it to arbcom if I didn't half-susect that they are part of the problem. As I said earlier, it was this very proposal that brought the Unspeakable Site to my attention. As far as I can see, while they are hardly paragons, they do not deserve to be put through this kangaroo court. But my only dog in this hunt is WP:EXR. As long as it remains undamaged, I'm willing to throw in the towel on this and get back to gainful editing. Mangoe 13:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Mangoe, but your arguments sound as these made by people that believe that Wikipedia is run by a cabal, that there is a conspiracy around each corner and that the ArbCom, and the Foundation are behind it. Somehow I have developed a reaction to these type of comments, in which I cannot help it but take these arguments cum grano salis, to say the least. Does not cut it for me, sorry. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"Sound as those made by people that..."? This certainly sounds like an assertion of guilt by association. *Dan T.* 15:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, yeah. Indeed, now that we've established the fact that they do other things there besides attack the Cabal^TM, this policy is essentially a ban against those other things on the basis of guilt by association through their appearance on the same site.

Quite frankly I don't have the patience to determine whether all of their charges, or indeed even many of their charges, are true. It seems likely that some of the people involved were banned for good reason, but it is not out of the question that there is some degree of adminstrator collusion to suppress criticism of their actitions. It's not a question I think I need to answer for myself, because I've mostly conceded defeat and let controversial articles go to the dogs. And as to the specific controversies, I haven't been a party to them, as best I can determine.

The points of fact as to this proposal, however, are beyond dispute. Put it all together, and you get this: that a group of admins are trying to erase all references to a site that's critical of them. That this is self-serving is blatantly obvious. So that takes us to the problem of the evidence. Each of the "Cabal" members has repeated several times that they can see no reason for such a reference, in the face not only of examples to the contrary, but of the revelation that at least one of them can be shown to have made such a reference and link herself. Likewise, the repeated failure to admit that the "Cabal" members are the primary target of the "bad" behavior on the Unspeakable Site is a problem; it creates the appearance of denial of involvement.

Maybe this is not malign and is only an extended exercise in folly, but either way the conflict of interest remains. And as for the vague allegations that I am one of the plotters against the Cabal^TM, right now the only evidence for that is my objection to this proposal and to the conflict of interest I see in the way it is being pushed. That is "not good faith" harassment. Mangoe 17:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Mangoe, we are trying to keep links to harassment out of here....it's that simple. Editors have enough onwiki harassment to deal with and their is no reason to link to websites that facilitate attempts to out people's personal identity. ED, WR and a select few do indeed make this a routine effort and do almost nothing to stop it.--MONGO 17:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a case of a useful link to a site folks here want to ban...

Check this out, looking in particular at Oppose #70... somebody cited and linked to a thread in an Unmentionable Site to show the words and actions of the person nominated for adminship. One of the responses found it to be "the first real compelling argument" in the RFA, and SlimVirgin was one of the later commenters to find that citation to have shed some light on the character of the nominee. But I guess we can't do that anymore? (Not that I really want Wikipedians to get punished for their words on other sites, in the way that some other sites punish you for your words over here, but when somebody is up for adminship, their character is relevant wherever they show it.) *Dan T.* 04:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... Good argument. I suppose we have to reword the guideline/essay, so that their is a suitable excuse for linking that. One problem with the link is that it seems to be an isolated incident as, normally, people don't edit Wikipedia and that website often. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 05:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I my opinion, having re-read that entire RfA discussion, the actual link was not really needed. Much of the discussion that ensued followed from SV's explanation of the candidate's behavior. Crum375 05:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

And that sort of thing didn't need a direct link anyway...only an explanation of where to find it. However, I think that pointing fingers at people for what they say or do off wiki is generally a bad thing, so long as they "put on their wiki hats" while here, that is all that matters. But, no doubt, those that do edit circumspect websites and make harassing comments or support such are likely to have this impact the respect they might otherwise enjoy here.--MONGO 05:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Was this misuse?

...i'm re-stating the example I gave above here because i don't think it's been addressed really. This is a 'not really a big deal at all' example - which might mean it's quite useful to discuss - no-one's been that upset, and hopefully no-one will be!.......

KNcyu38 posted this.... [18]

A couple of edits later, Crum removed it [19]

I'd say that this was a mistake, and shouldn't be encouraged under current, or proposed policy, because not only was the link removed, but the entire point was, and the discussion effectively closed.

Slim makes the point that ArbCom have said it's ok / encouraged to remove such links - I'm not sure if she therefore feels Crum's edit was mistake-free or not?

My final point is that this policy seems to actively support this kind of edit, and i don't think that's a good thing.

best - Purples 05:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think its a fine idea to practice the proposed policy here, since it's actually already policy by definition and practice. In other words, this is policy from what I understand--this is now just formalizing the wording on it. - Denny ^(talk) 07:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what Denny said... --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 07:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure - so would you guys say that the whole post should be removed - in much the same way as if it were from a banned user? That's the bit that I don't agree with i think.... Purples 07:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's policy and SlimVirgin appropriately answered the question I was really asking with a blocking warning on my talk page. Accordingly, I thanked her for it, because thereby, she answered my question. That's about all there is to it for me. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I still share the opinion that the specific page I had linked to was not aimed at any certain user, and contained no attack as far as I could see, but the point is already moot. It's policy not to link to that site. I just have to and do accept that for now. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 10:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't just accept it, and it's not policy right now... it's precisely what is being debated about being made policy, and by making such deletions, the policy's proponents have given a clear-as-a-bell reason why it's bad policy, by using it to muzzle opponents. *Dan T.* 11:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't just accept it, but resorting to any kind of personal attacks / bad faith allegations cannot be the answer and does nothing to advance this debate. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Putting blocking warnings on the talk pages of opponents in order to squelch their commentary in this discussion is way out of line. The proponents of this ridiculous policy keep insisting that opponents find just one example of a reason to link to such sites (several have already been provided), but when somebody actually does, they get reverted, censored, and threatened. That's dirty pool. *Dan T.* 12:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree. SlimVirgin was acting in accordance with an ArbCom decision. One may argue that she didn't warn user:Mantanmoreland who linked to that page in an RfA a while ago [20]. But I don't want to be a dick about it. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That is a fair point. My linking to WR was a mistake. However, I would gently point out that my error was unintentional whereas yours struck me as just a tad WP:POINT. --Mantanmoreland 14:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said above: I don't want to be a dick about it. Do you? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd be less inclined to think you were being a whatever if you recognized that it was a bit of a cheap shot.--Mantanmoreland 16:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I did not think you were being a ...whatever. I think you were acting in good faith overall.--Mantanmoreland 16:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I never assumed anything else. I believe we all agree that we should wrap this policy up as quickly and peacefully as possible. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Theres never a need to link to attack or hate sites to discuss them, ever. Do you link to child pornography to discuss that? Arguments pro and con be made without dangling offensive material in people's faces. - Denny ^(talk) 15:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course, since we are linking to a site to show that it isn't that kind of site, your analogy is fallacious. And haven't we just gotten to the website equivalent of Godwins law? Mangoe 17:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware that wikipedia discusses child pornography sites which are in any case highly illegal in contrast to alleged attack sites which are not illegal. How would we even know if a site was an attack site without linking to it. Censorship of legal activity on wikipedia that helps enhance the encyclopedia should always be acceptable, and we absolutely should not take someone else's word (especially if they arent being 100% transparent) that a particular site is an alleged attack site, SqueakBox 17:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

We need to really get precise here.

It seems that attack site is being interpreted as any site which may or may not have harassing content, but the fact that it exists within the site somewhere is being used as a reason to remove. I'm thinking in particular of You-Know-Who. Shouldn't it be to specific harassment? For example, links to specific threads in a forum which are harassing should be banned, not links to the whole forum or to different parts of it which may have nothing to do with harassment. .V. _[Talk|Email] 12:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If a site does not provide useful or acceptable sources for WP articles, and otherwise includes harassment and attacks against WP editors, there is no reason to promote it by linking to it, and there are good reasons not to do so. Linking to it anyway, can only be interpreted as assisting the attacks and harassment. Crum375 12:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not like they're going to disappear by ignoring them... .V. _[Talk|Email] 12:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. But there is a world of difference between repeating or promoting the attacks on WP space vs. leaving them outside. See also my response to this point here (under "I think you are missing"). Crum375 13:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we differ on the promotion aspect of this. I personally don't believe that this will promote these sites. The sites can be reached by simply googling "Wikipedia." For an analogy, it would be like someone saying "We shouldn't post links to Microsoft because it'll promote them." In both cases, they have a great deal of promotion as it is. I'm also not sure that linking to something, by definition, promotes it. .V. _[Talk|Email] 15:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Microsoft doesn't attack or harass our editors, and 'promotion' means we further their aims. To Wikipedia editors it's one thing getting attacked from the outside by assorted flakes, it's quite another to be attacked from the inside by their fellow editors, and as I noted elsewhere, by merely linking to an attack site, you are effectively attacking too. Crum375 15:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to believe everybody got that by now. Do you care to know why I linked to that exact subpage? It was meant to illustrate that not all of that site consists of attacks. We're dealing with protection of Wikipedia users vs. censorship. Simple as that. Of course, our priority is to protect ourselves from attack sites, but we should not brush the accompanying fact of censorship under the carpet. And the notion that everything besides the (truly appalling!) attacks is without any merits is but a personal point of view of some users, which I do not share, as illustrated by the link I provided. I understand policy, SV has appropriately warned me, I won't ever link to that or a similar site again. But it's censorship, and I'd like to have debate and consensus about that aspect of this proposed policy. If I had to decide between some censorship and exposing fellow users to attacks, I'd censor as many sites as needed without flinching. But I'd prefer doing so in the face of that very decision, which is: To sacrifice some (in my humble opinion) interesting text for the sake of user protection. To make myself perfectly clear: I prefer shouting "ATTACK-uh-CENSORSHIP -uh-uh- A T T A C K" whereas some others only shout ATTACK or CENSORSHIP. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think there's a bit of undue paranoia about the subject. Excluding links that are obviously personal attacks are fine IMO (i.e. to a specific thread which has harassment, etc) but to extend it to all the pages on a particular site regardless of content seems inappropriate and perhaps unnecessarily vindictive. .V. _[Talk|Email] 16:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• I suppose you can still link to a Google search with innocuous keywords that highlight the exact page you're looking for. There's a million ways to effectively circumvent this, but we must not allow direct links to such pages. It would mean recognizing them as somehow acceptable, which they are not. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

A direct link does not recognize something as acceptable, and I'm not sure why that would be the case. Wikipedia links to Stormfront (a hardliner White Nationalist website), for example, and that's not an endorsement of the site's contents at all. There are countless other examples as well. .V. _[Talk|Email] 17:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a significant difference. Stormfront is a fascist platform that spreads hate into many directions. "Attack sites" contain material that is beyond controversial, such as outing the identity of a Wikipedia user. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Other than a certain tenured professor of theology at a private university, what users have been outed? .V. _[Talk|Email] 01:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"Split within the PIR" subsection of Daniel Brandt

The "Split within the PIR" subsection of Daniel Brandt formerly had a WR link to Brandt's description of his viewpoint concerning the split within the PIR. Now it does not as per this diff. Is this something we want to discuss? WAS 4.250 13:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's out of line, of course. Mangoe 13:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The removal of the link is exactly why this is a poor idea for a policy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I simply don't sufficiently understand all involved policy issues, so please correct me if I'm mistaken, but as far as I dare to judge the situation, it's not an original idea of a policy. It's just a proposal to concisely formulate some aspects of existing policy on a seperate page. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That's my understanding too. Just an enunciation of current policy, sort of fleshing it out.--Mantanmoreland 16:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, what policy? Once we get past the conflict of interest part, this seems to be about whether the arbcom finding in question should be elevated to policy. The opposition here (of which I count myself a member) seems to agree in objecting that this proposal is overbroad and seems intended to ban or at least hamper discussion which we see as harmless or even beneficial. Mangoe 17:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This should be being discussed on the DB talk page as this page is for talk to discuss a policy proposal and not the page to discuss the DB article. Quoting this project page as policy is a bad idea as it would mislead people, SqueakBox 17:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"It's just a proposal to concisely formulate some aspects of existing policy" Exactly where was this policy adopted by community consensus? On what page was the poll or consensus discussion please? The ArbCom cannot make policy, as they themselves have said. I suppsoe this could be policy by Jimbo's decree, but if so, show me the diff where he so stated, please. DES ^(talk) 23:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrapping it up

So, just how do we wrap this thing up? Are we supposed to start a straw poll of some sort (yes, I know, "voting is evil") to find a consensus rather than just let a few vocal people on both sides keep arguing indefinitely? *Dan T.* 17:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Calm down firstly. There is no need to wrap anything up yet and I question your recent attempt to have this essay deleted. Give it another week and maybe the WR and ED partisans will finally come to recognize that we aren't going to link to those websites whether they like it or not. Once they come to their senses, we can make this a guideline. I am not in favor yet of this becoming policy as it still has a few too many kinks.--MONGO 17:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

In other words, rather than cooperate in any attempt to find out where the actual community consensus lies on this, and abide by it, you would rather declare by fiat that all opponents of your view are "partisans" rather than people with legitimate viewpoints, and then try to get this policy / guideline / whatever put into effect at some future time when the opposing side has been worn out and goes away to spend their time on something more productive elsewhere, so you can then run across the goal line unopposed because the other team went home. *Dan T.* 18:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That is grossly uncivil. Please stop. - Denny ^(talk) 18:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not grossly uncivil. Hyperbole and ad hominems are not how policy is made, Denny. Or at least they shouldn't be. Frise 19:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Err essay? Its actually a policy now. When it was still an essay Dan tried to get it moved into Denny's user space not get it deleted. Unfortunately the vote was (wrongly, IMO) closed before mopst of us knew of its existence so those of us who thought Dan was right never got a chance to vote. IMO now its a proposed policy it should indeed be put up for deletion before we seriously discuss if it should ever be policy, and the deletion should be allowed to run for 5 days to let everyone express their views, SqueakBox 17:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to MfD any page, if you desire. Note that MfD isn't used for policy decision. If you'll recall, I made that same novice mistake with the ATT Poll. :( - Denny ^(talk) 18:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I am neither a novice or very good with these type of pages. I think an Mfd or whatever is premature right now, SqueakBox 18:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Nominating it now, only 5 days after it was last nominated would be disruptive.--MONGO 18:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. If the Mfd had been allowed to run you would be right but it was closed far too quickly and so re-nominating would not be disruptive, SqueakBox 18:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

MfD isn't used for policy decision. - Denny ^(talk) 18:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

So what is used for policy decision? Just wait for the opponents to tire out and go away, then declare victory, as was advocated above? *Dan T.* 19:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I did wonder myself when I was pondering whther to put some kind of fd on this project page. I would suggest you try to clarify this point somehwere else, SqueakBox 19:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Requests for clarification with regard to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification with regard to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO

Request for clarification filed. - Denny ^(talk) 18:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Flawed assumptions

Much of this proposal rests on the assumption—noted explicitly by several editors on this talk page—that it's never necessary to link to sites that would fall under its purview. This is not, however, a valid assumption; it may apply reasonably well to purpose-built anti-Wikipedia sites (e.g. WR), but fails rather miserably in the general case, for a number of reasons:

1. Some "attack sites" may be notable in and of themselves. I personally know of cases where material covered by the proposal (typically defamation or harassment, with a few outing attempts thrown in) has appeared on such sites as Democratic Underground, Free Republic, Stormfront (website), and Slashdot; and I'm sure there are other prominent ones that I'm unaware of. (This will doubtless become more and more common as Wikipedia becomes more pervasive.) We cannot really write articles about such sites without linking to them in one form or another.
2. Some "attack sites" may be incidental to Wikipedia. The proposal fails to make the distinction between attacks directed against a "Wikipedia editor" and attacks directed against a person that happens to edit Wikipedia. We have no shortage of prominent public figures editing (at least occasionally). Do we need to check every site we link to in order to verify that there's nothing defamatory about, say, Roger Ebert on it? And where does this end? If George Bush were to sign up for an account one day, we'd have to delete pretty much every single link to a political forum, for example.
3. Some "attack sites" may be of crucial importance to the dispute resolution process (particularly, to arbitration cases). ArbCom has routinely been confronted with claims of editors maintaining "attack sites" against other editors; see, for example, the most recent Sathya Sai Baba case. Such cases will be rather more difficult to conduct, to say the least, if links to said sites cannot be entered as evidence or discussed in the final decision. (This will doubtless become even more bizarre in cases like the Bogdanov Affair, where the parties are engaging in extensive off-Wikipedia battles.)

I am concerned that some of this proposal's proponents seem not to have considered exactly how broad a range of circumstances it would apply to. There's more involved here than ED/WR-based harassment attempts. Kirill Lokshin 18:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it not that this proposal is designed to address the harassment of individual Wikipedia editors which are not notable besides being such? If that is the case, linking to these in talk pages should be very strongly discouraged. I understand your concerns, but I wold argue that not having a policy that discourages the linking to such sites is not a solution. Linking to such sites in ArbCom cases, could be set as an exception.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Attack sites#Exemption:

"Links to attack sites may be allowable in Arbitration hearing pages only. All such links may still be removed or edited from those pages, however, at the discretion of Arbitration clerks or Arbiters."

Just added. - Denny ^(talk) 18:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

What about RfAs, as has happened? Should that be an exception, too? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Why? If you mean Cla96's RFA, there is still never a need to link to an attack site in the RfA. If they linked to it on-wiki, there are various ways to demonstrate that he/she violated policy by linking to old warnings, etc., or any number of things. Discretion is key in all things, and always with an eye to minimize contamination of attack/hate sites into Wikipedia. - Denny ^(talk) 18:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it has happened, I just wanted this clarified. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Your latest edit makes no sense Denny. Why should arbcom cases be exe,pt and talk pages no? Are we here to write an encyclopedia or to police a Web 2.0 entity, ie surely making a good encyclopedia is more important than arbcom cases. According to your logic we now dont entirely ensure the safety and well-being of editors as anyone can read arbcom cases, SqueakBox 18:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Squeak, do you have issues with extending BLP-type protection to editors? Because, honestly, that is what it seems like. Please clarify if I am misunderstanding. - Denny ^(talk) 18:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Why would you thjink that? Actually if we were to extedn BLP protection to editors that itself would be a huge policy shift that would need discussing and right now I dont have a fixed view on whether BLP protection should be given to editors, SqueakBox 19:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Denny re RfAs. However, I have my doubts about the arbitration exemption. --Mantanmoreland 18:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Another way to look at this

If we had an article on someone, they would be subject to BLP. If there was a website that said, "Jane Doe is an inbred cock mongler, and I will sue him for screwing with me! Also, his birth name is actually John Doe!" we obviously would not link to this site.

Why is it any different with a site that says, "User:Jane Doe is an inbred cock mongler, and I will sue him for screwing with me! Also, his birth name is actually John Doe!" Why should the editors here not be granted this protection from harassment? - Denny ^(talk) 18:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

They're already got that protection. We can remove harassing links without any new policy, and all the unintended consequences that it carries with it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You get it. This essay was to define what is an attack site--so that anyone can reasonably and without concern excise attack/hate material from the encyclopedia (as I wrote the essay, that is!). - Denny ^(talk) 18:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

An essay is one thing, a policy proposal another and policy something completely different altogether, SqueakBox 18:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Anybody can already, reasonably and without concern, excise any kind of harassing material. No new policy is required for that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

There's the hitch: people ARE opposing removal of such content. Hence, this is needed to clearly define what can be removed without fear of partisan reversion. - Denny ^(talk) 18:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Would it not be better to allow editors the freedom to make these choices on a case by case basis? SqueakBox 19:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Since when is NPA/harassment a consensus matter? - Denny ^(talk) 19:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well since people opposed the removal of such content (ie you answered the question yourself in your above comment), SqueakBox 19:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Denny, example, please? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[21], [22], [23], [24] for example. It seems some editors are now watching my contributions, so I could I suspect generate more diffs of this nature, if you needed, by simply enforcing policy. - Denny ^(talk) 19:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thatr wasnt enfoprcing policy it was enforcing your proposed policy. Please get your facts straight before posting here, SqueakBox 19:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, those are good examples of your overreaching enforcement of this "policy" before it has even become a policy. *Dan T.* 19:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Denny, as for generating more examples, I wouldn't recommend it. The links you were removing were hardly "promotion". They look to me more like archived discussions and Wikipedians going about our business. Letting sleeping dogs lie is very smart, sometimes. Your removal of those links caused many more people to see them than leaving them alone would have. More importantly, those are not examples of harassment. If somebody is linking to WR for harassment, that's one thing, but that's not what we're looking at here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Replying to all at once: I restored the first link that Sqeeak removed for some reason. This essay/proposed policy does nothing more than define what is an attack site. Everything else is already supporting such removals in other policies or precedent. I simply cited this page instead of multiple other ones. Links to hate/attack sites can be removed by anyone by existing policy and precedent. We don't provide advocacy for trolls and attack sites. - Denny ^(talk) 19:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, dont understand that Denny. Which link did I remove? Diff please, SqueakBox 19:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Which of those links you removed consisted of "advocacy for trolls and attack sites"? Would you rather have good intentions, or bring about good consequences? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Not allowing such a link in an article is not to protect the biographed living person, but to protect us from getting sued - and because it has no merit for the article. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's both. BLP is intended to protect us, and the subject, from harm. I see no reason editors shouldn't have the same protections. - Denny ^(talk) 18:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Your proposal doesnt protect editors from harm in a BLP way, SqueakBox 19:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Character attacks. Why are you opposed to giving editors protection? - Denny ^(talk) 19:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"Opposing this policy" does not equal "opposing giving editors protection" or "condoning harassment" or "promoting hate sites." That's the fundamental mistake you keep making in this discussion. Frise 19:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

(ec)That's a rather cheap shot, Denny. To say that anybody opposed to making your essay into a guideline is opposed to giving editors protection is neither accurate nor fair. As noted several times, protection already exists; what doesn't already exist is a misguided policy that's prone to unintended consequences and to perpetuating the drama it purports to oppose. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

(my ec too) Absolutely right. We all want to protect editors and ensure there safety and well being here (which is also a good faith assumption) and nobody has the right to assume those who oppose this policy do not care about the saftey and well-being of fellow editors (which would be to assume bad faith on the part of contributors here), SqueakBox 19:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Where does WP:BLP talk about protecting the biographed persons? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia."[25] - Denny ^(talk) 19:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with simply keeping this as an essay, anyways? --Conti|✉ 19:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"we obviously would not link to this site" - um, why is this so obvious? You're conflating "site" with "content" again; we obviously do link to sites that contain, among other things, content of such a nature. Kirill Lokshin 19:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Mangoe arbitration requested

User:Mangoe has filed for arbitration about Wikipedia:Attack sites at this address. - Denny ^(talk) 20:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for not bringing this to everyone's attention myself- wife wanting to know when I'll be home and all that. Mangoe 20:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if its appropriate but I did the notifications. Shit happens, as they say. :) - Denny ^(talk) 20:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Aren't there intermediate steps before going to arbitration? --Mantanmoreland 20:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You're generally supposed to show that other dispute resolution steps have been attempted. In this case, I don't believe there's been an RfC, or any attempt at mediation. Perhaps I just didn't see it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I confess to having shortcut things a bit, and if they say "take it elsewhere", that's what will happen, of course. However since the arbcom decisions on previous cases are being used as the basis for this, it seems inevitable that it's going to end up back there anyway. Mangoe 20:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not even sure there is really a dispute over this essay, at least by my reading of the Arb request. --Mantanmoreland 21:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't think there is, all the essay does really is clarify in a four sentences what an attack site is. The rest is just reiteration of what past policy/precedent already empowers anyone to do to that attack/hate content. The ArbCom as I read it is over actions on this talk page. - Denny ^(talk) 21:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If there is to be a dispute I imagine it will happen when we start to discuss about making it into a real policy. Certainly some of us think it should never be a policy and some of us think it should but as we havent reached that stage I think an arbcom case is, at present, unnecessary, SqueakBox 22:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Spam Blacklist

I've removed the bit about the spam blacklist. The spam blacklist applies across all Foundation wikis and other sites that use the spamblocklist extension, but this proposal does not. We simply can't apply an en-wiki proposal to everyone else. Frise 21:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I see now that it's been reverted. How do we intend to push this proposal on all the other (many) sites that will be affected? Frise 21:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

While I don't think it would apply across every Foundation project (as it really only applies to such sites here), the blacklist section is completely unnecessary, not to mention goes against what the blacklist is for. Advocating abuse of the blacklist is simply wrong, and should not be part of this proposal. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It says on meta: "The associated page is used by the Mediawiki SpamBlacklist extension, and lists strings of text that may not be used in URLs in any page in Wikimedia Foundation projects (as well as many external wikis)." Frise 22:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess it would force it across things, then. Yeah, completely unworkable, I'm going to remove it again because there's absolutely no way it can be dealt with from here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The black list would only be used for egregious cases. And if some site in Xland in the X language viciously attacks editors in the X-wiki, I for one would have no problem to have that site blacklisted in en-wiki too. I don't see why any rational person would object. We are all human beings occupying one planet, regardless of our language or nationality, and we should protect each other. Crum375 22:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You can't blacklist a site on one project is the point. Not to mention that adding sites to the blacklist simply because of alleged abuse is an abuse of the blacklist function. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jeff. Also, there's a big difference between protecting other humans, and using the spam blacklist to do it. I haven't seen any demonstration that our current policies are insufficient to protect editors. It's really not fair to characterize those arguing against a new policy as being against protecting people from harassment. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"You can't blacklist a site on one project" - I am not suggesting that at all. Please read what I said - I propose to black list an egregious attack site that attacks the editors of one language across all languages and projects - I don't see why this can't be done, and I don't see any flaw with it. It is an excellent use of the spam blocking function, IMO. Crum375 22:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Initiative already tried and failed.

We can't dictate policy across other Wikimedia projects, nor should we. And no, it's an abusive use of the spam blocking function. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Attack sites are not spam, see Wikipedia:Spam. Perhaps this whole proposal shopuld be moved to the Media Foundation and attack sites can simply be blacklisted there with no new policy needed here, SqueakBox 22:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

A recent attempt to add WR to the blacklist was rejected by two meta admins [26][27] [28]. I would suggest people favoring the addition of non-spam sites make their case on meta for altering the blacklist's purpose. As it stands, we can't mandate the addition of non-spam sites to the blacklist on en-wiki any more than we can change the speed limit in my neighborhood. This proposal's influence simply does not extend there. Frise 23:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the point of the proposal is that, if it becomes policy, a request will be made on meta. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

And when the request is rejected as it has been in the past? This, of course, fails to address our attempts to create policy for the non-en projects, but that's beside the point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well lets not jump the gun and assume this page will ever become policy, SqueakBox 23:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The request should be made on meta first, otherwise this proposal is just making promises it can't keep. It doesn't make any sense to propose a policy that can't even be implemented. Clear the way first. Frise 23:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Mention of MONGO

I dont think it is acceptable to be mentioning a user on a proposed policy page. This could be interpreted as a harrassment of MONGO, SqueakBox 22:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That's laughable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

And of Badlydrawnjeff, SqueakBox 22:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

For reasons that are moot now, the case in which ArbCom first addressed some of the issues that are the subject of this essay was captioned Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO. If the decision is to be mentioned, there will be no way to avoid linking to the case, but I agree there is no reason to mention a specific user's name in the essay itself. Newyorkbrad 22:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

So when people click, they see his username anyway. Again, how really silly. How many contortions are we going to make here? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone mentioned in that arbcom case might feel harrassed by having the page and their alleged wrongdoings made public in this way and it is especially unfair to PrivateEditor and Rootology who have been indefinitely banned and thus cant express their opinioon here. Perhaps the arbcom should comment on the fact that if Requests for arbitration/MONGO is to be used a s a policy or to justify a policy that a separate page should be linked to that avoids giving out personal and entirely unnecessary details of wikipedia editors. Otherweise we are in danger perpetuating the problem we are trying to resolve (ie making wikipedia a safe place to edit), SqueakBox 22:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This assumes there's a problem to perpetuate, especially when it comes to our own internal dealings. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think arbcom is a very difficult place for a user to be and that there are users for whom the whole process of being in front of the arbcom would be very difficult and to then have that publicised in a policy page would surely be making those users feel less safe, or some of them, SqueakBox 23:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

These are banned users, and they are not identified other than by username. The problem is minimal. Unless, of course, some external site "outs" their real identity... Guy (Help!) 22:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Please can Denny comment here befopre unilaterally inserting the name of a user in the proposal policy. How does this protect MONGO? It could be argued that syuch a move harrasses MONGO, SqueakBox 23:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh for heavens sake. I'll leave him a note asking him. If he doesn't think it's harassment it should go back in, if he does, it should go out. - Denny ^(talk) 23:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If this is going to be based on prior arbcom rulling from my case, then there is no way to NOT link to it, though I don't want MONGO named in this itself. However, I don't live vicariously through MONGO, as, of course I only picked that username as a pun on myself. Not sure what I find that's laughable though, Jeff. Oh well.--MONGO 04:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, MONGO. I am still uncomfortable to link to the page at all as it is unfair on the 2 permanently banned editors whoise case is expounded there and if this page looks like becoming policy I will bring the issue up again as we must not do anything that could be inteerpreted as harrassing wikipedia users (albeit indefinitely blocked ones). I do understand jeff's humour, differen types of humour for different folk eh? SqueakBox 17:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

We link to arbcom cases all the time...being indefinitely banned is their own fault anyway and Rootology has been banned several times since for sock puppeting/ban evasion. I can't see what there is to protect in regards to me or them. It's a easily located onwiki arbitration case and ot likely to be deleted.--MONGO 17:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Not on policy pages we dont. And if I am wrong please give an example, SqueakBox 17:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit Warring

You know, leaving an edit summary that says "Don't edit war!" on a revert that's part of an edit war might not have the effect you're shooting for. Just saying, is all. Frise 03:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

And just where and how is anybody supposed to "discuss" it before reverting again? Isn't that what we've been doing all along? I think there are more people against that censorship than for it, but the pro-censor forces are more vigorous in their actions and threats. *Dan T.* 03:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

And, it appears, have the powers necessary to carry out their threats. Frankly, I don't see that there is much more to say here. My offerings of evidence that the censorship is uncalled for are being censored in name of applying the finding whose refutation requires the evidence that I'm not being allowed to represent in the name of the finding. If that isn't a classic Catch-22, I don't know what is. The conflict of interest sits spang in the middle of the discussion, and it's quite clear that there's never going to be the slightest acknowledgement of it by the culprits. Meanwhile WP:EXR sails through this, with nobody daring to apply this supposed policy to it. Since that's what I was trying to protect in the first place, I suppose I should count my blessings and withdraw from the fray while I can still edit. Besides, it's past my bedtime. Mangoe 04:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm attempting to determine how the original edit of the comment in question conforms to WP:TALK#Others.27_comments, given that WP:BADSITES is not, to my understanding, currently an official policy or guideline. JavaTenor 04:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if my edit was ironic but I was just trying to stop you guys from changing it so much and violating 3RR. I thought that one section for the discussion would be more appropriate than the discussion being all over the place and people disagreeing. The edit has nothing to do with my personal point of view. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 04:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Mine was a lighthearted comment. Frise 04:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Straw Poll

To see where the actual sentiments of the people here are (not just the handful, including me, that's highly vocal and repetitive about it), let's take a poll (yes, I know "Voting Is Evil"). *Dan T.* 03:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you favor the deletion of links to "Attack Sites" at all times and places, regardless of context or purpose, including on this very talk page where we're debating whether to ban such links?

Agree

1. - Denny ^(talk) 13:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Disagree

• *Dan T.* 03:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Frise 03:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• .V.: I don't believe that content on one part of a site should be used to judge the rest of the site.
• Academy Leader 04:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Mangoe 04:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Risker 04:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Certainly not based on the definition given in this proposal.
• — MichaelLinnear 04:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• WAS 4.250 11:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 12:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC) There's a difference between "site" and "content", as noted by Kirill Lokshin above [29], and some such sites are even notable enough to have Wikipedia articles (#Flawed_assumptions). Polling is evil, but there are much worse things.
• SqueakBox 15:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• That is far too broad and automatic a parctice. The individual circumatances of each such link or mentionm must iMo ber taken into account. DES ^(talk) 17:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure

• Question is deliberately loaded, so not sure...since we are still discussing and this poll is meaningless, not sure.--MONGO 04:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • But oddly enough, if those above want me to be able to link to attacks made on ED and WR about Wikipedians, this will only serve to ensure this does become policy, for there are hundreds of posts on those websites that attack and try to "out" many different people. Be careful what you wish for.--MONGO 05:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    • What we wish for is that attack sites most of the time not be linked to; but not to create a blanket rule that forbids thinking, use of facts and individual evaluation based on circumstances. We are against mindlessness. We are not for attack sites. WAS 4.250 11:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Once again, the pro-censorship forces make straw-man arguments. Of all the many links that have been censored in this reign of terror, I can't recall noticing a single one of them that was posted for the purpose of "outing" or harrassing anybody; rather, people posted links to the occasional constructive or thoughtful essay appearing in those sites, or posted commentary responding to criticism (both constructive and not) on those sites, or brought people's attention to a potential attack (vandal spree, lawsuit, etc.) originating from somebody talking about it over there... lots of reasons that don't involve hassling a particular individual Wikipedian. The cases that do involve individual Wikipedians generally consist of pointing out what they, themselves did when they posted to one of those sites; for that matter, the pro-censors have liked to allude to my own participation in one of the "attack sites", though in this case making vague allusions is better for their case than actually linking to my writing there. Have there been any recent examples of people actually linking to those sites with the purpose or effect of harrassing somebody? (Well, I guess I can't ask anybody to provide examples, because that would itself be a violation of the ban, I guess... it's probably only a matter of time before they start saying that making a link to a Wikipedia diff that involves a link to a banned site is itself a violation.) *Dan T.* 12:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Silly question

• Except within the context of mentioning the attack site for administrative purposes, such as on this page, on ANI, or in an Arbcom setting, links to attack sites should be removed. But it would be silly, for example, to say "we're desysopping someone because of what they said at a site that we can't talk about." --BigDT 04:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• polls are evil. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• ditto, a poll is not a good idea. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Polls are evil, and if you ask a loaded question expect to get a non-representative answer. >Radiant< 08:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Agree with others above. Polls based on loaded questions are misguided and counter-productive. Crum375 11:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• • The "loaded question" happened to conform precisely with the way this non-policy is actually being enforced. It's telling that even the pit bulls of censorship themselves didn't see fit to directly agree with this statement when it's put this bluntly. *Dan T.* 12:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC) [Update: I see that Denny has now voted 'support'; I'm glad to see this honesty.) *Dan T.* 14:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)]
  • I don't agree with Dtobias' wording, but with the spirit of his message. Granted, polling is evil, but there's much worse things. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 12:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Polls are undesirable. (Bin Laden is evil. Undercooked bacon is evil.)--Mantanmoreland 14:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion

Based on the above discussion, I'm pretty sure we can make a few conclusions here. (If I get it wrong, don't sent any hate mails, but just discuss why it might be wrong.):

1. Polls are evil. (It has nothing to do with this policy but who cares?)
2. From the above, I think we need to change the "consequences of breaking the guideline" section, as someone says that it may be too harsh.
3. No links to hate sites will be made in the user and user talk namespaces. Consequently, no links to attack sites will be made in the article namespace. Every attack link made to the project namespace will be removed unless determined by consensus (<-- That one will cause hate mails). --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 07:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That is not unworkable. I prefer no links, but in extreme circumstances some might be needed on a temporary basis. I really think, as much as possible, that wikipedians should be penalized/promoted/awarded based on their wiki contributions and that what they do and or say elsewhere should not be used either against them or for them.--MONGO 07:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was saying that based on what I think everyone, or most of the people meant... --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 07:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

KZ, everyone will claim they have a valid reason. We're not allowed to link to sites if we have reason to believe they violate copyright, and so I see no problem with saying we also shouldn't link to sites if we have reason to believe they libel Wikipedians. Also, bear in mind that the ArbCom has already ruled on this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I see the flaw in my line of thinking... I've modified it so it might be more suitable. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 08:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sleeping well, and who knows what's going to happen if I edit in this state, but what the heck.... Two points lurch to mind. First, as far as I can tell the references to article space are more or less a strawman. None of the outbreak of WP:POINTed erasures byUser:DennyColt that set this all off were to articles proper; they were mostly on user talk pages, with the remainder in project/talk space. So in practice a ban against article space references could be noncontroversial as to effect, if not as to principle.

It's the other point that is the focus of the action. It would seem an obvious principle that links can be suppressed based on what's at the other end, and indeed no new policy nor clarification is needed to justify it. The problem is that this proposal is for "guilt by associated URL", where it appears that the content of the specific link is irrelevant. That has set off the whole "can we then ban (major news source) for identifying Essjay" side of this. But the target of this is one specific forum (Wikipedia Review); every single enforcement edit has been to erase some reference to it. The sticky wicket is that there was already a link to it in a project talk space discussion of the expert retention problem. This link had nothing at all to do with the MONGO or Brandt affair(s), and it alone is enough to prove that other editors here find that the site is more than just a base for launching personal attacks.

That alone is enough to justify vacating findings of "attack sites", but then we get to the conflict of interest. Right now User:SlimVirgin and User:Crum375, who are both administrators, are using their ability to block people to defend SlimVirgin's and MONGO's (unsupported) claim that there is nothing on the site worth linking to.

Please stop this mirepresentation. We're upholding the ArbCom ruling, no more, no less. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The obvious rebuttal is to link to something that could be considered of value, but the campaign of erasures by these administrators is preventing that. Since none of the main objectors to this are admins, they can and have used threats of blocking to WP:OWN the discussion. But the other problem fact about the site-- which of course we can't cite, under threat of blocking-- is the motivation behind the actually objectionable attacks: their thesis that the very admins who are trying to control the proposal discussion are part of a pattern of administrative abuses. On one level, I think this is exaggerated; some of the people who they banned seem to have deserved it. But on the other hand, the campaign to make sure that none of the WR material against them ever appears in or is even referenced in Wikipedia, for any reason, reeks of unenlightened self-interest. It is, in essence, an acting out of the charges made against them in the Unspeakable Site. And while I am inclined to think that User:DennyColt is not necessarily part of any cabal, his allegation that User:Dtobias's opposition is grounded in his participation in WR is particularly laughable. Anyone who goes to the Unspeakable Site and reads what Dtobias has written there is aware that he is an opposing voice there, and not in sympathy with their claims or methods. But of course I cannot present evidence to that effect, because SlimVirgin or some other enforcer will swoop down, erase the link, and perhaps (I think probably) block me. Mangoe 08:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator and I haven't threatened to block you.--MONGO 08:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Mangoe, please assume good faith as noone here is going to block you over this. Noone has even threatened to block you over this. Since everyone is objecting to other's comments and proposals, maybe this should go to RfC? --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 08:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a matter of record that after I restored the damage to my statement here, SlimVirgin reverted it and left a "warning" on my talk page (diff). As far as good faith is concerned, I have been open all along to the interpretation of this as an exercise in excessive zeal. What I've been trying to get across, unsuccessfully, is that since potential users and editors are not bound to assume good faith, the conflicts of interest in this are potentially damaging to Wikipedia's reputation. Mangoe 13:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no need for RfC/RfAr, or anything else. People should just get on with discussing the proposal, instead of sidetracking us with rows about actual links. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

On reading this, linked to by arbitrator Kirill Lokshin in the Mongo request for carification (see #Clarification__provided below), I changed my mind. ArbCom ruling seems not to be as unanimous as I assumed. The more recent ruling seems to imply a careful case by case evaluation, using common sense as opposed to full reverts and blocking warnings. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 12:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Real Conclusion

A poll with a loaded partisan question that is "decided" in <24 hours is funny. - Denny ^(talk) 13:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"Loaded partisan"? As opposed to the two rhetorical questions you're asking below? —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 14:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for clarification

I've found a number of forum posts on a site which could qualify that site as an attack site under the guideline being discussed. It's my understanding that it would be a blockable offense to link to those posts, link to the site in general, mention the site by name, etc. Should I also avoid linking to the site's Wikipedia entry? If so, what should be done about other pages linking to that entry? Thanks! JavaTenor 07:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course you can link to the wikipedia site as wikipedia is exempt from the Bad Site proposal and there is no precedent for not allowing internal links, SqueakBox 15:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

In that case, the site in question is Free Republic. I'm not going to link to the posts there which might constitute attack posts, (for, I think, obvious reasons - if people want to find them, it's not especially difficult), but this does call into question how the proposed guideline ought to be applied to sites it defines as "attack sites" which are generally considered notable enough to have their own Wikipedia entries. JavaTenor 17:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarification provided

Below is from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch/Proposed decision. WAS 4.250 12:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Attack sites

2) The addition of links to or material derived from sites that engage in attacks and harassment against Wikipedia users into Wikipedia is inappropriate, and may be removed by any editor. Deliberate addition of such material may be grounds for blocking.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Note that the sites being those "that engage in attacks and harassment against Wikipedia users" - I don't think that this is at all "broad". James F. (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Linking to the site and the attack material is the issue addressed here not recognizing that these sites exist. FloNight 15:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Probably too broad, particularly as some sites that do this (albeit incidentally) are notable in their own right. Kirill Lokshin 19:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Too broad and generalized. Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
3. I'd like to see this more specific. First off, sites don't engage in attacks and harassment; people using the site do. (Guns don't kill; people with guns do.) Secondly, intent and degree are both missing in the engagement; how much attacking is required before a site has crossed the line? This needs some language like "sites that commonly include attacks and harassment" or perhaps even "sites with policies that encourage attacks and harassment". --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Paul August ☎ 17:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Abstain:

Encyclopedia Dramatica

3) The addition of links to or material derived from Encyclopedia Dramatica into Wikipedia is inappropriate, and may be removed by any editor. Deliberate addition of such material may be grounds for blocking.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Kirill Lokshin 19:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
3. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
4. James F. (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
6. FloNight 15:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I know that something similar to this has passed in the past in MONGO, but I'm just not comfortable issuing such a blanket ban on the site or its materials. I prefer 3.1, which is a bit more specific. Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Per Flcelloguy. Paul August ☎ 17:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Abstain:

This action never passed--I don't see it in the final arbitration here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Philwelch

Either way, we don't get to decide what arbitration is valid. We have one that says, "Do this", and one that says, "Don't do this," possibly. Thanks. - Denny ^(talk) 13:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, the Arbitration Committee did not support a broad definition of attack sites. That is why it is not in the decision. Their discussion and lack of support for this definition is documented. Risker 13:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

And the MONGO case said the same thing: under "remedies" it mentions Encyclopedia Dramatica by name, and no other site. Mangoe 13:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Guys, we do not get to 'decide' squat about ArbCom. Unless they clarify, both are valid. If thats an issue, needs to be cleared up by ArbCom. - Denny ^(talk) 13:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It effectively means that blocking warnings are out of place at this stage. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 14:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If you, DennyColt, get to decide that arbcom's remedies authorize the deletions you have made, then we get to decide that they don't. The one thing this is not is a literal implementation of their remedies, so your exegesis thereof is eminently debatable. Mangoe 15:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

What about Google?

Google searches may be linked to, what about a search using innocuous keywords? (possibly problematic link to Google removed by myself, pending further clarification) —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 13:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

No different than linking to a magic keyword that happens to pull up a link that personally attacks Kncyu38. Not good, not good. - Denny ^(talk) 13:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a gigantic difference. We're talking about selectively censoring links to Google searches with certain keywords. You do see the dilemma, don't you? This was but an example, not meant to be elegant. Do you want to include this into the proposal? —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 13:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If we blacklist Google we will make ourselves look foolish. Google is used extensively in the creation of this encyclopedia and I dont believe there is anu consensus in blacklisting the site. There is nothing in policy about selectively censoring bits from a site, ie a site either is a bad site or iyt isnt. is Denny seriously suggesting Google is a bad site and should be banned from wikipedia (pretty richj given how much help Google give to wikipedia), SqueakBox 15:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Two questions for everyone.

Two questions for you all. I especially challenge all who voted disagree on Dan Tobias's straw poll to stand by your convictions and reply. - Denny ^(talk) 13:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

1. What do you think of the fact that the sites try to 'out' editors identities there?

1. I think its reprehensible. - Denny ^(talk) 13:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Not as big a deal as people make it out to be. Problematic? Perhaps, in some cases. A huge deal? Not as a blanket issue. Simple "outing?" (i.e. badlydrawnjeff = Jeff Raymond, children's librarian) - not an issue, because anonyminity on the internet is not a guarantee, and should never be treated as such. Vindictive outing, such as what happened with Katefan0 or with Linuxbeak? Yeah, that's a bigger problem. Thus why we need to figure out what's an "attack" and what's simply a nuisance.
3. I'm with badlydrawnjeff. If you are active on the internet on a site visible to the general public, you run the risk of being identified. It's not out of the question that I've been active longer than anyone else involved in this, and there's enough out there to where someone could figure out who I am. People who appear to be using their anonymity to protect themselves from the consequences of their acts simply cry out to be exposed. It's not something I personally would do, but I cannot condemn those who do it simply on that basis. Mangoe 13:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Editors who wish to remain anonymous carry the larger responsibility in preventing their "outing." If people really do not want to be identified, they should not share any personal information about themselves on Wikipedia and should choose a pseudonym that they do not use anywhere else. I am fully cognizant of the fact that someone might possibly figure out who I am in "real life" every time I post anywhere on the internet. Perhaps more emphasis on the inability of Wikipedia or any other website to guarantee privacy would be appropriate. (edit -sorry forgot to sign, where is hagermanbot when you need him...Risker 15:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC))
5. It's a real shame that critics who sometimes have valid points to make so often get diverted to destructive tearing-down rather than constructive criticism... if they were otherwise, they might be a force for good instead of evil. Still, the actual cases of somebody being unjustly harmed by such "outing" are fortunately few. *Dan T.* 14:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
6. I think that this is a gratuitous rhetorical question. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 14:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
7. I agree internet anonymity can not be guaranteed. Brandt complains he cant get privacy as he has an article and I dont really believe in either privacy or anonymity in this context. The Essjay situation has created the problem of the possibility of people claiming to be who they are not, obviously this is only relevant to people who make a claim about themselves (eg being a professor) while remianing anonymous and there is an argument that I dont disagree with that if some editor is lying about their identity then maybe their lies should be outed, SqueakBox 14:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
8. It depends on how and why "outing" is being conducted. In general I support people's rights to privicy and annominity. But if a person is amkign false claims (as Essjay did, and as othes may be doing) exposing thsoe falsehoods is not IMO reprehensible but praisworthy. And while malicious violatiosn of the right to privicy are IMO reprehensible, they are not the biggest evil on the net. DES ^(talk)
9. What do you think of the fact that Wikipedia admins try to 'out' Wikipedia editors identities here at Wikipedia though use of accusations of being a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet or having a conflict of interest? WAS 4.250 19:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
10. I recall some people trying to some thing like this to Lir here on Wikipedia, and boasting about how his name and "is a troll" got a high Google rank. — MichaelLinnear 20:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• • That's another question. We could also address the many people who have been harrassed off wikipedia by other people on wikipedia which, in contrats to WR, is a site anybody can edit, and with complete anonymity (other than WAS's point), meaning that I have had to suffer hateful attacks like this one (I bet no one will demand I remove this link or be blocked but this is the kind of hate-spew that is publicly available on wikipedia), SqueakBox 19:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

2. Do you think think this is harmful? If not, why?

1. Yes, it can cause material, personal, emotional, and tangible harm. Note that some editors such as User:Katefan0 even were harassed via their employers due to these monsters, and had to leave Wikipedia, and others have had IRL friends, associates, and employers also contacted. The anonymity of Wikipedia means that any of us should never, ever, never 'encounter' another of us in real life in any fashion unless we choose to. These hate site stalkers seek to take away that protection and hurt us. - Denny ^(talk) 13:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia and "real life" are not different things; editing Wikipedia is something people do in real life. Indeed, a lot of the controversialism in Wikipedia can be traced directly to people trying to use it to advance their "real life" causes. Mangoe 16:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Denny, I am having a hard time balancing the concern about this user's experience with the fact that people keep making searchable links to her name, thus perpetuating the situation. Can we please stop using this person's name as an example? I will leave it to you to decide if your comment should be edited Risker 14:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Risker has a point. Wikipedia can also be used to harrass individual editors and we must be aware of this. Even if in this case you are using his/her example in a good faith way, well people link to WR in a good faith way too, SqueakBox 15:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

1. I guess I answered this above - no, not always. Someone who attempts to be anonymous here and simply loses part of that anonyminity is not hurt, only inconvenienced. Someone who's "outed" in a way that is designed to threaten their lives or livelihood is a different story and the two simply don't equate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Yes, in some (fortunately few) cases. Harmful to the people who are harrassed in this way, and also harmful for everybody by poisoning the whole debate about Wikipedia policy and diverting it from constructive criticism and rebuttals thereof, to personal attacks and recriminations. *Dan T.* 14:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
3. I think that this is a gratuitous rhetorical question. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 14:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
4. In some cases though I also think on-wiki harrassment can be at least as harmful and at least as distressing, SqueakBox 14:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
5. I mostly missed the Kf0 controversy, but from what I can see I hesitate to presume to judge the motives of her employer. Wikipedian Brandt can of course be expected to forego such activity as the price for editing, but private citizen Brandt, pursuing a principle of accountability, cannot really be faulted for applying that principle to reveal what was by all accounts a barely concealed identity. And while I can't see a reason for her employer to object to her editing off-hours, I'm no journalist and I'm not in a position to second-guess them, especially since I don't know the details that well. Obviously something that someone can call "harm" can result. But since anonymous activity is inherently risky behavior, those who do it put themselves in harm's way. It's unreasonable to expect the rest of the world to respect rules of discourse set up for Wikipedia; and it's doubly unreasonable to have that expectation of people who argue that the current Wikipedian rules and/or culture encourage beahvior that is detrimental to the society it is intended to serve. Now, some things are just malign. The repeated attempts to put up a picture of a certain person of strange countenance are just cruel. But the situation we are trying to address is nothing like that. Mangoe 15:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
6. I find myself agreeing pretty well with Mangoe here. The people who are at greatest risk of harm by "outing" are people who are doing something they probably shouldn't. I know an author who edits here under a pseudonym - and she uses the pseudonym because editing here would invalidate her publishing contract. I know a record company A&R guy who edits under a pseudonym because his edits are essentially on behalf of his company - his fellow music editors apparently just think he's really knowledgeable. I won't even go to the issue of fake personas. Even people with real-world personal security issues (who may potentially suffer the greatest damage) are aware of the risks of using the internet. I know personal responsibility isn't a very popular concept anymore, but since Wikipedia cannot guarantee anonymity, more benefit would come from educating editors. Risker 16:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
7. It can and sometimes does cause harm as has been said above. it often causes more annoyance than harm. Cases vary widely. And in the case of a person who is not merely trying to protect privicy, but tryign to get away with misrepresentation, exposure is a net good. DES ^(talk) 17:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think this distracts from the useful #Straw_Poll above. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 13:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

A few more questions

The two questions above hardly encompassed all relevant questions. *Dan T.* 14:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Assuming "attack site" can be well defined, links to such sites should be (banned in all contexts | banned with rare exceptions | judged on a case-by-case basis | permitted except when done for explicitly harrassing purposes | always allowed | other/misc)...

...within the main Wikipedia article space?

• Only where absolutely necessary, which probably extends only to an article specifically about such a site (where the site itself is sufficiently notable for this), and possibly where necessary to cite the specific things said by a specific person on such a site when that is judged to be a notable issue in another article. Otherwise, such sites are not reliable sources and shouldn't be used as such, and certainly shouldn't be "spammed" into irrelevant places. *Dan T.* 14:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Concur with the above. Mangoe 15:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• If a legitimate source, absolutely. We shouldn't allow our own prejudices get in the way of comprehensiveness. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Judged on a case-by-case basis, SqueakBox 14:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Judged on a case-by-case basis. Where it can be used as a source, it should be allowed, except for specific subpages with attack content. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 14:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Judged on a case by case basis, but avoided if reasoanble alternatives are available. Where such a site is notable, links to it and mentions of it ar inevitable in proper articles. (For example, if official Scientology sites started to out wikipedia editors we couldn't stop linking to them on relevant articels, adn might even wish to mention such actions). If the site is a WP:RS onm issues unrealted to the outing, prticualrly if the source material is on pages other than the apges where the outing takes place, links should not be prohibited. No link in articel space should ever be for the prime purpose of "promting" any outside site, person, or cause. Links and mentiosn should be there as a way to cite references, and when they are useful to the reader. Links to "attack sites" should carry an extra burden of proof that they are there to fulfil these functions. DES ^(talk) 17:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Judged on a case-by-case basis, WAS 4.250 19:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with WAS and others here: a blanket rule is not going to work. Each link has to be judged on a case-by-case basis. Bucketsofg 04:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

...within talk pages?

• Judged on a case-by-case basis depending on relevance to the discussion and that it is not being used in a harrassing or abusive manner. *Dan T.* 14:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Per Dtobias. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Judged on a case-by-case basis, SqueakBox 14:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Per Dtobias. Well said. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 14:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Concur. Mangoe 15:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Per Dtobias and concurring others above. DES ^(talk) 17:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• As per Dtobias. Case by case. — MichaelLinnear 19:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Judged on a case-by-case basis, WAS 4.250 19:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Case-by-case, per WAS et al. Bucketsofg 04:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

...within user pages and userspace?

• Probably not, when used on a user page to try to promote and encourage such sites, or even conversely to promote and encourage people to go to such sites and disrupt them; this isn't a productive use of Wikipedia. Maybe when cited as a reference in user essays, if relevant and non-abusive. *Dan T.* 14:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• If non-abusive - and by non-abusive, I mean the differences I laid out in a question above. To use an example, to write "I am a regular contributor to Wikipedia Review" with a link at your userpage is not abusive. To write "I think Wikipedian is a horrible person because of what he did" with a link to an abusive thread at WR, that's a different story. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Doubtful, user shopuld be first requested politely to remove link with explanantion, SqueakBox 14:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Parotting Badlydrawnjeff. Everything except for explicit harassment and personal attacks should be subject to politely asking to remove a link before any blocking warnings are handed out. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 14:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• I think this is more or less the same as the talk space situation. The main difference is that the chance of such a link being relevant on user page is pretty low. Mangoe 15:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Judged on a case-by-case basis, WAS 4.250 19:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Case-by-case, per WAS et al. Bucketsofg 04:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

...within project pages such as AfD, RfA, etc.?

• When relevant and constructive to the issue at hand. *Dan T.* 14:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Per my response in article space for AfD, for RfA/ArbCom, no ban whatsoever - these issues are important to discuss in the context of user conduct and user reliability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Judged on a case-by-case basis, SqueakBox 14:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Judged on a case-by-case, preferably allowed. In the context of anything process related, it's important we know what we are talking about. Wikipedia debates should not be censored. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 15:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with Badlydrawnjeff re discussions of incidents relating to individuals; the fact that an editor is using anonymity to conceal a problem with their editing makes even "outings" germane (unless there is a strictly procedural decision to refuse such evidence, which I personally feel would be a major mistake that could only lead to another Essjay incident). More general activity (e.g. WP:EXR) should follow the pattern of talk pages. Mangoe 15:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Per Dtobias. As per Badlydrawnjeff such issues may often be important, but i have seen lots on extraneous and gratuitous issues dragged into such debates. Dragging in such links when not clearly relevant, and particularly if done in obvious bad faith should be banned. So Case-by-Case judgment is needed. DES ^(talk) 17:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Judged on a case-by-case basis, WAS 4.250 19:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Case-by-case, per WAS et al. Bucketsofg 04:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

...within a page that is specifically debating a ban on linking to attack sites, where it may sometimes be considered by some to be useful to present specific examples?

• Certainly... this is a canonical example of how a flat ban on such linkages is senseless and unfair, and tending to stifle one side of an argument. *Dan T.* 14:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Of course. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, SqueakBox 14:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Of course. Fully reverting in such a context could well be considered diruptive. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 15:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• A no-brainer. Obviously discussion of the merits of a site ought to be backed up by citations. I hold that existing policy on these discussions already forbids the erasures we are seeing here. Mangoe 15:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Judged on a case-by-case basis. I object to mindlessness in all cases. WAS 4.250 19:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Case-by-case, per WAS et al. Bucketsofg 04:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Styles of argument

Can people in this heated debate please try to avoid ad hominem arguments, arguments from authority, attempts to whip up moral panics, and so on, instead of rational discussion? I know I've sometimes been guilty of getting too emotional and need to tone down my rhetoric a bit, but that should also apply to the other side. *Dan T.* 16:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The very essense of this debate is whether to reject claimed good content based on claimed tainted source. I submit that in each case the evidence must be examined rather than to allow a claim to go unchallenged as to the validity of either claim. WAS 4.250 20:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Something I think some here have forgotten

Websites such as wikipedia review and encyclopedia dramatica completely fail WP:RS. Not sure if this has been overlooked, but since we are here to write an encyclopedia, referencing is the same, across the board. Personal information that is published is reliable in most cases...ED and WR aren't published.--MONGO 16:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It hasn't been overlooked; I mentioned this explicitly in my comments above regarding links in main article space, where I concluded that they are in most cases not desirable due to the unreliability of the sources, except in special cases like where the site itself or the author of specific comments on the site are what it is being used as a source of. However, talk and project pages are a different thing, not subject to the same standards (for instance, comments on a talk page aren't expected to be NPOV). *Dan T.* 16:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

(ec)That is entirely relevant for main space but I dont believe it is relevant outside the main space, eg we link to google searches on talk pages though clearly a google search isnt a reliable source for main space so while WR fails RS for the main space for talk and official pages RS doesnt apply, SqueakBox 16:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Not entirely true. Reading WP:RS, these qualify as sources that can be used in limited circumstances, and the section that's probably most relevant quantifies it with "generally," noting that there are exceptions. Besides, the verifiability policy is the one that's the true directive, and it doesn't go against these in certain cases. And yes, those things are published. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't like correcting you Jeff, but ED is not published, nor is WR.--MONGO 16:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Then you don't understand the word "published," unfortunately. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

See Publishing where it appears jeff is correct, SqueakBox 16:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that WW (hivemind etc) would not fail RS? SqueakBox 16:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hum...no, that is actually not the case. Since they have no editorial oversight they are unreliable in all cases, no matter where they are posted. They fail WP:RS...it really is that simple. Unpublished opinions are useless to us.--MONGO 16:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

According to RS that is only so for BLP. Just because a (non-attacking) link on a talk page doesnt meet RS does not give any editor the right to tamper with another user's comments removing that link, and such a move would be considered vandalism. Users do not have to worry about RS for links to their user space either, SqueakBox 16:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you might want to reconsider your wording, Mongo. Not being obstructionist or anything, but clearly if they are on the internet they are published - self-published, perhaps, but still published. They might not meet the standard for WP:RS, but that is a different matter. In any case, I don't see what blocking users for linking to a particular source has to do with the reliable source policy. We already have policies in place for harassing people, and for tendentious editing (if they keep inserting an unacceptable source). Risker 16:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I stated that these websites fail RS and they do.--MONGO 16:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Except when they don't. They are acceptable in some cases. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

So we are to cherry pick which slander is reliable and which isn't? That won't work.--MONGO 17:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

No. I suggest reading WP:RS and WP:V to find your answers. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I have in fact read them...thanks. It appears you are confusing reliablity of sources with verifiability of the information. If a website has posts made by anonymous "people" and/or is deliberately designed to be "comical" then they are useless as a reference base aside from to reference that the websites, etc. exist.--MONGO 17:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Good, so we're on the same page - they are acceptable as sources in some cases. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

....but since we have no article on ED, we don't have a reason to reference them, so yeah, we are on the same page.--MONGO 17:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

One never knows. That's why WP:RS and WP:V exist. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

and sadly:( we have no article on WR either so I guess we can scratch that one off the list of reliable sources too--MONGO 17:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

MONGO can we please have the specific statements in RS that back up your assertion because I cant find anything on WP:RS thast confirms what you are saying re non main space, SqueakBox 17:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus?

From the many sections above, it is clear there is nothing resembling a consensus in the community to make or enforce a draconian, zero-tolerance ban on linking to "bad sites". That seems to be why the proponents of such a ban are resorting to insisting that no consensus is needed or relevant because the ArbCom has spoken, and the law is the law... so siddown and shuddup! Unfortunately for their side, ArbCom has hardly spoken with one consistent voice on this (only one site has actually gotten a majority decision for banning all links to it, and that not even unanimous; an effort to extend this to other sites was explicitly voted down), and ArbCom is not supposed to be the source of policy anyway. *Dan T.* 16:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom dont make policy, they enforce current policy. They arent the lawmakers, they are the interpreters of already existent policy, SqueakBox 16:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

One member of ArbComm has spoken

See this comment. Seems relatively clear-cut to me, but I'd appreciate thoughts from others involved in this discussion. JavaTenor 18:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a finding that the Unspeakable Site is not identified as an "attack site" by arbcom, and that the various deletions of references to that site cannot be supported by reference to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO. Indeed, if the principle is to be followed that arbcom's decision is to be honored in the construction of this proposal, it is now dead, because as it stands this proposal is intended to ban the Unspeakable Site, and arbcom here opposes that. In any case the deletions of my reference to the site within this discussion are untenable. Mangoe 18:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by one of twelve arbiters. Keep in mind, this has no bearing on the success/failure/acceptance of the proposed policy. It's just a clarification specifically of what that ruling meant. The community can and will still adopt any other policies it deems appropriate. - Denny ^(talk) 18:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest, however, that this posting implies that you may want to stop citing the ArbComm principles as a precedent in changes to established policy (and in general, I'd probably be cautious about making changes to established policy without first establishing a consensus for that change on the policy's talk page), and perhaps stop citing this proposed guideline in making changes to other users' talk-page comments, which appears to me to be a potentially disputed action based on WP:TALK#Others' comments. JavaTenor 18:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Very slippery... when it seems like the ArbCom is on your side, you'll say that consensus is irrelevant because The Law Is The Law... but if they seem not to support you, then suddenly it becomes a matter for consensus. Unfortunately, consensus doesn't seem to support you either. *Dan T.* 18:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Two ArbCom members, Denny. Remember Kirill Lokshin's comments above? And what Fred Bauder wrote is an official comment on behalf of the Arbitration Commitee. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 18:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia may be an attack site too

Should we perhaps add wikipedia to the list of hate sites. I am thinking about its failure to remove tens of thousands of hate-spew attacks like this one, which is available in the public record for everyone to see just by snifing around a bit and which are surely intolerable attacks that make life unsafe for wikipedia editors, SqueakBox 19:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty horrible stuff. — MichaelLinnear 20:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup. I havent seen anything as bad in terms of attacks at WR. And while we do remove the attacks we dont mostly remove the history so actually the attack is only removed from public view not from wikipedia itself. My point also being that this former policy proposal wass unworkable and we should be looking at the logs in our own eyes before the specks in the eyes of others, SqueakBox 20:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That's also posted by a user that's since been blocked for obvious reasons. While such attacks do exist on Wikipedia, the site certainly doesn't promote or glorify them in the sort of way that WR and ED do. Besides, such a classification does nothing to help clarify this policy - this policy is supposed to list sites which should never be linked to; listing Wikipedia as such a site would be absurd. Zetawoof^(ζ) 20:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

And where appropriate a user can request that an administrator delete the edit—or if personal information or other grossly inappropriate content is present, request WP:OVERSIGHT to remove it altogether. Newyorkbrad 20:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well perhaps we should be seeing much more deletions of the record for this kind of material, ie lets get our own house in order rather than just focussing on those sites outside our control. I dont want to work for a project that is fundamentally seen a shypocritical and given we just bury rathert han delete personal attacks for the most part I would have thought we shopuld clean our own house first. Perhaps Denny could draft a proposal to enforce the deletion of all questionable attacks from the history log. It would make the arbcom's job much more difficult of course but that is another question, SqueakBox 20:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

We cannot just erase what we don't want to see. User page is a part of GFDL, and therefore unless it violates privacy, we can't remove it. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 14:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's true. GFDL requires that we keep a record of who has contributed to the text of an article (and frankly, even so, arguments that problematic things need to be kept for GFDL considerations are generally based on a purely theoretical argument rather than a practical one). If a comment is going to be completely deleted, there is no need to keep it in the page history. Newyorkbrad 15:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected?

I support WAS's latest rejection edit and belueve the page talk consensus reflects this, SqueakBox 20:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Premature to reject? I am not sure. What do others think? SqueakBox 20:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I struck the tag for now because I believe that further discussion might be beneficial. I do agree though that a strong consensus in favor of the current version of the page does not seem to be imminent. Newyorkbrad 20:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Further discussion wont do any harm and could indeed be useful but at least WAS has opened the debate and perhaps we should reject where, if anywhere, we are going with this, SqueakBox 20:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"Rejected" doesn't necessarily mean that discussion is over. Changes may still be made to bring the proposal closer to being in line with consensus. However, I don't believe that this proposal has even come close to achieving consensus in its current form and major changes will be needed for that to happen. I believe marking it as rejected for right now is appropriate. Frise 20:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Second that. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 21:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Definitively premature. There is a vigorous debate about this, let the debate continue. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing isn't going to help. Frise 21:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's premature...besides, I recommend this as a guideline anyway and if furtherance to policy is decided later then that's fine too.--MONGO 21:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify: Is it your position that consensus has been achieved regarding this proposal based on the current state of the discussion, or are you simply expressing your preference? JavaTenor 21:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Subject to correction, I read it as a statement that it's not yet clear that consensus on some version won't be achieved. Newyorkbrad 21:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Premature, but inevitable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no hurry to reject it or promote it. I prefer a reasonable solution since it is essentially a guideline that has been followed anyway for a long time...there just wasn't a specific page to address the issues.--MONGO 21:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

(ec)So how are we going to decide if it should become a guideline or not? And is it ready to potentially become a guideline right now? And if not what changes need to take place before it is ready to be considered as a guideline? SqueakBox 21:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe everyone step away from it for a day and then reconvene...if nothing fruitful comes from a break, then it will likely end up rejected.--MONGO 21:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Good idea but probably would need enforcing (eg with a full lock for 36 hours which would be justified in reducing all our stresses on this one)). But if nobody else edits here I wont either, SqueakBox 21:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Tricky to tag it as rejected when the first wholesale removal of attack site links was undertaken by an arbitrator, in response ot an arbitration ruling stating that linking to such a site constitutes harrassment. Also premature, since thus far I see very few of the regulars on this page, although I do see a few people who have certain views with respect to at least one currently banned site. we may not be seeing the full range of views proportionately represented here. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • • Um, since the the arbcom ruling disallowed the interpretation by said administrators, that aspect of this is dead as a doornail and impossible to resurrect. There is no sense in waiting for that. Mangoe 11:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Its been on the arbcom page since yesterday with very little extra input as a result so I dont think we need give it more than a few days more in terms of allowing the full range of comment. Perhaps you would care to post its existence on other critical pages, SqueakBox 23:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you have suggestions on how best to alert the "regulars" to the discussion here? Has the proposal been underpublicized, and if so, what are the normal avenues by which to publicize such a discussion? I notice it has been mentioned on wikien-l, but there may be on-wiki locations to which it ought to be added. JavaTenor 22:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

For example, would it be appropriate to add this page to Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion? JavaTenor 22:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm just curious why it was so forcefully tagged rejected so fast. Rereading various other policy proposals don't they usually get debated for weeks or longer before being tagged dead? Seemed rather forceful, as if some wanted talk to cease. - Denny ^(talk) 22:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It was clearly a conspiracy, my dear Denny. La Rouche! La Rouche! — MichaelLinnear 23:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to WAS? I think he just thought the proposla was being so roundly rejected and wanted to reflect that. I think more discussion is good if we are precise about what else needs discusssing and how we are to make this proposal policy or reject it outright but to suggest something improper in the reject tag is ridiculous if not an bordering opnj being a sign of bad faith, SqueakBox 23:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

We can go after this further, but I have to say I can't see how this proposal is going to recover from having the central justification for the offending edits shot down. Either a rationale for excluding Wikipedia Review from the banned sites is going to have be constructed, or the discussion is going to have to create a consensus to overturn the arbcom clarification. The latter isn't going to happen as long as the principal players here remain the same, though this seems to be the current course of discussion. The former is in principle possible, but in practice nobody seems interested in pursuing it. So sure, we can let this sit around longer, but I'm not going to count on its successful revival. Mangoe 02:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this appears to be dead in the water and I have tagged it as such. — MichaelLinnear 06:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup, and I reverted it...let's have a little patience...this is hurting nothing either way, so cease tagging it as rejected.--MONGO 07:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

{{Rejected}} may send the wrong message, but this remains a worthwhile {{essay}}. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 14:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Is rejected the wrong message, really? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That is: "Rejected"? Ahh, guess it's all right to harass users by constantly linking to slander. By that I mean the essay makes a good point, and the point would be unfairly diminished by the trite "community doesn't give a fuck" template. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 14:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, now that I think about it, Wikipedia:Attack Links might be an appropriate compromise. Clarifies the stance on posting links to abusive commentary without committing to an overall judgment of any site. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 14:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted WAS's reinsertion of the rejected tag. WAS, please accept you have no specific authority in matters over others, and restrict your tone to not try to intimidate others as being in any position of power/authority. Thank you. - Denny ^(talk) 14:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Referring to his addition of a tag that is probably true is not trolling behavior, as your edit summary claimed. Please do not try to intimidate others by using perjorative and obviously improper language such as "trolling behavior" when reverting good faith edits. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this page?

I'd like to ask: what is the purpose of this page? As in, this page? I'm well aware that the practice of unlinking/blacklisting "bad" sites of a variety of... varieties has the purpose of protecting Wikipedians from internet goofs who may or may not want to track them down and push into the gutter, or something, but what does the actual page accomplish? So far it seems to do three things:

1. Cause a bunch of fighting, in the form of sharp sarcasm, accusation of hidden, evil motives, and outright insults
2. Promote and advertise the various attack pages on the talk pages of what has become one of the most actively read and edited Wikipedia/Wikipedia talk namespace pages
3. ...

So, what is this page actually doing that is helpful? If it's anything, I'm missing it. Milto LOL pia 01:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I've wondered that too. If someone is posting links to the unspeakable sites for the purpose of trolling, there is already a suitable instruction page for dealing with the problem - WP:RBI. We don't need another instruction page to tell us to do that. --BigDT 02:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:RBI is an essay. And 'goofs' can cause real life harm. This page essentially codifies and explains existing practice. Crum375 02:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It's current practice to add "attack" sites to the spam blacklist? Frise 02:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur, Miltopia, that it has not been helpful; there is policy and guideline already in place to cover every aspect of this issue, except of course to actually ban the use of references to (apparently) one particular website and stick it on the spam blacklist. Although I am relieved that the other similar websites weren't really named during this debate for WP:BEANS reasons, I found it very curious that it all seemed to center on WR. Risker 02:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Because, none of the other sites that have been brought up here are even remotely defensible, as far as i can tell (though, it's not clear what WR's done that wikitruth hasn't). --Random832 03:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

4. PROFIT!!!!! (Oops, I forgot I wasn't on Slashdot.) *Dan T.* 11:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

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 [30]. 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)

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 Jzg 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[31]. 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)

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)