Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks

Archives
Archive 1 Poll 2004 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 See also the talk pages of the subpages
Subpages
current list of subpages
Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Death threats Wikipedia:No personal attacks/Extension

There's no consensus for this site policy

See User:Dtobias/Why BADSITES is bad policy for some good reasoning, and User talk:Dtobias/Why BADSITES is bad policy for almost a dozen editors who oppose this policy. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me add that this policy is completely unenforcable. There's no list anywhere of what sites can and can't be linked to, and there would need to be consensus to come up with such a list. This fails WP:CREEP. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• On another note, GT's version is pretty good. --MichaelLinnear 23:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This should be page specific. It's still difficult to know whether a given page is giving personal information on a wikipedian (i.e. five minutes ago I didn't know User:MichaelLinnear was a wikipedian), but to say an entire site/domain can't be linked to is fairly onerous. If I post a site, and someone tells me it contains attack pages, and I ask them for a link to such pages, they can't give it to me without violating the policy. Per User:Dtobias it's like something from Alice in Wonderland. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, GT's wording is one acceptable versions of the common consensus. Those who insist on the non-consensus "sites" verbiage will still revert war over it. I really like their edit summaries. One of the sites supporters reverts to the "sites" verbiage, then someone else removes it. Another "sites" supporter reverts that and says in the summary "don't start that again", as if that side of the argument didn't spark the latest revert-go-round. SchmuckyTheCat 00:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That's really my fault; SlimVirgin and I keep running into each other at the strangest places. She just gotten the pleasure of saying "oh, no, not you again" first lately. Small small world. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

How odd, I never saw you edit this policy recently...looks like you're the one stalking her edits. That can be stopped, you know.--MONGO 04:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It probably has something to do with Dtobias bringing up this issue on Kendrick's talk page [1]. You should apologize for your stalking accusation, but I'm not holding my breath. Frise 10:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like I'm not the only person who isn't clueless.[2]--MONGO 10:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Yeah. That's evidence. Frise 10:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure...the editor who left that comment is also one of those constantly attacked by the cowards on WR...so naturally, you'd find his comments to be inaccurate.--MONGO 10:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I've protected the page for 2 weeks. That should give ample time to determine what the consensus actaully is. Revert warring does not lead to consensus. If you settle on a good version before then, request unprotection at WP:RFPP and/or contact me. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'd like to get a reply from the pro-"attack site"-verbiage group regarding the current version, and the arguments that have been advanced for it. So far, I haven't seen much discussion about the real issues here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually the way the policy reads right now is good. It doesn't try to define an attack site, but says that links to off-wiki personal attacks are prohibited. This means that unless the link goes directly to a page that contains a personal attack, then the link is ok. CLA 01:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't mean that. You're reading Wikipedia policy like it's law; that's not how WP works. A link is not necessarily "ok" just because it isn't specifically prohibited. We reserve the right to exercise judgment in all cases, and to treat everything on a case-by-case basis. If somebody is linking in an abusive way to some page, we can take action whether or not the page they link to contains specific words or ideas. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I can live with the current version. It isn't perfect to my mind (why is this not subject to 3RR, when removing a direct, obvious attack is "controversial"?) but then part of developing consensus means recognising we can't all have our cake and eat it too. I would be inclined to take up the suggestion made above, to find a way to combine the two references to ArbComm positions so that the "Notes" section isn't quite so flagrant in highlighting the differences in opinion from case to case. Risker 01:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it is pretty good wording too, but like GTB above I am very interested in hearing the "pro-attack sites" verbiage group make their arguments. Therefore I want to keep my comments brief and try not to distract from this goal, I just wanted to point to another previous version that I don't think that GTB will like, but perhaps it will add to the conversation here: [3] If I am looking at the diffs right, it appears that User:JzG edited that part and it remained for a few days with no comment on this talk page (that I know of), then it seemed to be changed. I do not know if conversation took place before this change. I am looking forward to an honest exchange of ideas here. (Casual reading of the mailing list indicates to me that a more honest conversation of this wording has taken place there.) daveh4h 01:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Umm...where? Risker 01:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Where is the mailing list? I thought I saw you participating. I don't participate but I access the archives here http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/ . I felt like I learned more about one group of editors there than I have here. Is it not called a mailing list? :-D daveh4h 07:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Folks, there are a few reasons those opposed to linking to websites that attack people aren't bothering to argue with those that do on this talkpage much anymore. Firstly, some of the commentators here that support these links are participants on wikipedia review and encyclopedia dramatica and soon as we start commenting, you go to WR (especially) and attack us. That is some cowardly bullshit. Secondly, some of us don't want to be harassed by having you guys try to use those websites to gather info and collate efforts to identify us in real life. So many editors have stayed out of commenting about this issue to protect themselves. Lastly, the argument hasn't changed any...linking to websites that attack people by way of trying to identify who we are in real life doesn't have to be tolerated, so the argument is apparently a neverending one. But don't be fooled that silence means you have concensus to link to these websites...you don't.--MONGO 04:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well as the policy itself states, "personal attacks elsewhere create doubt as to whether an editor's on-wiki actions are conducted in good faith," so I can guess you could treat this as a showing of true colors by the individuals you are talking about. As for it being "cowardly shit," I'd call it more immature behavior, to be honest. In an environment of adults you'd hope that people wouldn't take conflicts off to their tree house to gossip about it. --MichaelLinnear 07:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I've never posted to any of those sites. (As Groucho Marx would say, "I'd never join a club that would allow a person like me to become a member." (Or that would require me to verify my identity to post there.) So Wikipedia is stuck with my sort until they ever decide to revamp their membership policy.

With regards to your first point, I have a feeling you'd be getting "attacked" there irrespective of what you might be saying with regards to this policy... This is not to make any judgment call on your or their comments one way or another, except that you seem to be one of the "characters," MONGO, that makes this site what it is. Whether that is a good or bad thing is probably a matter of perspective. As to your second point, some of us don't want to be harassed for commenting here on activities that may be taking place elsewhere, not because we are initiating these or necessarily condoning them, but because a link may be, if not necessary, useful in discussing whatever import non-"personal attack" material posted on wiki-centric websites may have for WP. I agree with your last point, however, as I've been saying, you don't need a policy change to remove a link to an offending website. Just remove the damned links, already, but please assume good faith of those who may be reporting an issue "here" that off-site posters may be commenting on or developing... that may be anything. Remove the links if you want, but no need to kill the messenger.

I thought this issue would be over once DC became suspected of SOCKing to push this issue through in the first place. I didn't think I would continue posting here... Actually, I don't know why I am posting this now. For some reason, I, like you, feel drawn to comment here, but I don't particularly feel that these comments will be effective.—AL ^FOCUS! 06:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

MONGO doesn't mention the fact that the editors on this page are trying to reach a consensus on a common sense policy and since MONGO doesn't mention any names, I don't believe that it's true that any of the editors here "go to WR (especially) and attack us." I was falsely accused of posting on WR in my RFA so I'm sensitive to anyone vaguely accusing other editors at large of posting there. In my opinion, the real reason that "those opposed to linking to websites that attack people" no longer participate in this discussion is because they're losing the argument. There is a common sense approach to this policy, and we're getting close. Others can participate in the discussion if they want to, but we'll hopefully hammer out a common sense policy with or without them. CLA 07:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, I don't know what bearing that has on this conversation, if there is an editor here that you feel their points should be discounted because they visit a site, please make your case so the rest of us don't waste our time reading their comments daveh4h 08:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, pay no heed to anyone supporting linking to websites that harass our editors. It's pretty easy. In defense of editors such as SlimVirgin, Crum375, Jossi, Tom Harrison, Musical Linguist and the others who have spoken against these links, they just don't want to continue to argue the same points which they have already made more than clear.--MONGO 08:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Then there are those of us who don't want to link to the sites in question, don't "support linking" to those sites, but still think the policy is a counter-productive, bad idea. I find it frustrating that MONGO and others pretend my position doesn't exist, and that the only two positions possible are "support linking" or "support site-ban". That's absurd.

As for "arguing the same points", I have yet to see a response to the only good point that's been made against the policy - namely the BEANS argument. None of the supporters of the policy in MONGO's list has explained how it's a good idea to phrase the policy in a way that's guaranteed to drive traffic directly to WR, ED and WW. None of the suporters has explained why policy isn't strong enough without the "attack sites" wording. It's not about having made the same arguments before; it's about ignoring valid points against the policy. Ignoring these points doesn't help your case, MONGO. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, those six are among the hundreds or even thousands of other Wikipedia members who aren't, at the moment, taking part in this discussion, although each and every one of them has an equal voice in the discussion, should they choose to exercise it. Without their participation, it's up to us who are participating to get a common sense policy written and posted. CLA 08:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

One other thing, MONGO asserts that some of us here are engaging in "cowardly BS" by posting commentary about this debate on WR. I don't believe him. If he wants to prove it he can name WR account names here and, fortunately for him, link to those pages on WR that prove his point, because there currently isn't a policy against doing so. CLA 09:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice try. I don't link to attact sites. Nor do I support the efforts of others who are harassing our editors.--MONGO 10:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Neither do I. Let's talk about whether this policy is a good or a bad strategy, in that regard. I think it's a bad one. Your proposed policy will direct traffic to the sites in question. I think that's a bad idea.

What's insufficient about the policy as it's currently worded? Where's the situation for which it's not enough? -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

<unindent>Personally I've got a bit fed up with being accused of pushing a point when others seem intent to keep going until they get their "way" and GT - ElinorD answered your question and I commented that I felt her reply was stronger than your argument. If we stay and argue the case we are pushing our views against consensus - if we don't bother we are running away because we are "losing". This whole debacle reminds me of the arguments against speed limits on roads - many say there shouldn't be any as it is a matter of personal responsibility but fortunately the powers that be realise it's other people who get hurt by them exercising their "freedom". Sophia 16:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sophia, thanks for replying. You refer to Elinor's response in the section above, #Objections to promoting?. I think I replied to her with rather strong arguments, explaining that a possible occasional disadvantage that we've got the tools to address is less of a handicap than a constant disadvantage that we haven't the tools to address. If my argument is somehow fallacious or unconvincing, I'd like to know why, just so I don't go around believing wrong things. Elinor hasn't replied to tell me why I'm wrong. You haven't done it. MONGO hasn't done it. Nobbody supporting the "attack sites" language has addressed the points I made in response to Elinor above. Apparently I'm supposed to... divine that I'm wrong by looking at tea leaves? What?

Now, you might be very happy just to ignore my points, but you're not being helpful or convincing me of anything. Silence is a pretty crappy communication skill, it turns out. Is my argument so stupid that's it's not worth a reply? Is it the case, as I'm suspecting, that nobody has an answer to it, but that you're willing to ignore the fact that this policy proposal will hurt Wikipedia because it still seems like the best option? We can talk about other options. I feel like I'm trying my damndest to communicate here, and work with people towards consensus, but I'm getting stonewalled. It's very frustrating.

Sophia, do you understand where I'm coming from here? Surely someone can give me more content than "I disagree; won't say why." Surely we can figure out a way to make it clear that policy has the teeth you want it to have without having the damaging language that I'm trying to avoid. Are you going to insist that we not have that conversation, because it's better to ignore than to talk? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

GT I'm sorry I missed your reply to Elinor as this page is so active - I'm going to look for it now (a quick glance didn't find it) and will comment further. I do appreciate the efforts you are going to to understand and try to find a workable compromise. You obviously care and are thinking hard about how to square this circle. Please don't ever mistake my disagreeing with you for a lack of respect for your opinion but in a busy life it's easy to miss things. Sophia 20:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand about missing things, and I apologize if the frustration in my voice seems to be directed at you. The dynamic on this page is somewhat complicated, and I think some of my points have been caught in the crossfire, but it's nobody's "fault". We'll figure it out. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There's plenty of all of that on both sides of this issue, I think. *Dan T.* 17:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

One "side" seems a lot more tenacious than other. Sophia 18:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't be coy. Tell us which side you think this is. Mangoe 18:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm way too old to be coy - I thought it was obvious from the discussions on this page about the disappearance the pro-site language lobby. I think you are getting a mite too jumpy now. Sophia 19:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to make clear here, no one has more say in this matter than anyone else. Just because someone "is an established user," has been an admin since 2005, has been given Oversight authority, or participates in discussion on this issue only on IRC because it's "not worth debating" here on this page, doesn't have more say, authority, or power in the debate than anyone else. That this isn't the case may have been implied by one of my esteemed colleagues above with a post announcing why some editors aren't participating in this debate, as if their absence signifies for some reason that our discussion has less merit, authority, or credibility.

It reminds me of the character in Catch-22 who thought that those who, in his opinion, were "better" or "more important" people for whatever reason should have two votes instead of only one. I have to assume that there aren't any editors in this project who feel that they have more say than any other. If they do, then their hubris needs a quick check, because the rest of us have better things to do than deal with it, like writing a common-sense policy on linking to websites. CLA 07:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Honesty

It is clear to me now this is reactionary policy verbiage meant only to ban, well, two sites (There are more but these are the two "big ones"). This is discounting ED as that seems to be banned with or without language in policy. My position is that I do not want to link to these two sites. Even if the page is not an "attack page", I am not going to link to these sites out of respect to other editors. That said, I acknowledge that I do not have a crystal ball, and there may be times when it is appropriate to link to these sites. However, I wll not be the one doing the linking. If there is a time when linking to these sites will be appropriate (and it is unlikely) most of us will know. There's no reason to add language in policy to ban sites that no good faith editor wants to link to. If a linking is made, and it is considered innapropriate, a good faith editor will remove the link.

Trolls will link to these sites no matter what is said here.

I do not want to link to WR or WW. Maybe there are some here that do, specifically to use for trolling. They are a minority and will never rewrite a policy to achieve whatever nefarious goals they have. Good faith editors here do not want an incident like what happened with Teresa Nielsen Hayden's blog. I don't have a crystal ball (FedEx hasn't delivered it yet), but I can say that if "attack sites" language is inserted in this policy, a disruptive event like that will happen again. If there is a way that you can ban two sites without using the "attack sites" language, sweet Jesus please do it.

Moreover, it's no mystery why this is probably watchlisted by many editors and yet few respond. Suspecting each side of evil motives does nothing to solve the problems here and is the reason that this is still not settled. (Hi watchlisters!)

There is no one here that is rewriting language in policy so that it will be "legal" for them to use links to attack Wikipedians. That scenario cannot happen, simply because of the nature of the community. It is impossible to make that "legal".

And with that I feel as if I just wasted more time. Who is this dave guy and why is he typing so many words?daveh4h 08:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

As I've said elsewhere, trolls and other banned users already laugh in the face of this site's rules, why would they start caring now? --MichaelLinnear 08:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Seeing some of the above discussion, it seems like people's opinions on this issue "ought" to be discounted if they've ever posted to one of those anti-Wikipedia sites, while people's opinions should be regarded as more important if they've been attacked by people on those sites. Since I fall in both of those categories (I signed up for an account on one of those sites in order to respond there to ongoing attacks on me that were being made there), how does my opinion rate? *Dan T.* 12:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

We need more information. Can you be accused of living in the same state as a banned user? CLA 12:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Why would people who have been attacked have a more important voice? Being attacked gives you sympathy from bystanders, certainly, but it makes your own motive suspect of crafting policy to vindicate yourself, rather than a motive of crafting a policy for the interests of the community at large. Everyone who posts to this talk page to make policy has an interest in the outcome. For most participants, whether those interests are personal are unknown and unknowable.

Focusing on the possible interests of the participants, rather than the words they put down about the outcome, is a discredit to the very policy we are trying to create: Comment on content, not on the contributor. SchmuckyTheCat

Fortuitous locking

Hmmm.... It seems, by a fluke, that the article may have been accidentally locked in The Right Version. Can we just agree on the current wording and stop now? Mangoe 12:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that. How about a quick poll? CLA 12:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That's never happened before... (an article being protected in The Right Version, that is...) alert the tabloids! *Dan T.* 12:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

In my deep cynicism, I am of the firm belief that those who wish to use the term "site" instead of "page" will simply come back and edit-war it back in after protection is lifted again. That has been the history of this page for some time. The majority of editors agonize over wording to try to satisfy the "never-linkers" (which they often don't even comment on), the "compromise" wording is entered into the policy, it sits for a period, then then "never-linkers" return and revert it to the DennyColt version. Reading the talk page, it is clear that the overwhelming number of editors believes the "attack page" wording is appropriate, but that has not affected the pattern of edits whatsoever. Risker 13:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That isn't cynicism, it's experience. SchmuckyTheCat

Ha. Odd that the fellow that started edit warring over this issue and asked to have the page protected on his version, was blocked for 3RR right after this due to his edit warring on another article. The overwhelming editors...where are those? I see about a 50-50 split...hardly concensus, really. All I see are a more vocal voice, but in terms of stating their arguments, the actual number of those who have said no links to these sites and those who have the said the opposite are equal. Odd, but what we have here are editors who have posted to these attack sites being the most vocal advocates of continuing to link to them...as if your opinions and contributions to them are so important.--MONGO 17:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Do let's have that poll! If the split is indeed 50/50, I'd very much like to know it. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Curious, MONGO, what do you make of the distribution of "support" vs "oppose" votes in Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Gracenotes that were cast on this issue?—AL ^FOCUS!

That also points to a larger POINT to this discussion. This talk page isn't the only judge of where comunity consensus is on the matter; another example, [4]. SchmuckyTheCat

MONGO, my contribution to the discussion is as important and valid as yours. SchmuckyTheCat

MONGO, I personally find it very disturbing that you and other editors keep suggesting that anyone who opposes the addition of BADSITES to this policy is also a poster on attack sites. I have never posted there, nor have many, many of the other editors who oppose this addition. Not only is this factually incorrect, it borders on an ad hominem attack itself. Many of the editors who concur with your opinion have not (as far as I can tell) been subject to negative posts on these sites; that does not make their position any less worthy of consideration than that of editors who have been subjected to such nastiness.

This policy is about personal attacks. It is not about banning links to other sites. If it was, it would be called the "No Linking To Attack Sites" policy...oh wait, we already had that, and it didn't come close to consensus; but for some perverse reason it is redirected to this page. There is not a single person who has posted here who is opposed to the idea of saying that using links to prosecute personal attacks is wrong. This is a positive addition to the policy from where it sat on April 17, 2007. It is widely supported. There is no consensus to support the notion that any link to certain sites, regardless of where the link is, automatically constitutes a personal attack. Risker 17:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia review, unlike encyclopedia dramatica does not claim to be a parody website. Instead, editors there have repeatedly tried to identify the real life identities of some of our contributors. Participating in that website is not an actionable offense in the least, and I encourage anyone who can get an opportunity to do so, to post there to try and alleviate the lies and misrepresentations that have been produced by these cowards. However, in keeping with the ban effective against the parody website ED, linking to an even more capricious website is unlikely to be something I would ever support. In the findings in the case brought against me by a now indefinitely banned editor here it states that, "Numerous pages of the Encyclopedia Dramatica website purport to disclose detailed information concerning the names, geographical locations, ISP's, and personal attributes of various Wikipedia administrators and editors. Any Wikipedian whose conduct assists the ED editors in compiling and publicizing such information has acted contrary to the best interests of the Wikipedia community."...links to WR do the same thing as those that are to ED. WR contributors have tried to identify the names, locations, ISP's and personal attributes, just like on ED. The argument that this isn't all that is done on WR is weak...the same applies to ED, for they too do other things besides harass our editors...but we still don't link to them. If you are linking to WR, you are "publicizing" that website. Mangoe's pointy approach by deliberately linking to that website to "prove" he isn't there attacking anyone is noted. Not sure why my username would appear there at all, unless I am a threat to their google rankings by demanding we don't link to them.--MONGO 21:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"[A] threat to their google rankings by demanding we don't link to them." Are you aware of the use of nofollow on Wikipedia? This is about principle, nothing as petty as Google ranks. --MichaelLinnear 23:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, you are not responding to my points. You have failed to explain why the policy about personal attacks should outlaw the linking to what you define as attack sites. You want that policy, you write it and convince the community it is the right thing to do. So far, everywhere that argument has been brought, it has failed. Everywhere. BADSITES. Here. The mailing list. Even Gracenotes' RfA. I am sorry, but there is absolutely no evidence that there is broadbased community support for this. Risker 22:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

To Linnear...principled editors wouldn't want to link to websites that harass our editors. To Risker...I don't really care what is being said on the mailing list..they can come here and argue about it. I have no idea why the gracenotes Rfa is being brought up...many that supported did so not because they condone the links, but because they trusted he wouldn't add them himself. I have already stated why the main supporters of this have lessend their contributions ot this arguemnt...they have made their case, and they have many other areas they are active on, many are amdins and are distracted. I won't name the dozens that have emailed me and support my efforts to continue to argue this point...a large number of them have asked to remain out of it since they don't want to be harassed off site...a few have even thought about creating sock accounts to mask their identity to protect themselves. I'm sorry, but the reality is there is no broadbased community support to link to websites that attack our contributors.--MONGO 04:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Which is an entirely different question from whether our policy should explicitly say so. Some of us agree that it's inappropriate to link to the sites in question, but have concerns about the wisdom of the proposed policy, and how it's worded. You say that editors in support of the proposed policy have made their case, but the arguments I've made here stand unanswered. Does that mean my points are granted? Clearly not, so what gives? What am I missing?

The proposed wording is a guaranteed traffic generator for the sites in question. Does anybody even disagree with this point? Nobody has done so in so many words, there's just been no discussion.

Can we just ignore the people who want to link to the sites, and have a discussion about the best way to word the policy, or must this conversation be held hostage to the idea that there are only two positions one can take? Is there truly no room for sanity here? Why is nobody receptive to the suggestion that we protect ourselves in a way that doesn't involve hurting ourselves as well? Can anybody explain to me why that's such a bad idea? If you don't want to post here, email me, I don't care. This is getting infuriating. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no desire "to link to websites that attack our contributors." Honestly, ED and WR have proven themselves to be attack sites, and have little or no redeeming content that is worth anything. I'm opposing on the principle that the policy is poorly worded and ultimately ineffective. I think that most are opposing the proposed policy in its currently worded state or are against an easily abused "total ban" ruling, and in no way support harassment, outing, or anything of that ilk. By putting such emphasis on the evils of attack and outing sites, how awful they are, and what steps to take, it is in effect acting as free advertisement. I advise those thinking about what GT stated to read this article. "Wikipedia’s ability to generate high-quality traffic can be equal to or better than that of most search engines." Wikipedia is good at drawing attention to things, why do we want that to be attack sites? --MichaelLinnear 05:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You mention the "what steps to take" angle, Michael. I think that's probably the most effective form of protection we have. The best ways to protect against the dangers of harassment of this nature are (a) have a smart policy of responding to harassment without escalating it, and (b) make it easy for editors to get privacy violating material deleted quickly and discreetly. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the unnamed "dozens of people" who have privately expressed their support to MONGO. I've been participating in online discussions, debates, and flame wars for nearly 25 years now, since getting introduced to the brave new online world as a college freshman in the days when the Internet was still the ARPAnet, and there have been innumerable occasions when somebody, unable to defend their position with facts or logic, and appearing not to have close to a majority supporting his side in the debate, would resort to that strategy. It's very convenient, since there's no way to prove or disprove it. The Pope and the Dalai Lama have, incidentally, been emailing me with their strong support for my side in this argument, but unfortunately they requested I not reproduce their messages. *Dan T.* 14:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That would be a more compelling argument if His Holiness were actually editing the page in your support. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Really, wow, if the Pope and Dalai Lama are telling you it's okay to link to websites that attack our editors I am very surprised...I figured it would be more like the numerous banned editors who troll WR, like Rootology, FAAFA and the various other miscreants who seem more interested in wasting time on frivilous websites than writing a fact based encyclopedia. I guess poeple who post to those websites must really be some bored people.--MONGO 19:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I've gotten many messages from top men in support of my position. Who? top men. Mangoe 14:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I made it clear...there have been plenty of people supporting these links and they have edited the policy as well as commented here. That the more vocal supports of linking to attacking websites have decided to fillibuster this issue is no surprise...they are the ones with the most to lose, since we are going to remove links to their precious commentary made at the attack sites whether they like it or not. Just, with it spelled out that way in policy, they can't come to someone who removes the attack and state...gee why did you do that? You don't have a right to do that...what this banned troll has to say in this thread on WR is very important to this encyclopedia project...we really need it so we can know what their opinion is...we can't write the encyclopedia without it. Sure..the opinions stated at these websites is really a valuable component to our efforts to write and administer this website. When someone proves how that is possible, I'd really like to see it. Why don't all these people contributing to the mailing list (which is a waste of time as far as I am concerned) come here and support Dtobias, GTBaccus and mangoe...all I see are are about the same number of supporters as opponents...just the opponents are posting here much more frequently. More postings doesn't equate with concensus, sorry.--MONGO 19:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I note that, by being consistent in my arguments that an absolutist total ban on any site which has or does host attack material is unworkable and against the interests of Wikipedia (and by re-iterating my position from time to time) that an editor, User:MONGO has therefore included me as one those persons, or a party to those persons, who contribute to such sites. I state that this is either a lie, or an extremely ill judged fallacious statement which indicates a fundamental inability to comprehend that a person may take a view in which they have no personal advancement but thinks may be to the benefit of persons unknown to him. Someone with a less than liberal attitude than I might even believe it constitutes a personal attack on my integrity as an editor or person.

The very next post I should like to see under this one is from User:MONGO retracting the generalisation regarding those who oppose the absolute ban, and continue to argue the case, and clarification that he is fully aware that I do not contribute to any site regarding Wikipedia other than Wikipedia. A fucking apology would be appreciated too. LessHeard vanU 22:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

LessHeard, it's clear that there are people from these sites here to stir things up. After a busy day's stirring, they go back to the sites and discuss the results of their efforts. Not everyone who's opposing the no-link position is doing this, but some of the most persistent ones are, and it's making it hard to assume good faith of anyone, which leads to more toxicity, which the stirrers then use to accuse the no-linkers of bad faith and extremism. It would be a good idea to break the cycle. The best way to do it would be if editors of goodwill on both "sides" could explicitly distance themselves from it, or distance themselves from the discussion entirely until the heat is out of it. Just a suggestion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have been fairly quiet here, of late, since I support the efforts of GTBacchus and Dan to provide a form of words that both parties to this debate can agree to. I will, from time to time, make observations if I feel they are justified and hopefully advance the process. I do not care to have my efforts disparaged on the basis of I may share some sentiments with other editors who happen to choose different avenues to record their opinions (and which is not to say that those editors do not have valid concerns outside of their own interests, anyway.) As for AGF, I do not see that any one grouping has a monopoly, either. Thanks for pointing out your concerns, anyway. LessHeard vanU 12:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU, Do you? Anyone can register at WR so long as they have a nonfree email account...they can set up whatever username they want there I suppose. You want me to "expletive" apologize for a comment that was not all encompassing and not once named you. The level of paranoia on this page is becoming bewildering.--MONGO 22:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Other than the bewildering lack of AGF in asking, I am pleased to state; No, I do not post outside of Wikipedia on matters relating to Wikipedia.

You will note that this what I had in effect already said in my last paragraph of my first response. If you are uncertain as to the content I would be pleased to re-iterate it again. Perhaps your phrasing of

That the more vocal supports of linking to attacking websites have decided to fillibuster this issue is no surprise...they are the ones with the most to lose, since we are going to remove links to their precious commentary made at the attack sites whether they like it or not.

could do with some clarification, since it appears to state that anyone who continues to argue for a non-absolutist position has an interest in sites which would be effected. This is particularly outrageous in as it casts any opposition as being tainted by association and attempts to stymie debate over issues by a fallacious argument that such vested interests render the points raised as irrelevent.

Lastly, you appear to know a lot more about WR than I. I will AGF by not concerning myself with your interactions with that site. Please note that in assuming good faith I do not necessarily assume good sense, since I haven't noticed any application of same in this debate, and therefore your apology is no longer required. LessHeard vanU 13:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) MONGO, to be fair, you have made some sweeping generalizations, such as "nothing to opppose, unless you're an ED or WR partisan". That's pretty difficult not to take as a slight, for someone who opposes the proposed policy for good-faith reasons. LessHeard isn't the only one who feels you've been tarring some of the wrong people with your claims that anyone opposing the policy must be some kind of "bad guy". I found it insulting, anyway, although I don't think that was your intent, as you clarified in our email correspondence. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Why oppose the proposed policy?

What I oppose is putting the following sentence (chosen from a recent version), or its equivalent, into this policy:

[A] website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances

That sentence advertises the fact that there are websites engaged in the practice of publishing private information on Wikipedians. An arbitrary reader of this policy page is not likely to know that, much less to be thinking about it, before we tell them. Let's not tell them.

Who is "them", by the way? In this case, it's everyone who ever gets warned for making a personal attack. We give them a link to WP:NPA. You want to float a reminder that WR is out there to every disgruntled, tendentious, trollish boor that you send this way? Think about it.

What would it take to convince supporters of this policy that we've already got the protection we require without spelling out quite so much in policy? Answer here, by email, or by smoke-signal. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been rather clear that we don't need to mention the websites at all. We don't link to ED..the reasons to not link to WR are even better...WR doesn't claim they are a parody site....there is nothing to "laugh off" about WR. How many time do you have to tell me I am not listening (reading) or addressing your points? What are the points? That linking to WR and similar websites is somehow beneficial to our efforts to write or regulate this encyclopedic effort? I completely fail to see how that is possible.--MONGO 06:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No. I'm not claiming that, and I've never claimed that. Let me be very, very clear. I do NOT support linking to the sites in question. I only oppose giving out inappropriate details in policy. That's all I've ever opposed about this.

You clearly still don't know what point I've been making, if you think that I'm arguing for linking. It's like you haven't read a single word I've typed. How many times do I have to say you're not listening? As long as you claim that I'm arguing for linking, I guess. I'm not.

You say "we don't need to mention the websites at all", but the version you've reverted to does mention them. Are you starting to see what I'm arguing against? -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Who supports your proposed wording? Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Several people have said they do on this talk page. What do you want, a list of names? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That would probably be informative, but it will also be clear from who edits the page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

And your point is...? -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No we don't need to name them. What is your point? We don't need to name which websites we are talking about in the policy. Look, the reaosn this needs to be spelled out in policy is because myself and others who remove links to these harassment websites shouldn't have to answer to every single whinning troll who complains about it. All we do is then point them here. Stop repeatedly accusing me of not reading your comments...I am sick of that.--MONGO 20:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I "accuse you of not reading my comments," because your responses don't indicate that you've understood what I've said. You seem to think, for example, that I'm defending linking, or opposing removal of links, both of which are completely false. You're sick of me saying you aren't reading my words; I'm sick of you putting words in my mouth. How do you think it feels to have my words twisted over and over again into something I never said? Do you even realize how many times you've called me undeserved names, and claimed that I was saying shit I would never say?

Yes, naming the sites in policy would be a bad idea. Simply indicating that "there are websites devoted to collecting personal info on Wikipedians" is also a bad idea because it informs people that such websites exist. Many people don't know that, but you seem determined to tell them.

As for answering every troll who complains, that's something we can talk about. It's actually not that hard to reply in a way that makes them go away. Spelling it out in policy won't particularly help, and it will hurt. That is my point. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason we need not to have any such policy is so the tinpot authoritarian power-freak censors who go around suppressing links don't have a crutch to lean on... hopefully they'll finally go away, or go do something useful elsewhere. *Dan T.* 20:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

What about the wikitruth website? SakotGrimshine 20:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

A very interesting case, indeed... that site has "outed" a number of Wikipedia editors, republished deleted articles with WP:BLP concerns, and other stuff that might be regarded as antithetical to Wikipedia and Wikipedians... and we still have an article on it, complete with an external link. *Dan T.* 20:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Odd...looking through the listed category about Wikipedians, I failed to find anything in which anyone's IP was being listed, their address...etc. Surely plenty of personal attacks...but I failed to see where anyone is being "outted" and that is the issue. Privacy rights.--MONGO 21:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

On wikitruth, here's examples: (self-removal SakotGrimshine 22:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC))I think the whole stalking stuff on Wikipedia Review is just one person there stalking SlimVirgin and I won't name him in case he puts his hivemind page up as I don't want to get on it. Some websites like LiveJournal for some reason also allows people to use their site for stalking people by IP, too, and won't remove postings of IP addresses even with numerous complaints to their abuse department so I'd recommend caution on allowing links to LiveJournals. SakotGrimshine 21:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I see some pretty egregious personal attacks, but I don't see any effort to post information that outs their identity that isn't already common knowledge. I'd rather not have the examples listed here at all...you could have just commented without those names. Again, they use their real names to edit, so its really not the same thing as collecting information in an effort to deliberately try and figure out the identity of someone who doesn't want to be public.--MONGO 21:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed them myself. There's in history if someone really wants to see. The first example had someone's name prior to a name change and the other had someone's real name which isn't on their userpage. SakotGrimshine 22:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

MONGO you "don't see any effort to post information that outs their identity that isn't already common knowledge." Are you serious? It's possible that WikiTruth is the baddest BADSITE of them all. WikiTruth has actually succeeded where WR and ED have tried and failed. They have exposed name changes, gender changes, real names, sexual fetishes, and a predilection for net sexing hijinks. How does exposing such intimate facts about individuals not qualifying as outing someone? If you actually read what they said on WikiTruth, you'd have seen that they spent a great deal of time trawling the internet for information on their opponents, as they said "Wikitruthians started browsing Google and ferreting out little bits and batches of information. By the time they were done..." and "As they say in the press, we "ran with it"." Apparently some of their content was so out there, that even Wikipedia Review sent them a takedown request. So, why does WT get a free pass here? --MichaelLinnear 05:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I've just now checked out that site and I have to agree. I'd feel more comfortable with my personal information in Brandt's hands than on their servers. (Although they've got a diff of mine linked to on their main page, currently the fifth bluelink under the subheading The Wikitruth Hit and Run... Rare glory! [5])—AL ^FOCUS! 05:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You're e-famous now. --MichaelLinnear 05:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

All I wanted was to welcome Brandt and for him to appreciate the warm and loving community we have here.—AL ^FOCUS! 05:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

AL now passes WP:NN. daveh4h 06:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's all i need. Seriously though, when I posted that I thought I was going to be the first Wikipedian ever banned for posting a welcome message.—AL ^FOCUS! 06:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Even if you posted a custom welcome message with the image in the lolicon article in it, you'd still not be the first. There was another guy who used to post this big manifesto or whatever in welcome messages complaining about things on wikipedia and he got banned for it. SakotGrimshine 08:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, so much for notability. It seems I still have a lot to live up to!—AL ^FOCUS! 17:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Cowardice

Anyone with any grey matter left from reading all this can figure out that I am the person MONGO means when he claims that "Firstly, some of the commentators here that support these links are participants on wikipedia review and encyclopedia dramatica and soon as we start commenting, you go to WR (especially) and attack us."

This has gotten completely out of line.

MONGO, if you're going to make accusations like that, you can cite them, or you can retract them. I think it would be dishonest for me delete all the attacks you've made on me here, so I'm going to post what I actually said on that nasty "attack site", and I'm going to cite it, so that people can read it for themselves and make up their own minds, and they can verify that I'm quoting myself accurately.

A search on Wikipedia Review shows that I've mentioned MONGO by name exactly five times. Two of them were in a thread on the "badsites" controversy.

On 25 April I posted the following (deleted link): "MONGO is now trying to revive this by putting it on Wikipedia:No personal attacks. He is just not going to give in on this."

On 25 May I posted the following (deleted link): "The attempt to run a referendum on this in Gracenotes RfA is chugging along, and I've been accused by MONGO of calling him a "dick" when what I said was that the "BADSITES" pseudopolicy was providing other people with posibilities for being a dick. I pointed out that he left JVM's attack in place, and just smudged the link, and he didn't like that one bit."

I could post the other three, but they are pretty much like the first one. And here's the thing: At the moment, the pseudopolicy is all too conveniently about enabling you to make unsupported accusations about me. I expect that you or one of the other usual suspects is going to swoop in and delete the cites or even this whole response. And you know, I think at that point it'll be time to start RfC, because I'm really getting tired of the way you have made free with the accusations without producing a single character of evidence. Mangoe 17:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

And, as usual, they prove you right by suppressing the links. *Dan T.* 18:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have removed links, in accordance with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Outing_sites_as_attack_sites and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Links_to_attack_site and also Fred Bauder's clarification, and ordinary administrative action against trolling and WP:POINT. I will block the next person who adds them or similar ones. Musical Linguist 18:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

And with that, you endorse that MONGO can make unsupported allegations against me, and that I can be penalized for backing up my refutation of them. The hypocrisy stinks. Mangoe 18:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no small amount of WP:POINT-making on the part of those who remove links that are being used as relevant evidence of an issue that others have brought up in this policy discussion, however. (It's actually my fair and balanced opinion that, given the incendiary nature of this debate, any act of either adding or dropping such links has a great deal of WP:POINTedness attached to it.) *Dan T.* 18:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone needs to come in here and blanket block us all. Please, before anyone posts again.—AL ^FOCUS!

Stop me before I post again! *Dan T.* 22:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If only I were an admin, I'd adopt a rigid "block first, ask questions later" (If ever...or better yet: "avoid all questions") policy. I think I'd be a good admin. Maybe I should nominate myself. —AL ^FOCUS! 23:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You find this stuff funny? Sophia 06:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I find myself alternating between laughing at this whole silly debate, and getting angry about it... all in all, laughter is the healthier response ("the best medicine", as Reader's Digest puts it). *Dan T.* 11:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course. If I didn't keep a sense of humor about things participating in debates here would have become way too demoralizing a long time ago.—AL ^FOCUS! 23:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

A Serious Question Was Proposed That SlimVirgin Archived

I asked a non-hypothetical question involving sites that attack me personally that are linked to by Wikipedia. No one answered, and so I reposteded. Those who have a conflict of interest with issues of anonymity deleted my repost. I protest. --Pleasantville 22:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no COI with "issues of anonymity" (whatever that would mean), and I was the one who archived it, because it seemed to concern BLPs and some off-wiki conflict you're in, which isn't connected to Wikipedia and which you keep trying to post about on this site. You've been asked to stop many times by multiple admins. SlimVirgin ^(talk)

If you shoot me an email and link me to what the attacking links are, I'll remove them myself.--MONGO 23:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is the link to the discussion, at the end of the linked-to section[6]. Risker 23:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

One of the reasons that my distinguished colleague listed in her edit summary for deleting your example was that no one responded to it. So, I'll respond to it here. I'm sorry that you were the victim of an off-wiki personal attack. I also understand your point that deleting references and links to the sites involved wouldn't have served any purpose except to perhaps make the situation worse. I've heard that some other wikis and online information forums require their admins to use their full names. Perhaps Wikipedia should consider that as a policy as well.

Wikipedia's BLP policy allows articles to be created on people with or without their consent. This means that a widely read source of information on that person is completely beyond their control, with no easy way (for most) to ensure that it presents accurate or fair information about them. Who ultimately controls which articles are deleted, protected, and has the power to resolve edit and content disputes by blocking or banning? Admins, of course, especially including oversight admins. So, admins will always be targeted off-wiki by those unhappy with the admin actions with regard to articles, especially bios, that the third party is unhappy with. Every admin on Wikipedia needs to be aware that off-wiki attacks are possible, and perhaps even likely because of the power of Wikipedia on the web and the role of admins as the enforcing authority in Wikipedia. Banning site names from Wikipedia won't do anything about it, except perhaps to give some admins a false feeling of control over Wikipedia content, since they can't control anything off-wiki. CLA 23:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Another situation - "Pseudonymous" editors using their real names in Wikipedia-related activities

Today, in accordance with the portions of this policy that everyone agrees upon, I requested oversight of an edit where I deleted the apparent "real life" name of an otherwise apparently pseudonymous WP editor. There is a catch, though. It seems the person who posted the RL name got it from an email exchange that started with the poster clicking "email this editor" and the apparently pseudonymous editor responding. It's not entirely clear from the original post whether the real name came from the email address or the email signature; given the circumstances (that the information was going to be oversighted), I didn't want to ask the person who posted the information.

It seems to me that if people want to be pseudonymous and receive protection of their real life identities, then they shouldn't be using email addresses and/or signatures that include their real life names or other personal identifiers. For pity's sake, anyone can get a G-mail account!

My question - why should Wikipedia take upon itself the responsibility of "protecting" the personal information of people who give it out when responding to Wikipedia-related emails, writing on the mailing list (archives are publicly available), and/or using IRC without an effective cloak? These are all Wikipedia-related actions, even though they aren't directly posted onto user pages.

I found this completely unexpected situation to be very frustrating, given that I have supported the notion of considering direct links to off-site "outing" information to be personal attacks. Anyone have any comments? Risker 23:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Did the editor in question actually ask you to remove this information, or did you just take it on yourself to do it on your own initiative? *Dan T.* 00:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Now that the info has been oversighted, I will add that the personal information was posted on WP:RFAR; the only reason it caught my eye was that the real name was a redlink. The editor whose name was given had not been notified of the RFAR at that point; I proceeded without notifying him. Risker 00:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That's the kind of thing that helped bring me to write Don't count on your anonymity. Mangoe 03:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Some people don't seem to think that editors' privacy trumps everything else... for instance, in the recent Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Armedblowfish, where an editor who uses an open proxy (out of a possibly excessive concern for privacy), and who has not been able to edit lately due to stricter enforcement of rules against such proxy editing, requested adminship because the "admin bit" happens to allow editing even through blocked proxy IPs. While he got a good deal of support, his RfA was defeated by the votes of a faction that saw it as a dangerous precedent to allow anybody, even a good editor, to edit through a proxy where there is no possibility of accountability through Checkuser. Curiously, that faction seemed to include some of the same people who are so insistent that a ban on linking to "attack sites" is necessary to protect editor privacy. *Dan T.* 03:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Dan, there is a ban on linking to "attack sites". We haven't been arguing about policy; we've been arguing about what to write down on the policy page. Policy is what it is. Until there's a good reason to link to ED or WR or WW, such links can be removed, and such removal will be supported by the community, in particular by the core members. That's a de facto ban.

Policy is created by what the community does when we're acting with consensus in the interest of the project, not by some words on a page. I think some of the strife we've seen here comes down to people thinking that they have to write policy down in order for it to be policy. Policy is "do the right thing," and that's not changing. Fred Bauder made this clear weeks ago, I thought, on the BADSITES talk page. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a really bad way of making policy. If real-world law were made that way, then the police could decide, unilaterally by the actions of some prominent officers, that (say) red cars were illegal, not requiring any actual written law saying so; they would just have to start ticketing any red car they saw, and eventually ordering them towed to the impound lot if the owners kept driving them without getting them re-painted a different color; then, if they either get a judge to go along with enforcing the tickets or else intimidate the drivers into giving up without daring to fight the tickets in court, then the "pro-red-car-ban" side will have won without any action by the legislature necessary. If, eventually, there were either a bill in the legislature or a referendum before the voters to codify the ban on red cars, then the pro-ban side would be insistent that, no matter which way the vote went, red cars were still banned and they would continue to ticket and tow them. *Dan T.* 10:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's been remarked numerous times that Wikipedia doesn't work in theory, only in practice. -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a ban on linking to "attack sites". We haven't been arguing about policy; we've been arguing about what to write down on the policy page. That's what I've been saying since day one. --Mantanmoreland 13:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

...and what I've been fervently opposing since day one, so I've never been part of your so-called consensus. *Dan T.* 13:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Then are you arguing that we've got legitimate reasons for linking to ED or WR? Forgive me if I'm not already familiar with your argument; it's hard to keep up. All I mean by "a de facto ban" is that, so far, there's been no link removal I know of that didn't make sense. If there should be a good reason to link there, then the community would be bound to recognize that. We're not that dumb, when you get right down to it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

See my essay on the subject, if you haven't already. *Dan T.* 15:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no policy on linking to sites (except spam) and there is no definition of "attack" sites in the NPA policy. There isn't a policy, and arbitration decisions aren't wiki-wide policy. We're here to develop a policy. CLA 23:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The de facto ban

All I see is a de facto policy of erasing links to Wikipedia Review which, when written down, has continued to set off outbursts of illegitimate link erasures by people who don't understand the code. Wikitruth is much worse, and yet is tolerated to the point where there is even an article on it. By any standard, it is a site dedicated to personal attacks, with far worse things said than what appears on WR, and far easier to find too. But it hasn't gotten around to attacking The Cabal^TM members, and that seems to be enough to earn its toleration.

It would be simpler all around to just establish a policy about not talking about WR at all, either to link to it or to pass personal remarks about its membership. If it were done, and the whole matter done with, this would all die down. What we have instead is a concerted effort of censorship by The Cabal^TM, a on-again-off-again policy proposal whose application away from WR inevitably sets off a edit war and is inevitably suppressed, and another, unwritten, policy that rude remarks can be passed about WR without penalty. It's really impossible to write all this into policy because it is so blatantly biased, but it's the policy we need if this is going to stop. Mangoe 13:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The first rule of (per badsites) is... you don't talk about (per badsites) ! *Dan T.* 13:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Fascinating...The Cabal now gets capitalizations too...and has been trademarked...wow.--MONGO 13:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It's faster than typing all your names in. Now, are you going to reply to the substance? Mangoe 14:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Why bother responding to your ongoing misrepresentations? If I belong to a cabal, please tell me which one, for I never got a membership card or invitation.--MONGO 14:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is a real cabal, in that I don't think you and the others actually communicate to determine your actions in these cases. However, the same list of six or so names keeps coming up in this and related discussions. It would get tedious to type them out each time. At any rate, it's nice to see from the 4th RfD that you've decided to start picking on Wikitruth too, a site which in my opinion is much more repugnant than WR or even (when it exists) Daniel Brandt's material. Of course, there's the tiny problem that it is cited in Real Media Outlets^TM, so its notability is a foregone conclusion. And it will be ever so amusing to have an article on a website which isn't allowed to link to that website. Mangoe 14:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What the heck does any of the garbage you have written have one thing to do with THIS policy? Get real mangoe...when Brandts pages are "better" then what is on Wikitruth it will be a big relief.--MONGO 15:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not so much a "cabal" as it's a "clique", such as those which form in high school or middle school. *Dan T.* 14:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Then you can't join until you get out of elementary school.--MONGO 15:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? *Dan T.* 18:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Mangoe, I've gotta say, your histrionic mode of speaking makes it very difficult for me to take you seriously. It's like you're trying to push buttons rather than to have an honest and open dialogue. All of this "The Cabal^TM" and "(per badsites)" is so... it's like you want to be seen as a caricature, and not taken seriously. I don't want to see you as a caricature; why not just have a normal conversation. You're not under the gun here, ok?

I'm not even sure I understand what you're saying above. What does "illegitimate link erasures by people who don't understand the code" mean, for example? What "code" are we talking about? Which "illegitimate" link erasure are we talking about? Do you think we're working with some kind of legal system here? -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It's gotta be The DaVinci Code! By the way, the "(per badsites)" parts were substituted for genuine mentions of the site being discussed by the recently-blocked single-purpose troll account that was stirring up trouble by bringing WikiTruth for AfD, among other things. *Dan T.* 15:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

GTB, I don't know if "histrionic" was the word you were looking for, and in any case all the "(per badsites)" were the work of our little troll/sockpuppet Merrick3x. Perhaps I am being too sardonic. At any rate, the same set of names keeps coming up: SlimVirgin, MONGO, Jayjg, Josso, Mantanmoreland, Crum375... It seems that they are all hot on this "policy", and that there have been incidents between them and the WR-ites. But they don't really seem to be that hot about pressing the matter when it gets applied to other sites, such as the references to Kelly Martin's blog, or the many cites to TNH's website. And that's the thing that I and Dan Tobias and a host of others have complained about from Minute 1 of this: that the "policy" invites such disruptions because people don't understand that it really isn't meant to apply to these other sites. They don't understand that because there's no way to write it to exclude those sites that isn't obviously biased and self-serving. Or maybe it's just a question of WP:POINTed acts to do these erasures. At any rate, there are twelve new links to WR (at least). Mangoe 16:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"Histrionic" is precisely the word I meant. It's the adjective form of "drama queen". You seem to be making this into more of a drama than it need be.

As for the content, you're persistently barking up the wrong tree. You're just as taken in as MONGO and company by the illusion that policy is somehow determined by what a policy page says. That's simply false. Writing a "badsites" ban into policy is stupid for numerous reasons, including those you mention, but the argument you're making is the wrong one. The reason not to write it into policy is simple: we don't need to. It's already entirely permissible to remove links to ED and WR, without any new policy, just like Fred Bauder said weeks ago. Writing it into policy provides no new advantage, and some new disadvantages, therefore we shouldn't do it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Having an 11 year old daughter, I am perhaps inured to a little drama. Anyway, the point that it is already permissible to remove any link that points to certain types of site is merely one piece of the problem. If we are going to have any respect for evidence, it would be necessary to make those links to cite that evidence. More generally, there are other such citations which require such links (as in the TNH case). It seems to me, as I have been saying all along, that the nature and purpose of such links is important. But it also seems to me that having a group of admins seize upon an ArbCom ruling to justify an apparently self-serving program of censoring away the opposition is embarassing and destructive.

Be that as it may, I'm getting tired of all the second-guessing as to everyone's motives. Anyone who wants to claim something about what is going on in WR should have to cite it. Period. If they don't, they should be disciplined for making personal attacks. Period. That is the single most destructive aspect of the whole thing. I'm the only one who knows my own motives, and there's nobody around (as far as we know) that has any idea what DennyColt's motives were in setting the whole mess off.

And while we're on the drama aspect: the notion that anyone is at any serious risk of real harm from what goes on at WR is laughable. They aren't making any serious attempts to unmask anyone, at least not where I can see. They think they know who a few people are, and that "knowledge" comes up in passing from time to time, but that's about it. And with all the sockpuppetry accusations thwon about here, it's apparent that the principle of anonymity isn't really respected. If someone is banned and comes back under a different name and has a respectable editing career, nobody ought to care. But people do, and it means that it does matter who edits Wikipedia; and that means that real identities are important. Not that I intend to unmask anyone, midn you. Mangoe 20:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It's permissible to remove any link that doesn't help build the encyclopedia. This has always been true, and shouldn't be news to anybody. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a platform for us to engage in politics. I don't know what kind of "evidence" you're talking about; I'll need more context to address that point. What is the "TNH case", for example?

I've made the point several times, when people say that they have to link to WR to provide examples, that there's nothing to stop you from describing an example without having to link directly to it. Every time I've made this point, it's been answered with silence. I take that to mean the point is either granted, misunderstood, or intentionally ignored.

As for your points about second guessing people's motives, I couldn't agree more. Anyone making claims about the motives of others (that includes you, Mangoe, and well as MONGO and SlimVirgin) is being foolish. Such talk doesn't advance the discussion, does make the person making the guess look bad, does heighten the drama, and is, in a word, stupid. (I'm calling the talk "stupid", not the person. I don't consider anybody in this conversation to be stupid.) -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

For reference, the "TNH case" Mangoe is referring to is the recent mass removal of links to the website owned by Patrick Nielsen Hayden and Teresa Nielsen Hayden, which was used as a reference and external link in a number of articles. The "sites" language in this policy was given as the rationale for this removal, as there were a few comments in one comment thread on the blog hosted at that site which linked to and discussed information about the real-life identity of a Wikipedia editor. (These comments have since been removed, as far as I know). JavaTenor 22:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that. Have the links been restored? -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe they have, unless somebody missed one. JavaTenor 08:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You are an admitted contributor to WR. Commentary and harassment made by another editor (who is also now a contributor to WR) on the ED website was used as evidence (not by me) which contributed to him being indefinitely banned from editing here. We have blocked numerous sock accounts of his as well. Do you want us to be able to link to WR still, knowing these basic facts...because if you really want to we certainly can. Do you understand the difference between someones petty little comments made on a private blog and the efforts of numerous persons to try and out the real life identities of our contributors? I am really beginning to wonder why this issue is so often avoided by you and the others who I will not name, but oddly, they are also the same set of names that keep coming up in support of being able to link to these capricious websites.--MONGO 16:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the basic fact that you've left out is that you personally were the beneficiary of that blocking, as anyone who looks at the ArbCom finding can see. Any half-serious review of the material shows that the central elements in this are (a) the furor around Daniel Brandt, and (b) a grudgefest between the Cabal and the WR core members. That's what prompted me to say that we could solve this by simply banning, by name, any further links to WR and forget about everything else, as long as it was accompanied by a reciprocal ban on making petty comments about WR here.

As far as the "outing attempts", it really boils down to the naming of two editors here. And it takes a great deal of searching to find one of those, even at that; but it is that case in which the identification, if correct, is highly relevant. The other one is easier to find, but not especially illuminating. Both identifications are disputed anyway. In any case, what with all the constant "can't link there" attention, everyone knows to look there. The lack of links is only an impediment to the complete computer illiterate.

Indeed, this dispute has, if anything, amplified the need to link to WR, if only to demonstrate that the innuendo you persist in posting isn't true. Mangoe 18:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

(restore indent) Mangoe, MONGO can I propose mediation between you two? (And possibly anyone else interested in continuing this debate in a formally mediated format?) Several RFCs have been tried, to no avail, and while this page is protected we seem to be spinning our wheels here.—AL ^FOCUS! 19:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation might be interesting, but not the context of Mangoe and MONGO. Mangoe has interesting points to make in this conversation but is obviously, and clumsily, also engaging in excuses to link to WR as a nose-tweak to those will object to it. Mediation occurring amidst a background of boorish behavior won't be able to fairly tackle the major dispute on this policy. SchmuckyTheCat

So it works this way: MONGO insinuates malice on my part, and that's OK; but I cite evidence that he's wrong, and that's malicious? Sheeeeesh. Mangoe 20:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ignore MONGO. His strategy is to get you so wound up in defending yourself that the actual issue at hand gets lost. After several trips to RfAR, that strategy is pretty transparent and you've lost no honor by refusing to refute him. State it prima facie that he's incorrect then move the discussion back to the issue. SchmuckyTheCat

Ignore SchmuckyTheCat too...he's an administrator for ED. When I asked him if he could help me about the attack article they had on that website, his response was that I should take it to them...in other words...he doesn't really give a hoot. I'm glad I have better things to do than be an adminstrator of websites that attacks people, but in the completely nonexistant event that I did, if a fellow Wikipedian asked me what they could do about these attacks, I would personally try to get it deleted for them. I think it's pretty obvious what we are dealing with here when an administrator of a website that is now banned to be linked to, is arguing that we should be allowed to link to these websites that attack people.--MONGO 05:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

So how would you feel about engaging in a "mediation" setting with Mangoe primarily? Reason I ask is, if any two editors symbolize the "sides" of the debate here, it's you two. Meditation could still work between other editors, but i think any "compromise" made between editors not as invested as you two wouldn't stick. So I think you would have to be involved if a "mediation" strategy were to affect the larger issues in a permanent manner.—AL ^FOCUS! 06:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that would solve anything. There are always compromises...I am looking over some ideas as I type this. I suggest we simply state that websites that attack our editors are not to be linked to. Since some websites seem to make this a major or even sole reason for their existence, there is no reason to be linking to them. They fail RS anyway. I might be persuaded to allow some links for the purposes of arbitration though. I touched on that issue above.--MONGO 09:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The only difference between us on this, is this one word: "sites". Why not just leave it at "Don't like to attacks." and let common sense take care of the rest? I recognize where I agree with you (ED, WR both fail WP:RS, and I hope nobody is advocating something different) and I think you recognize where you agree with me as exceptions to a complete URL ban (you say "some links for the purposes of arbitration"). People who want to delete links will keep doing it. I don't even suggest they shouldn't. When opposed, a specific link just might be appropriate in some context, and it should be fairly and honestly discussed. And of course links to attacks should be removed, and repeat offenders banned and burned. SchmuckyTheCat

If I may try to speak for MONGO and the "six" other editors he referred to earlier as to why they want entire sites banned instead of just individual pages, it's because they, or their fellow editors, have been severely criticized, had their real names published, or been personally attacked on some sites. I think they're afraid that if someone follows a link to a page on that site, then that person will explore around on that site and find the other "attacks" on them contained in the site. The thing is, you can't control that by not linking to sites. If someone wants to go there and look around, they're going to do it anyway, links or not. Banning "attack" sites won't give us control over what people see or find on the web, and it won't keep those sites "out of sight and out of mind" for Wikipedia editors and users. Thus, the common sense approach here is not to allow editors in the project to stage personal attacks on other editors by linking to direct personal attacks off-wiki. CLA 09:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Would replacing the word "site" with "material" (this may have been mooted previously) be a good idea? Material could be both applied to the attack page, and the host site in so far that it condones/allows the offending page. However, linking to a page on said site would be allowed providing the page was of "material" that did not constitute an attack and the link is deemed relevant to the discussion/article/whatever. Since, as argued above, most of the sites mentioned do not pass WP:RS then there would be little reason or need to link, but the capability remains. This could be applied to all sites which may be adjudged as hosting attack material. LessHeard vanU 12:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Getting back to the subject - LessHeard vanU, I agree with you that the use of "sites" is inappropriate. The word "content" was previously attempted, but completely ignored by those who want to have bans to the sites entirely. This is why I hold out little hope of success for mediation. I'll particularly point out that the majority of editors who want to delete all links, and who continue to edit-war it into the policy, would not be bound by the mediation.

I'll comment on the "de facto policy" bit too, here. There was no de facto policy - it was the practice of a limited number of individuals to remove these links. If the "policy" had been to wipe them out, then none of those links would exist. DennyColt tried it with one site, and look what happened. One could actually argue that these personal practices were unsupported by policy; the previous attempt to have this issue enshrined in policy was also unsuccessful. If it was truly policy, then there would have been widespread agreement at all levels that this was necessary. As we can see from the various discussions on this issue, at every level in Wikipedia there is a significant variation in opinion on the best way to address the issue; there is no consensus of opinion on this matter amongst any identifiable group, even those who have had personal information revealed on these sites.

This policy is about personal attacks. It is not about whether or not WR or ED or WW or WT (or any other website for that matter) have any redeeming qualities such that they could be used for sources, or for discussion, or anything else. Not every link to those sites is an inherent personal attack, so the issue of banning all links to them should be discussed in another forum. Except, of course, there have actually been discussions about this in other forums, and the arguments for banning links have not been found to be persuasive there either. MONGO, you may not "care" what is said on the mailing list about this issue, but at least the people who voiced opinions there signed their names and stated them publicly. Risker 13:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

If these websites fail RS, then they are unreliable for sources in our efforts at writing an encyclopedia. There might be extremely rare occasions in which evidence for an arbcom case (as about the only example) might make it temporarily suitable for linking solely for the purposes of transparency, however, as in the MONGO arbcom case, these links were all altered by Fred Bauder after the case closed. That would be the only time I would see that linking to these sites should be tolerated.--MONGO 19:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Who appointed you as the one who gets to make the call as to what is "tolerated" in this site? *Dan T.* 19:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Stick to the argument please. Any further comments about my edits, etc., please see MY ESSAY first.--MONGO 19:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Risker - material is more encompassing than "content" since material does not need to refer only to attack content but also the structures that enables the content to exist (i.e material aid). Conversely the same meaning of material would allow non-attack "content" the potential for linking. If material was the defining article then both attack pages and sites which condone such pages could no longer be effectively linked, but specific pages of non-attack content could (in theory). This also gets around inherently valid sources (newsmedia, etc.) who may allow attack language as part of its reportage/freedom of expression but are not themselves considered attack venues. LessHeard vanU 22:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC) (do you want to cut this discussion to a sub-section?)

Links taken out of Wikitruth, afd

Per WP:BADSITES/this policy. That site actively defames and outs Wikipedians. Nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikitruth (4th nomination)Merrick3x 13:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ha...you beat me to it.--MONGO 13:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Really? When were you going to? Tell the (per badsites) . Don't peacock, now! Merrick3x 13:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Assume you will endorse deletion, and keep editing to keep the links out, also? And renominate for AfD if it survives? Merrick3x 13:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hehe...looks like we have ourselves a SPA, set up to create some wikidrama? I was actually just looking at the article and then saw you had nominated it for deletion.--MONGO 13:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

So, the safety of others is a joke? Is this policy change for real or just meant to suppress the harshest of crticism from linking? Merrick3x 13:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV anyone? ^(H) 13:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Consensus can't allow for POV. If 100 Christian Fundamentalists edit warred to say Dinosaurs were made by God on the 6th day, with ID sourcing, we would revert it out as trash. And descriptive per admins is we remove this trash. Merrick3x 14:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

And if one SPA account wants an article deleted, well... you know the story. ^(H) 14:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll note that MONGO has apparently changed his mind on WikiTruth being an attack site, and gone on a rampage to suppress links to it from various and sundry user, talk, and archive pages. *Dan T.* 12:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the website. Don't wikistalk my edits please.--MONGO 19:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Back to the mediation idea, how about between you and GTBacchus? He seems reasonable, and a refereed discussion might lead to a civil resolution. (Well, one can hope!) Seriously, if you two agree to this I'll set up the mediation request.—AL ^FOCUS! 19:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I see mediation as a waste of time. GTBaccus and I already communicate via email, so we don't need outsiders intruding anyway.--MONGO 19:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

There are no real "outsiders" here, since everybody is affected by the policy that's under discussion. *Dan T.* 20:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd actually be open to mediation, but if MONGO isn't interested, it's a non-starter. I'm nonplussed by the idea that mediation="intruding", and I'm not sure how much "communication" is accomplished any time MONGO and I talk to each other. I wonder sometimes where he imagines I'm coming from. I'd love to work more closely with MONGO, since we share the same goals, but he's never indicated an interest in doing that. I don't think he trusts me. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation request proposal

Ok, so apart from MONGO, would anyone else with strong feelings, or who just wants to see a resolution to this debate on the "pro" or "con" side of "attack site" language in NPA be interested in participating in a mediated discussion of the issue? I think proceeding in this forum would cut back on the random NPA violations that have been interfering with the discussion of NPA policy, and allow for a more critically focused discussion of the issues rather than of each other.

If interested, please sign your name below. If there is sufficient interest and a consensus to proceed, as determined by those who are willing to participate, I will file the request and likewise participate in the moderated discussion.—AL ^FOCUS! 17:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really participating here anymore, but it may be worth a shot. —AldeBaer 00:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to try. Mangoe 00:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm up for it. *Dan T.* 00:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Only if there is a fair representation of the other view, obviously. LessHeard vanU 01:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be a rather pointless "discussion" without both sides in it. *Dan T.* 01:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of "more than one", although I would doubt there would be any variation in the position ("never, Never, NEVER!") ;~) LessHeard vanU 01:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As I noted above, I'm willing to talk in a mediated setting. Of those who have supported the proposed policy, I guess Musical Linguist is the only one with whom I have a history of productive communication. Maybe she'd be willing to represent for that perspective. On the other hand, I'm certainly in no position to speak for MONGO, Tom harrison, SlimVirgin, or anybody else that they're willing for her to represent them.

I think it's also worth noting that there are at least three distinct perspectives being argued here: (A) Links to the "badsites" should be removed, and this policy should specify that; (B) Links to the badsites may be removed in most if not all cases, but this policy should not use overly specific language (in particular, it shouldn't talk about the existence of sites that collect personal information); (C) Links to the badsites need not be removed.

The argument between (A) and (C) has been pretty thoroughly hashed out, and I don't see much further progress in that direction.

Perspective (A) has only given minimal indication that it recognizes the existence of perspective (B), and most of (A)'s replies to (B) have been made under the (incorrect) assumption that (B)=(C). ElinorD provided a notable exception in a thread that's now archived. I'd like to see the discussion between (A) and (B) developed further.

As for the disagreement between (B) and (C), that's hardly come up yet, with one exception being when I stated that there already is a de facto ban on linking to badsites, to which several (C)'s replied "no there isn't", so we haven't done more than scratch the surface of that topic. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

A cogent analysis. Should I contact the editors you've named above to try and solicit their interest? (Though I don't know how much people on this site "trust" me, either. Perhaps your words would carry more weight with them?)—AL ^FOCUS! 03:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I could leave notes on some talk pages. I've already asked Musical Linguist if she'd comment, because I was emailing her anyway earlier today (or yesterday). If I contact MONGO, it'll be by email. There are a few others I could ping on-wiki. I definitely think there is room for discussion between (A) and (B), and maybe it just needs a different context to happen. I'm not sure what to do with (C). -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I've left a few notes. It's time for bed, so I'll have another look mañana. Good evening. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• I would be willing to participate in mediation as well; however, I am quite concerned that the overwhelming majority of editors who have participated in the actual edit wars on this policy have not spoken on this issue. Frankly, if those editors are not willing to participate, then it matters little what agreement results from mediation - they will simply continue doing what they are doing. Even "binding" mediation only affects the participants, it has no effect on the behaviour of others. Risker 03:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation is an excellent idea - we need a neutral forum as we have all become a bit entrenched. Sophia 08:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Not totally opposed to mediation, but not interested either. There are websites that are worse than ED, which we don't link to since it is an attack site. I doubt mediation will be able to change that basic fact.--MONGO 09:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, I'm interested in mediation, but not to change that basic fact. It turns out that some of us agree with removing links, but disagree over how to phrase that in policy. I think it would be helpful if you recognized that perspective, too. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean formal or informal mediation? --Mantanmoreland 15:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I would be open to either. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll think about it. Your position on this is an interesting middle ground and frankly had not been crystal clear until recently. I mean, I don't agree with it, but it is interesting.--Mantanmoreland 16:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, I don't think of my position as a "middle ground" at all. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought you favored "B" --Mantanmoreland 21:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That's right. I don't see B as intermediate between A and C. I see it as A without the disadvantages of A. The B position doesn't hold that it's kind of cool to violate the privacy of other editors. C opposes A for entirely different reasons than B does. I suppose you could draw some lines that would place B between A and C, but those aren't the lines I'm thinking along.

Sorry if my choice of letters was misleading. Perhaps "hearts", "clubs" and "diamonds" would be better names. (Note I'm not calling anyone a "SPADE"!) -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You say you'll change the constitution

Well, you know

We all want to change your head. -The Beatles

C'mon MONGO how could engaging in mediation be less productive than revert waring over NPA?—AL ^FOCUS! 09:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there are any websites that are worse than ED. Worse in the sense of having more personal attacks. I also don't consider WR one as it's mostly just banned editors going around complaining and complaining and complaining informally instead of being refined personal attack articles with humiliating pictures, voice recordings of people, etc. which ED has. SakotGrimshine 15:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I just got an email through wikipedia and it showed everyone who voted to keep the Daniel Brandt article is being stalked on Wikipedia Review with things such as statistics of their edits. They also picked me out specifically for several personal attacks because I forgot that I voted delete on the article last time. So I'm changing my opinion and view that WR is quite bad, however nothing close to ED. SakotGrimshine 15:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

We could even talk about the potential necessity of setting up regular procedures to identify attack sites as such. For example, I don't understand why Wikitruth and Conservapedia are not treated as attack sites? Who gets to decide such things on what precise grounds? I don't need to actively participate, but I'd appreciate a bit more transparency. And to sort things out, like what this policy should say about linking to attack sites, we may, as Sophia correctly observes, need a neutral forum. —AldeBaer 14:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, MONGO changed his mind on Wikitruth a couple of days ago and started suppressing links to it in the same pit-bull-like fashion he does for ED and WR. And some admins backed him up on it, so it's apparently accepted that he's the judge, jury, and executioner on that issue. Keep going on about Conservapedia enough, and maybe he'll "come around" and start suppressing links to that, too. *Dan T.* 16:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Erm— I was talking about the proposed Mediation... —AldeBaer 16:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

(restore indent) For the record, I was intending formal mediation, as opposed to informal mediation through Mediation Cabal, but am willing to go with whatever venue participants here find the most comfortable. (There have been RFCs, and I really think the extended nature of this debate and the fact that so many ranking Wikipedians have been involved makes it a case for formal mediation, hopefully for the purpose of developing a civil if not binding resolution amongst core participants so far as further conflicts are concerned.) I would also like to point out that participating in any form of mediation would be a definite show of good faith both in other Wikipedians and with Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes.—AL ^FOCUS! 17:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• I think it's an excellent idea.--G-Dett 20:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to try mediation. ElinorD (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)'

• I'm willing to try mediation, but I don't know what can be done if people won't participate. Ken Arromdee 15:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• My informal efforts to broker a compromise and author a stable version didn't meet with any sort of lasting success. A more formal process might be helpful. Or it might not, but it certainly could not do worse than this talk page process. No matter what any given editor might "want" to see on the policy page, I think everyone can agree that this dialogue has become fundamentally intractible. Serpent's Choice 18:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Fourth perspective

In addition to GTBacchus' previous listing, there is the non-absolutist faction that does not consider the term "Badsite" at all, but prefers to work to an wording of no linking to attacks/attack pages/attack content/attack material - there is no clear consensus of the wording since the proponents/supporters are more active in opposing the absolutist argument at present to devote time to defining the appropriate term - which only includes (some) sites home pages where appropriate. Whether this further clarification needs to be part of the mediation process is unclear, since it is perhaps the principles of whether there is to be total ban on linking or not that needs addressing and only after that the ways and means (if that is the outcome). However, if it is believed that there is a possibility that there would be no effective banning of links to attacks should the absolute ban be decided against then some will continue to stand firm where they may be more inclined to negotiate around what little that could be allowed of non-attack material from such sites.LessHeard vanU 20:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope it didn't seem above that I was embracing the term "badsite". I was really just using it as a shorthand for "ED, WR and WW". I certainly don't propose identifying any particular type of site in this policy. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, but I was pointing out that the use of the term "site" has been a matter of controversy throughout this debate. I am certainly not comfortable with wording a Wiki policy to refer to specific sites (since Wiki policy should relate to all such wiki activity) but would support a wording that refers to attacks from any off-wiki site. It removes stigma and potential difficulties in application, is all. You noted your comment in your pre-amble that your list was not exhaustive so I added a fourth. LessHeard vanU 21:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just can't tell the difference between this fourth position and mine, which I called (B) above. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It is the term site; many sites would "de facto" be unlinkable if the terms attack content or attack material were the preferred language, if that was all they could offer. However some pages of some sites would be linkable if the page was not of attack material, but were RS matters of concern. Also, if attack content/material was the defining quantity then it wouldn't matter if a site had not been previously declared off-limits since it would be what was being said and not by whom. Most people can recognise an attack when they see it, and can move promptly to remove links by invoking properly worded policy and censure those who added them. In the meanwhile links to non-attack content/material can be reviewed on the basis of WP:RS, or whatever the criteria, editors pointed toward the relevant policies. Of course, this will mean having to exercise the brain cells on a regular basis.... which might be why the absolutist option is favoured by some editors. LessHeard vanU 21:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah. That's why I couldn't tell the difference. I don't support using the word "site", and I'm sorry if I came across as I did. I was just using the nearest word at hand to express my position. I don't propose using the word "site" in this policy. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

GTBacchus, I have to say I am finding your responses very confusing. My understanding of your current position is that any kind of links to certain sites should be banned, but that we shouldn't use the word "sites" in the policy. Is this correct? If it is, then it strikes me as rather disingenuous not to be honest with the volunteers in this project - if they are going to get hammered for linking to a site (regardless of what the link connects to), then we owe it to them to spell it out. (Incidentally, that is another good reason for this whole "no links" stuff to be in another policy - why would someone who isn't making a personal attack even think of looking in this policy to see that rule?) Risker 04:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I wouldn't say that links to certain sites "should be banned". I'd say that certain sites are already de facto banned simply because there's nothing there we need to link to, and some reason not to link there.

I also don't support "hammering" anybody for anything. Coming down on somebody like a ton of bricks for linking somewhere in good faith is a good way to drive away civil contributors. Anything other than a good-faith link can be dealt with on its own terms; i.e., as a personal attack, a privacy violation, or what-have-you. I also am firmly not of the opinion that contributors are expected to know "the rules" before contributing, or that anybody is to be punished for not knowing "the rules".

What I support is removing personal-attack links and removing privacy violations per existing policy, human decency, and common sense. What I oppose is spelling out in policy a description of the content we don't want to link to. It's great to say, "don't attack editors or try to violate their privacy". It's dumb to say, "don't go find one of the websites where they're making a concerted effort to identify real-life identities of Wikipedia admins and drag links back here." That would be a big BEANS violation, and a foolish written policy. Does that clarify my position at all? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, LessHeard vanU; that seems to be closest to my perspective. For me, attacks are attacks, no matter whether they are stated bluntly or deceptively or by quoting material from another site or linking directly to material from another site. All this silly deletion that has been happening has nothing at all to do with personal attacks, it has to do with control and censorship. With limited exceptions, I doubt any of the WR/WT/ED/WW pages are suitable to be considered reliable sources for anything other than an article about the website, or someting like Criticism of Wikipedia. On the other hand, I do note that on my most recent periodic survey of WR, there were several threads about problematic articles; interestingly, the information in all of those threads had been acted upon here on Wikipedia - so at least some people are reading what is there and taking it seriously. It seems to me that linking to a thread like that would be suitable for the talk page of the related article, as in "Oh look, someone has pointed X out, what do others think?" But that is a discussion that is appropriate to the use of external links, not to a policy about personal attacks - nobody has demonstrated any cogent argument that there is a relationship between the two issues. ("It's only a few clicks away" doesn't cut it, so is googling a user's name, and nobody is suggesting we ban Google.) I can quite assure everyone involved in this discussion that if all would recognize that these are two separate concepts and stick the banning of links to these sites into a more relevant policy (or its own policy) I'd be quite inclined to just shut up. Risker 22:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Censorship

Isn't suppressing links to attack sites a form of censorship, which Wikipedia is not? Perhaps the links should be included in articles if they're relevant etc. regardless of any desire to censor them. For example, it seems to me that if there's an article about a web page, e.g. Wikitruth, then it is very useful to readers of that article to have a link to that website in the External Links section.

It's a whole different issue that users should not post messages on talk pages which amount to personal attacks against other users, and therefore they should not post links in such comments for the apparent purpose of effectively making personal attacks while trying to circumvent the rules by not explicitly putting the attack right on the talk page. However, the web is a web: it should not be disallowed to post a link to a page just because following links from that page eventually leads to a personal attack -- unless that seems to be the purpose, e.g. don't post messages like "You can find my opinion of user so-and-so if you go to "this link" and click on "blog" then click on "comment 463"." --Coppertwig 16:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Not if it is an internal editorial decision. Censorship applies to the limitations others place on you, not editorial decisions of the internal community. ^(H) 20:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah! That's how I usually think of censorship! But that isn't what Wikipedia's censorship policy is talking about. --Coppertwig 23:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, says who that there is an internal community here? That seems to be the whole problem: that there is maybe one internal community, but it isn't the whole Wikipedia community. It's a group with access to real power, using it against a bunch of outsiders who not only lack access to power, but have been cut out through the acts of the people in the empowered group. Indeed, the argument right now is that the instigators don't need the permission of the greater community because they already have this arbcom finding even though it's also disputed whether the finding can even be used that way. It's classic censorship. Mangoe 13:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Does this mean you are saying attacks should be allowed? That brings up an important issue, namely that attacks do not solve anything in the first place and only serve to create disunity, factionizing, bad blood, malice, etc. There must be a strict prohibition of all personal attacks in all Wikipedia discussions. For those that support allowing personal attacks, they must be able to logically answer this question: What good do personal attacks serve? mike4ty4 08:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No. I'm saying that these erasures are in reality attacks themselves. Mangoe 12:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Policy is based on the consensus of the community, so if it becomes policy then there is consensus, if there is no consensus then it should not be policy. So ya, it would be an internal editorial decision. ^(H) 13:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, but whether or not it's an internal editorial decision based on consensus has no bearing on its status as censorship.--G-Dett 21:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

NPA Query

Is writing something in the form of "a <censored by NPA> user like X" violation of this policy? I was pretty stressed out yesterday, at at one point typed it down (but did not submit). Later I have been thinking about it, couldn't conclude either way. --soum ^talk 12:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure, but it probably doesn't make you look good. Without digging into the history, people can't even tell whether you wrote a real personal attack and got censored by somebody else, or self-censored without posting real attack language. It's clearly intended as an attack, though a muted one. It might be better to try to rephrase it more civilly. *Dan T.* 12:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thought so. Seems like its more of gaming the system. Dont worry, theres nothing serious going on here. It was meant to be light hearted. --soum ^talk 12:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It's often a good idea to wait 24 hours to calm down before writing -- and possibly then waiting another 24 hours after wording your response before submitting it! The way the human mind works, the targetrecipient of a remark is far more likely to construe it as an attack than the writer of the remark, or is likely to construe it as a harsher attack, so if you're wondering whether something you're writing is an attack or not -- in the opinion of the person receiving it, it probably is; and that's what counts -- whether that person feels hurt, which then causes relations to deteriorate further. --Coppertwig 12:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Another try at a clarification

It seems to me that this is really about three or four specific sites: Encyclopedia Dramatica, Wikitruth, Wikipedia Review, and maybe Daniel Brandt's hivemind pages (which haven't been up for some time). I'd almost settle for a by-name ban on new links to these, but there a few points need to be dealt with:

• Links in attacks: There seems to be near universal agreement that using links as part of attacks is bad. But it also seems to be that we don't have to write any new policy on this.

• The "one bad apple" problem: This is one of the things that is causing the most distruption. We need to acknowledge that people outside Wikipedia, and I think even wikipedians themselves in other fora, are not bound by Wikipedia's rules of discourse in the net at large.

• You accuse, you cite: Another issue that is coming up frequently is that people make claims about what is being said in one of the bad sites. These need to be cited; otherwise, they are unproven allegations. Indeed, it seems to me that the "ban" is being taken advantage of to make such allegations without fear of contradiction.

• Outsiders are fair game: Not. Forget the simple human decency aspect: making personal attacks on people who aren't here gives them powerful incentive to be here and respond, banned or not. And it encourages "attack site" behavior because the campaign to keep these people suppressed and to use Wikipedia as a platform for denouncing them forces them to try to game and subvert the system.

• Keep your outrage to yourself: Since the WWW is even less censored than Wikipedia, it is reasonable to expect people who wander about it to be responsible for their own sense of outrage. People are going to come across personal attacks, and it's up to them to not try to find things that offend them. Besides, the "they're saying bad things about us!" attacks in Wikipedia are terribly juvenile. Which is it: are the WR complainers a group of powerless malcontents, or a threatening conspiracy?

To sum up: I think this issue would go away if actual attacks within Wikipedia were dealt with in the ordinary way, and the rest of this left to drift on into archives and be forgotten. Instead, we get an outrage every so often because the proposal invites both mindless disruption and outright malice. And it is being used to protect a lot of personal attacks. If we could just forget the whole thing for a couple of months, I think the problem would just go away. Mangoe 14:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You're the one keeping it going. If you'd stop going on about it at every opportunity in every venue, it would indeed go away, as I'm sure you know. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree with that. The issue would go away if the erasures were to stop; you and the others have stated that you won't do that, so it won't be ending that way, it appears. But even if I personally were to give up on this, the disruptions would continue, because the erasures are disruptive. If the "attack sites" material gets written into policy, then there will continue to be free-lance censors going around and erasing any links that they decide are bad. Other people will notice and object. Some of the time they will be "wrong". but some of the time they will be "right" (that is, the linked sites won't fit the precise wording of the definition). Without listing the precise sites you wish to stigmatize, other sites which enough people will hold innocent will nonetheless be attacked under that policy. In the real world, people don't accept that it doesn't matter who editors are, so there will always be a supply of such identifications to censor anyway. So the issue is never going to really go away, and it is going flare up dramatically the next time someone is caught out with a major conflict between their Wikipedia persona and their real identity. Mangoe 05:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That same argument could be applied the other way around. If we don't make it policy to delink to websites that make it part of their mission to attack our contributors, then folks like yourself start ranting that we have no "authority" to remove those links. Seems to be a circular argument. Common sense prevails, as does action backed by precedent.--MONGO 06:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

My "common sense" is very different from yours on this, so it may not be so "common" after all. *Dan T.* 11:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, this would be a better argument if that were how "attack sites" were being defined, though the inevitable subjectivity would in the end wreck that too, since one man's "criticism" is another's "attack". But since "attacks" are being equated with revelations of identity, people in the real world don't agree that those are necessarily attacks. Essjay's identity was revealed, and it was right and proper for it to happen; in the real world his abuse of anonymity made his real identity newsworthy. And therefore the policy has in practice been used against several different sites which had some Wikipedia criticism, not just those which had attacking as their "mission". I've said over and over again that such links used as attacks could be deleted, contrary to your assertion above. And having reviewed your erasures, I determined that most of the links were used in ways that were close enough to attacks to justify their removal without resort to your criterion. That's why, by and large, I haven't reverted them. So it is untrue that I oppose erasing any such links; what I'm saying is that the context of the links ought to be what is determinative. In the TNH case, article citations-- clearly not attacks-- were erased simply because she identified someone in an unrelated criticism of Wikipedia. Her site isn't dedicated to attacking Wikipedians; she just thinks that we're doing a bad job. And frankly, as a professional in the business, her word outweighs that of an anonymous editor here, admin or not. Be that as it may, such damage is the fruit of the way you want to do this. Mangoe 12:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Questions for mediation

I'm really here in response to the post from GTBacchus, as he mentioned this in an e-mail. I do not intend to put my name down for mediation. I have a lot of commitments in the next few months, including three 6,000-word papers to finish writing. But for the mediation to work, I think it's important for people to know what exactly they're disagreeing on. Is this a disagreement with the ArbCom ruling, or is it a disagreement over whether or not that ruling should be mentioned in the policy page? What does the word "attack" mean in the context of this discussion? Can those in favour of linking to these pages accept that their opponents oppose it not because of some power-hungry wish to censor, or because they don't like "criticism", but because of violations of privacy, and real-life problems that have resulted and can result from these violations? Can those who want a "no links" policy accept that some (sadly not all) of those who oppose it do so because they think that explicitly mentioning it in the policy will draw more attention to the existence of these sites?

Another thing I'd like to mention is that while I see GTBacchus in disagreement with the "no links" people, I can state as a fact that his aims are the same as theirs — to prevent worsening of the harassment. It is possible to disagree in good faith on whether having the attack sites issue mentioned or not having it mentioned will bring about the best protection against harassment. There is a huge difference between opposing an explicit mention of the ban on linking to these sites because of WP:BEANS and opposing it because you think your right to link to anything you want is more important than the security of your fellow editors. Good luck with the mediation, and I may look in from time to time. Musical Linguist 23:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That's my concern about mediation as well. I don't understand what is being mediated or what questions would be addressed. --Mantanmoreland 21:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. So far, there seems to be a dearth of commitment from key participants in past conflicts for a mediation request to work right now. WIth this in mind, could I request all those intending to edit the NPA policy once it is unprotected please declare interest in pursuing mediation before reverting other people's contributions, so as to further avoid the NPA violation derby these debates have been so far? I agree with Musical Linguist that the questions we are debating should be further clarified, but I think have been making great progress in doing so over the past several days, so I would think by the time the page is unprotected we should be ready for mediation if everyone agrees to undertake it before further edit-warring. —AL ^FOCUS! 23:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Some good points have been made. Yes, assuming good faith is a good thing to do, on all sides. I do, however, believe that it's possible to support bad policies for good reasons, and good policies for bad reasons. The lady in Georgia who wants to ban Harry Potter books might well be acting out of sincerely-held religious beliefs that lead her to believe that removing the books will help safeguard the children of her community from being sent down the wrong moral path; one doesn't have to assume her to be a power-tripper or publicity-seeker to think that what she wants is still misguided and needs to be strongly opposed. Similarly, somebody might honestly think that by imposing restrictions on what sites can be linked to they are in some manner protecting Wikipedians from harm, but that doesn't necessarily mean that somebody else must acquiesce to such censorship if they find it needless and harmful. By the same token, somebody else might be opposing it not out of noble pro-freedom views but simply out of base motives of wishing to have free rein to perpetrate and publicize attacks; however, this doesn't make all who hold views on the same side of the particular policy issue guilty by association. *Dan T.* 01:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

What is it with your extreme comparative analogies? Nazis, "the lady in Georgia"...come on man...this is about websites that are haunted by a bunch or trolls who have little better to do with their time but libel, slander and lie about our contributors...oh, yeah, and post personal info that is not allowed here or has been removed and even oversighted.--MONGO 06:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

All content on those sites is from "bunches of trolls who have little better to do with their time but libel, slander, and lie...?" If it were really that simple and true, then there wouldn't be a debate here. That isn't the case though, as has been explained well in Dan T's essay on this subject and in numerous past discussions on this page. Mischaracterizing it as a "good vs evil" debate is disingenuous and counterproductive. CLA 06:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

More mischaracterizations...I never said "All", you did. But that is besides the point. I read that essay and it sure looked like a lot of time went into it simply to support the weak argument that we should link to websites that both fail RS and routinely post personal info that we don't post here.--MONGO 06:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think most people here agree, including me, that we shouldn't allow links directly to pages or threads on those or any other site that contain personal info on anonymous Wikipedians. It's banning the entire site that is problematic, for the very good reasons explained in Dan T's essay. One of the best reasons is that it would lead to people using the policy to wholesale delete links to websites that do have value to some degree. In fact, that very thing happened recently when someone tried to delete all links to a science-fiction writers forum because one of the forum members said something disparaging about another Wikipedia editor. I think this was discussed earlier on this page. CLA 06:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. Personal attacks are bad enough...however, the issue is the public outting or people who don't want to be publicly outted. That is what this policy adjustment should reflect. I don't favor delinking to websites that make simply snide comments. That is a whole different matter than websites that permit efforts to publicly out our contributors.--MONGO 07:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, they are still publicly outed, after all-- especially since Wikipedia's links are all "nofollow" and therefore do not, in the search engines, promote these outtings. Isn't it necessary to remove links that link to sites that have these attacks? And then the next level of indirection, and so forth? That's why I particularly dislike the "sites" language: it's really punitive, and not protective. In the real world there isn't necessarily any obligation to respect demands for anonymity, and plenty of reasons to ignore those demands when they are self-serving. People have abused their anonymity here, and therefore in the real world there will be justification for revealing editors. Mangoe 12:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you actually read the essay, or did you stop reading when you got to the part about Nazis, as you've claimed a couple of times? *Dan T.* 12:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If "outing" is not a form of personal attack, and possibly the worst kind, then would somebody please tell me what is? Also, if the debate we have been having is not about personal attacks per se, but about outing sites then why have we been taking up space of the NPA policy talkpage? LessHeard vanU 12:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC) ps. I know the answers to these, but I am not certain all here do.

An "outside" view

I haven't participated in the above debate and I don't have time to read through it all and find just the right spot to make these points, so let me start a new section and say: I am an ordinary Wikipedia editor, uninvolved in the above debate and with no axe to grind, who finds that a blanket policy against linking to a particular site is just WRONG. I say this with full knowledge of the facts that:

• Hiding a personal attack on an off-wiki site and then linking to it is tantamount to a personal attack -- so those (specific) links certainly can (and should) be prohibited under NPA.
• Wikipedia Review (and the other "attack sites" which the putative BADSITES policy attempts to ban all links to) are horrid, horrid sites. It's not because I like them that I support the ability to make appropriate, non-personally-attacking links to them.
• "Outing" a Wikipedia editor is a horrible thing to do. I do not condone it in any way. But not linking to Wikipedia Review won't make it stop outing editors, nor un-do the outing that has previously been done.

There are many more good reasons why BADSITES is bad policy. (Dan Tobias has collected a bunch of them in an essay you all know about, so I won't repeat them here.)

Two wrongs don't make a right. There's no justification in the rest of Wikipedia policy for BADSITES. Let it go. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

WR fails RS except to reference itself. I fully recognize that no one is in support of linking to overt attacks, but I see no reason to facilitate their websites by linking to them at all.--MONGO 05:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the fundamental fallacy in your position. Linking to a website does not "facilitate" it. Linking to a website does not necessarily endorse, condone, or support it, either. All that linking to a website does, first and foremost, is make it more convenient for an interested reader to chase the link. This is the fundamental principle of hypertext, the foundation on which the World-Wide Web is based. Whether the linked-to site is good, bad, or ugly is a wholly orthogonal issue.

Ken Arromdee has recently provided several nice, new examples of why a judicious link to Wikipedia Review might be appropriate and important.

If Wikipedia Review fails RS, then links to it can be removed under RS; we don't need some special new policy just for it. And at any rate, in the case of Wikipedia Review, the links we're talking about are in general not from article space anyway. —Steve Summit (talk) 10:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It is mesmerizing to try and figure out why anyone would want to be able to link to these capricious websites. I have repeatedly stated that aside from an arbitration case (where such links could easily be emailed anyway...gee, novel concept) there isn't a reason to link these websites. I don't see any reason to "make it more convenient for an interested reader to chase the link". We need to make it inconvenient to link to harassment, not easier.--MONGO 19:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

How many times do I have to say it? This whole thing was brought to my attention because User:DennyColt decided it was proper to delete a citation to WR in Wikipedia talk:Expert Retention. In the "Making Light" case (TNH's blog), the erasures were to article cites. You don't need to "figure out" anything, because the evidence has been set forth over and over again; yet you keep repeating this claim as though no evidence existed. First time, ignorance; second time, obliviousness; third time suggests something else.

Also, in Florida one would expect evidence to be presented in open court, and not hidden away in e-mails. Mangoe 20:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Mesmerizing or not, the fact that you personally can't think of a reason to link to site X is not a sufficient reason for Wikipedia to adopt a special, new, blanket, unsupported by policy or precedent, disruptive policy which preemptively censors all links to site X. --Steve Summit (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The whole RS thing is a straw man, as I've said many times (the way it keeps popping back up every time it's knocked down makes me want to create a neologism "Bobblehead doll argument" to describe it); since when does anybody actually apply RS (or most other policies related to article content) to comments on talk, project, and user pages? Is somebody going to edit out my coining of "Bobblehead doll argument" above because neologisms aren't appropriate to use in articles? Is somebody going to edit out this link to my personal Web page because it's not a reliable source for anything, nor is it particularly relevant to this discussion? Not likely, since it doesn't gore anybody's ox, and all those other policies are only dragged in when somebody needs a bludgeon to use against something they dislike for other reasons. *Dan T.* 11:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's actually worse than a straw man, because in fact about half of the references to WR are cites in admin/etc. discussion. They are there to back up claims about what was said on WR, since the only reliable source on WR is WR itself. That's what particularly annoys me about the whole thing: I don't think the pro-policy side is going to stop talking about WR, so in effect they are granting themselves a license to cast aspersions on it and anyone even vaguely associated with it while preventing anyone from demonstrating that their claims are inaccurate. Mangoe 13:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The next "attack site": Conservapedia

Conservapedia's article on Wikipedia identifies an editor here at one point (besides Essjay). Is anyone going to delete the 292 links to it here? Mangoe 14:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll try and set some time aside this weekend.--MONGO 15:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Getting the attack dogs sicced on an ever increasing number of sites is one way to stir up mounting opposition to the whole "badsites" pseudo-policy, though it's a bit WP:POINTy. *Dan T.* 15:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I see my sarcasm was lost. Here the problem is a bit more complex, as it seems a large percentage of the links are editors here saying that they also edit there. There is of course a link from our article on them (can't delete that) and a few in AfDs and other bureau-pages. I don't think there's a link that explicitly mentions the "attack", though I'm pretty sure there's a link directly to the offending page. Our article on them surely needs to reference their article on us, so that link is going to have to stay.

Indeed, it's now going to be semi-newsworthy that Wikipedia is going to attack Conservapedia by erasing links to it because it is telling the "truth" about us. If it gets into the political media (and who knows, maybe it will), a lot more of this material is going to become unquestionably notable and certainly citable. Mangoe 15:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The news? What on Earth are you talking about? Can you understand sarcasm is the question...where is the offending link? I didn't see any particular editor being outted aside from Essjay.--MONGO 15:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Could people please refrain from using this conversation as an excuse to further violate the privacy of editors. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, just answering. Look at Brandt section of their Wikipedia article. Cornea 17:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, that's one of the points. I couldn't say exactly what was said without getting attacked for, well, being an "attacker". A link could be put here, but since every attempt I've made to cite something in this discussion or its predecessor has been reverted on the basis of the "policy", those interested are just going to have to seek it out on their own. Whether this is any better or worse than a direct link is left to the reader. Mangoe 18:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

So what's happening here? Are you going to go to every website that talks about Wikipedia and say "Oh lookee! This is an attack site." Give it a rest, for Pete's sake. This is tiresome.--Mantanmoreland 18:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I took care of it and removed the links on the article so people can't find attacks on SlimVirgin there now. Cornea 18:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, good. We can't see them, so they don't exist. --Steve Summit (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Those sites, after all, take after the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal -- if you can't see them, then they assume they can't see you! *Dan T.* 18:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I can see the WP:POINT of doing a reductio ad absurdum on the link ban to show how silly it is, but that sort of thing is still discouraged around here. *Dan T.* 18:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, Mantanmoreland, probably most such sites are attack sites as you and your compatriots are trying to define them. That's why it is a poor definition. Mangoe 18:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It behooves you to discuss this without dragging in every website that makes references to the purported real IDs of Wikipedians. Then you shout "lookee!" and somebody comes along and says, "Fear not, I will protect the identity of Editor X." It's just a big show, a big WP:POINT charade. Cut it out.--Mantanmoreland 19:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, would you prefer the traditional course instead: someone finds out about the "outing" and just silently deletes the links, and then you have to deal with the outrage from people who see the deletions and , knowing that there is no good reason for them, complains publicly? I agree that the whole thing is tiresome, but it's tiresome because one way or the other, someone is going to (often inadvertently) draw attention to these "outings" as long as this "policy" is floating around, because someone is going to either do or call for the erasures that set off the discussion that pushes the offending site to the fore.

The resistance to discussing this with respect to real cases is also tiresome. Sure, this policy sounds good; but the real cases of its application have invariably caused strife, because the way in which it is written to make it look as if it weren't targetted at just two sites means that it is prone to be used "inappropriately". Is it appropriate to apply it in this case? There's no neutral POV answer to that! Mangoe 20:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah yeah yeah. You can discuss this without deliberately bringing attention to personal attacks on editors. You are not doing your position very much good by your tactics here.--Mantanmoreland 20:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

How? There seems to be no way to talk about real cases without, um, actually talking about them. I suppose what I should really be doing is erasing this entire discussion! Mangoe 21:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It's actually not that hard to describe content without either linking to it or reproducing it. I've made this point several times, whenever someone says "how can I talk about examples without linking to them?", and it's been ignored each time. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, it's not that hard, and it's not that hard to email a link, either. But what's the point? If it's permissible to describe the (offending) content, what's to be gained by disallowing a simple link to it? —Steve Summit (talk) 04:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

What's the point? It depends. If kindness, respect and civility mean anything to you, then they're the point. Otherwise, I guess there is none. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I second that. All in favor will say "aye." The ayes have it and the motion is adopted.(Mantanmoreland is being sardonic, and without mentioning songs by senior citizens.)--Mantanmoreland 22:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

1. comment I'm reminded of the Jefferson Airplane live album... The one between Crown of Creation and Volunteers(Now, is LHvU being sardonic, and who to?). LessHeard vanU 21:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Conservapedia's content is about as valuable as WR's (their fundamentalist stance on topics like reparative therapy comes to mind, as just one modest example). Both sites host personal attacks in the form of outing. Both sites shouldn't be linked to period. —AldeBaer 22:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, since we have an article on Conservapedia, we have lots's of links to it (297 at last check). I'm guessing about half relate to the article on the site itself, and another forty or so stem from a recruiting drive to get more editors there. But there are also a fair number of links to their "Examples of bias in Wikipedia" article. These seem to be exactly the kind of external criticism links that I think are justified, and why there is going to perpetually be a problem. External critics are going to care about identity, but people here are going to cite external critics. Mangoe 21:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Some thoughts on attack sites

I think we need to be careful when dealing with offsite attacks. There are good faith reasons to link to attacks, such as posting on the user's talk page to let them know they're being slandered or posting to the help desk to bring it to Wikipedia's attentionin the hope we can fix it. To me, the critical factor is the intent of the person posting the link.

My opinion is that NPA should always be applied with common sense and flexibility, so adding definitions of attack site really isn't helpful. --h2g2bob (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with "common sense" but not "flexibility". "Common sense" is subjective enough for AGF debate. Since it is outside of Wikipedias capability (to say nothing of its remit) to determine what is written elsewhere there is no reason to link to an off-site attack, even if the linker is the victim. A statement of fact would suffice. The only exception allowing the attacked editor to link would be where it forms part of a complaint against another editor to illustrate a direct relationship. As argued, even then it may be more appropriate to provide details by email rather than the Wiki page. LessHeard vanU 12:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

References to "common sense" should probably be avoided, given how people on all sides seem to like to toss them in, always feeling that "common sense" is on their side and against their opponents'. *Dan T.* 19:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Generally, the application of common sense has been far less controversial than the "appeals" to it. May I also say that your response contained a great deal of common sense... ow, stoppit! LessHeard vanU 21:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation?

Up above Sophia said, "Polling is premature as we are awaiting the start of formal mediation" [7]. Is that mediation in process, or going to happen? If not, I think we should get back to the business of hammering out a consensus here. —Steve Summit (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the poll could be useful in working out or supporting a mediation, so far as it would allow a mediator to quickly identify what our positions are before engaging. Polls are supposedly one of the preliminary steps to take in WP:DR before mediation anyway. My own "plan" re: mediation was to wait for the page to become unprotected and for edit wars to start so i could compel those directly involved to accept mediation rather than continue fighting, but I am by no means in control of this process, and have been waiting in the meantime for some "commonality of purpose, solidarity, or consensus" from key participants in past conflicts before proceeding on filing the request.—AL ^FOCUS! 19:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: mediation, there seem to be three options:

• WP:MEDCAB - informal "membership group" organized process.

• WP:RFM - formal "committee" organized process with the status of "policy." Apparently, conflicts not worked out here can be taken to ArbCom.

• WP:CEM - "experimental" process apparently designed to head-off Arbitration disputes, by requesting community approval for any resolutions developed in the mediation session. Also seems oriented towards developing community sanctions on related user conduct disputes, which we have had.

Of the three, I favor the third, community enforceable mediation, as it seems to be the only one with a purpose of developing a binding resolution of some sort. The other two don't seem to have any enforceable pragmatic objective. However, CEM is still an "experimental, trial process," and as such may not be as well developed as formal mediation, even though formal (like informal) mediation seems a much more open-ended, non-binding process.

So far, of the people I understand to be on the "pro-categorical language prohibiting 'attack sites' in NPA" side of the debate, only SOPHIA and ElinorD have indicated interest in pursuing mediation. That being the case, would there be consensus, on all sides, to proceed with only two representing that point of view? As much as I would like to compel everyone involved in these conflicts to accept some form of mediation in lieu of edit warring, I don't believe I can do this, but if we were to initiate one of these processes perhaps more would join in. —AL ^FOCUS! 20:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

While community enforceable mediation does sound like a good process, I am concerned (from what is written above, I have no prior knowledge) that it has not reached a level of gravitas or acknowledged authority to enable any solution arrived by it to be enforcable against any miscreant who decides to go against any finding. Simply, the validity of the process and/or its conclusions may be used as the reason why it is not binding upon any who disregard it. The process may be worth trying, but only if it doesn't disclude using one or both of the other two should the decision be regarded as non-binding. Are we prepared to invest in that process on that basis, given the time already expended on this matter?

Of the remaining two options I favour the second, since it has the authority of policy and any matter that cannot be decided upon is referred to ArbCom. Since it is an Arbcom decision, and how the application of the wording of that decision, that forms a large part of the debate about this subject it may need the consideration of that authority to settle the point.

I doubt that the "absolutist" orientated group could do much better than having SOPHIA or ElinorD argue their case for them, they being clear and consistent in their arguments. It would be nice if it was confirmed that all (or most) other like minded advocates would indicate their willingness to allow the above to speak for them. Since the absolutist position is fundamentally simple ("no links, ever") it doesn't need repeating by its supporters. The non-absolutist position is not quite so simple, even though the straw poll elsewhere seems to indicate a preference for a "no links to attacks, decided on a case by case basis" as there is yet no agreed wording that encompasses the definition of attack (or whether attack by itself sufficiently covers disallowable links). Perhaps the mediation should also consider possible policy wordings in the event that the non-absolutist position cannot be maintained. It would be foolish to require another process to settle that point. LessHeard vanU 20:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, basically (pretty much by definition), there's only one "absolute no links" position (though there can be differences in beliefs over how it is to be enforced and in what general attitude one takes about it), while there's a whole spectrum of "non-absolutist" positions ranging from "no censorship, ever" on through a wide range of views banning some links but not others. So there's inevitably more variety there. *Dan T.* 20:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but by including all of the non-absolutist viewpoints is there a dilution or a distillation of the anti-absolutist argument? We all know what we are against, but are we sure we know what we are for? How will it, and should it, effect the mediation? Providing the non-absolutists accept that these questions may form part of any process then by all means let us proceed. LessHeard vanU 21:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify something. LessHeard vanU has included me in the group of those who want the policy to be worded in such a way as to absolutely prohibit linking to attack sites. I do not necessarily belong to that group, although I am leaning towards that position. I find that the point made by GTBacchus (that such linking is prohibited already, and that we shouldn't be advertising the existence of such sites) to be one that certainly deserves respectful consideration. I'm not completely convinced that the disadvantage he mentions (which is that the wording would alert people to the existence of these sites, and encourage them to start searching) would outweigh the benefit (which is that having it clearly worded in the policy would mean that privacy violations could be dealt with swiftly, without a lot of reverting and wikilawyering on the part of those who want to add these links, which would inevitably lead to more publicity for them).

As I said earlier, in response to GTBacchus, there can be a risk in having an operation, but the doctors may tell you that not having the operation carries a greater risk. For the record, I am in favour of protecting myself and my fellow editors from potential stalkers and from other kinds of undesirable harassment. I am probably in favour of a wording that (unfortunately) announces the existence of the very thing it is trying not to advertise, but could be persuaded that I am wrong in that, provided that the persuasion came from someone who was obviously genuinely concerned about the security of their fellow editors. ElinorD (talk) 14:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You've just articulated my position better than I've been able to; thank you. I think the point on which we differ is "privacy violations could be dealt with swiftly, without a lot of reverting and wikilawyering". I think, on the one hand, that this is already the case, provided the person handling the situation knows what they're doing. On the other hand, if the handler makes certain mistakes, then the most explicit policy possible won't help prevent the resulting drama.

Hypothetical example: Suppose Adam sees a link that Betty has posted, which leads to some kind of attacking, privacy-violating material - the real thing. Suppose Adam removes that link, and Betty puts it back. If Adam responds by removing it again, leaving some curt edit summary to the effect of, "don't put this back", then yes, we'll probably see reverting and wikilawyering and drama. Adam is either an inexperienced Wikipedian, or else I don't know why he doesn't know better.

If Adam wants to solve the problem quickly, he won't remove the link a second time; he'll go get someone else to do it, someone with blocking buttons. Even if Adam is himself an administrator, he'll recruit another admin to reinforce his position, also avoiding the appearance that it's personal.

A clever Adam will not call Betty a "troll" or a "vandal", or talk about why he's not assuming good faith, he'll simply explain in very boring language that our policy is to remove material that compromises any editor's privacy. If Betty doesn't listen, he'll go get someone else to tell her the same thing, and to block her if she persists. There's no room for revert wars and wikilawyering, because we don't give her anything to latch on to.

Consider Betty's experience. One person removes the link, she puts it back, and the person explains why they removed it, but doesn't re-remove it or yell at her, thus dignifying her and giving her the chance to reverse herself based on his explanation (indeed, assuming that she will). She doesn't revert herself, and someone else removes the link, explaining the policy again in stronger words, because it's the second time. If she puts it back, she's blocked, and two other admins deny her {{unblock}} request citing the same boring policy reasons the first two cited.

Betty has no room to wikilawyer. Four admins have pointed her to NPA, where it says, "Attacking, harassing, or violating the privacy of any Wikipedian through the posting of external links is not permitted, and doing so repeatedly may result in a block." Nobody has given her a toehold to complain about being personally attacked, about somebody not assuming good faith, about one admin picking on her, or about the policy being unclear or unsupported by consensus.

There's nothing in that example that doesn't follow naturally from a strict adherence to WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA (not to mention AGF, 1RR and BITE). There's no need anywhere in that process for a description in our policy of the website hosting the content in question. Indeed, even if our policy had such a mention, Adam could respond in a way that creates endless drama, if he's unfortunate enough to think that throwing food at a troll makes it go away.

I realize the discussion has moved on from this point, but I think that what I had to say here is somewhat important; I hope it's not tl;dr. Thanks again for understanding the point I've been making. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Betty would probably instead complain about the "cabal" ganging up on her, wouldn't she? *Dan T.* 16:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, if she wants, Betty will claim that "the cabal", Mossad, and the Trilateral Commission all ganged up on her to suppress her revealing the truth about the dark forces behind Wikipedia... that doesn't make what she says at all credible. When four otherwise unrelated admins say the same thing, and quote a fairly explicit policy, it's hard to see a conspiracy there unless you just see them everywhere. Just curious, what would you suggest as a better way to deal with Betty, somehow avoiding accusations of "cabalism"? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Draft Mediation Request

I started a draft of the formal mediation request here:User:Academy Leader/NPA formal mediation draft. Please edit; in particular links to on-WP areas this issue has been debated may be helpful, if perhaps overwhelming.—AL ^FOCUS! 03:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:ElinorD

Steve Summit started a thread on my talk page, based on my comment here last night. I replied there, but I really don't want a discussion going on in several places, so I've moved it here. ElinorD (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You wrote:

...if the Arbitration Committee states that linking to sites which engage in the practice of publishing private information about Wikipedians is not permitted...

If footnote 2 at the current version of Wikipedia:No personal attacks is to be believed, that judgement did not necessarily set as strong a precedent as the proponents of BADSITES would like to believe.

Administrators will still block editors who wilfully place other editors in danger of having their identities exposed.

A link to a site that exposes editors does not place editors in danger of having their identities exposed. The site did that all by itself; removing one or two links to it does not magically make the leaked information private again. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to enter into a debate here, because WT:NPA is on my watchlist, and I have been participating regularly, and I see no sense in fragmenting the discussion. But for the benefit of those who may watch my talk page and may not participate in the other discussion, I'll respond this time. Please direct future comments to WT:NPA.

I am familiar with footnote 2, and do not believe that it in any way weakens the MONGO ruling. For one thing, the case to which you refer reaffirmed here that ED may not be linked to, that links may be removed, and that linking may be grounds for blocking. Why do you think they reaffirmed that? Because ED makes a practice of "outing" editors. The footnote to which you refer says that the committee subsequently "rejected this principle as too broad." Not so. First of all three member supported it, and four opposed. That means that it didn't pass, not that "the committee" thought it was too broad. Secondly, the ruling that didn't pass was not the same as the MONGO ruling. It would have prohibited the "addition of links to or material derived from sites that engage in attacks and harassment against Wikipedia users" (emphasis mine). The wording that didn't pass had the rather vague and broad wording "attacks", but, unlike the MONGO ruling, did not clarify that the real problem is that of publishing personal information. Also, unlike the MONGO ruling, it would have prohibited the addition of any material derived from these sites. It's hardly a blockable offence to post on a Wikipedia talk page that Blu Aardvark has said on some website that he thinks that KillerChihuahua is a sockpuppet of MONGO (imagining that he did say that), though repeating silly gossip wouldn't exactly help to build the encyclopaedia either. However, adding a link could mean that you are directing people to a paragraph that might be just above a paragraph where someone else is boasting that he has got hold of an IP address for Giano, and has worked out that Giano is really Archibald Blenkinsop and that he lectures in geology at the University of Florida.

Concerning your second point, if an editor is trying to remain anonymous, it is worse to direct Wikipedians to a site that exposes their identity than just to have the site existing without quite so many people knowing about it. I have yet to see any victim of harassment disagreeing with that point. ElinorD (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

End of moved posts — ElinorD (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a long debate on these points, either. Brief replies:

1. Clearly, we'll need additional clarification from the Arbcom on how broadly (or not) they really expected that precedent to be applied, before we can reach decent consensus on this policy.
2. IMO, an outright ban on all links to a site (for whatever reason) in an attempt to keep people from seeing what's already there, is a cure that's worse than the disease. But this is largely a matter of opinion, and emotionally-charged opinion at that.

—Steve Summit (talk) 23:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Elinor's attempt

Now that the protection has expired, I've made a new attempt. I'll explain it here.

I've felt all along that the emphasis on "attacks" was misguided. After all, WP:RPA is not policy, and is slightly controversial. It can also be misused when something does not actually meet the definition of attack. For example, if I misquote something, and another editor posts "Learn to read", it's certainly uncivil, but it's hardly worth invoking RPA. The problem is in violating the right that editors have to remain anonymous if they so choose. As I think I've mentioned before, I once reverted an attack made to an administrator on her talk page, where the attacker called her a little slut and hoped she'd get breast cancer. However, I didn't email the oversight team to have it removed from the history. If it had given her phone number, in extremely polite wording, I would have reverted and asked for oversighting.

I happen to think that if there's a website that has a lot of attacks against an editor, but doesn't reveal personal information, we shouldn't link to it. Such a website is most unlikely to be a reliable source which we need for an article. However, if someone links to such a website, we can just calmly remove it, just as we might or might not remove a posting that said, "Learn to read, you stupid bitch." There would be no need for swift, discreet handling of the matter.

Links to websites that give personal information do have to be dealt with swiftly, firmly, and discreetly. Unfortunately, the offending editors sometimes make that difficult, as they revert aggressively, and draw further publicity to the existence of these websites. That is one reason why I am leaning towards a wording that makes clear exactly what is prohibited, although I acknowledge that GTBacchus's concern that we're thereby drawing attention to these sites is a valid one, and I absolutely trust and respect him as a good faith editor with whom I disagree on some issues, but who is genuinely as concerned about the privacy of other Wikipedians as the people who favour the no-links language.

I have tried for a wording that does not draw excessive attention to the existence of stalking websites. My attempt can be seen here. It's also worth noting that if the problem is that of privacy violation (which it is), then what is prohibited is not just linking to a site which engages in this, but any use of linking which would violate someone's privacy. For example, let's say I become interested in tracking down SOPHIA. I carry out my investigations, and finally discover that in real life, she is Sophie Warren, senior lecturer in geology at the Durham University. (That's purely invented. I made up the name. I haven't searched the Durham Univesity website, and don't even know if there is a department in geology.) In order to harass her, or, because I'm an innocent, ignorant fool, I go to her talk page, post a link to her staff profile, and say, "Hi, I'm really impressed with your credentials." Have I posted a link to an attack site or an attack page? No. Have I violated her privacy? You bet I have! For that reason, I have modified the wording to talk about "violating the privacy of any Wikipedian through the posting of external links", rather than talking about "attack sites".

I have also modified the footnote which inaccurately stated that "the committee rejected this principle as too broad." As I explained in the section immediately above this one, three members supported the proposed ruling, and four opposed. That means that it didn't pass, not that "the committee" thought it was too broad. Even more importantly, the ruling which did not pass was not the same principle, and it was broader than the ruling in the MONGO case. I won't restate my arguments here; they can be read in the section immediately above this one.

Suggestions are, of course, welcome. ElinorD (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This language is OK with me; except, the ArbCom language should just be removed entirely. First, they don't make policy so quoting them in guidelines and policy is just bad form. Second, we shouldn't be interpreting what they mean. That is what is happening when your interpretation writes in a totally opposite conclusion than what was there before.

Thank you for making this attempt, incorporating the logic from other guidelines like RPA, and making a distinction between attacks and privacy. In the past I said I'd be fine with just a single sentence "Don't like to attacks." But now it looks like "Don't link to attacks or personal information." is just as fine. SchmuckyTheCat

"Links to websites that give personal information do have to be dealt with swiftly, firmly, and discreetly."

While links to personal information need to be dealt with, when you say that links to "websites that give" personal information must be dealt with, you're just restating BADSITES. I don't accept BADSITES; there are circumstances when we need such links. They may be rare, but they aren't nonexistent, and one of them has even turned up on this very page. (User can't defend himself against attack site-related accusation because he can't make a link to show his actions are innocuous.) Ken Arromdee 15:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Elinor's wording seems fine with me, and I hope it "sticks" here and ends the edit war. However, even if it does, it probably won't stop the fighting regarding this issue; it will just shift it to debate over whether the wording really means that all links to certain sites, regardless of context, need to be suppressed, or just links with the purpose or effect of attacking or invading privacy of somebody. *Dan T.* 16:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I can live with it as it is clear enough to explain to an editor why they should refrain from posting links in the event that you are challenged on their removal. I think we will still have fun and games from some who feel that linking to an index that includes a link to personal information is OK but we'll worry about that if the event arises. Sophia 17:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, I guess "yeah"... I quite like that the references are regarding links to "attacks" and disclosure of personal information and not so much to sites that have hosted such material generally (as I realise that WP:RS deals with the majority of those anyway). I would like it made clearer that it is the linking to personal information disclosures by third parties without the permission of the subject that is to be forbidden. Why someone should want to link to such a site which discloses their own details, or permit someone else to do so, when they do not disclose this information on their userpage or otherwise is not something I need to be concerned with, but I suppose it would be their right... I am quite happy to use Draconian language in the effort to deter third parties.

It is certainly a wording I feel could be of use as a working model. LessHeard vanU 21:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent edit, saying just what the policy needs to say, and avoiding that which should be avoided. Congratulations. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I've adjusted the wording of the second paragraph slightly. If my edit was not an improvement, I hope someone will revert it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Attack sites or outing sites banned?

From what I've heard from people, attack sites, e.g. sites that say "This administrator sucks they ruin wikipedia." are attack sites yet they are fine and not banned. But what's actually banned are sites that say "This administrator's real name is X, their home phone is X." So then shouldn't the article be revised to say it's outing sites and not attack sites that are banned?

Arbcom says to remove attack sites [8].

But it also says outing sites are attack sites [9].

So isn't arbcom saying both attack and outing sites? If they do mean only outing sites, it should be rewritten clearly that sites that criticize wikipedians are not banned, only ones that give out personal information? SakotGrimshine 15:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"This administrator sucks they ruin wikipedia" is not, IMO, an attack as has been discussed. It is unpleasant, but it is also a statement of opinion, and not on the scale of "This administrator ruins wikipedia by harrassing editors (provides contentious diffs), violating policy (provides contentious diffs), etc., etc., (providing contentious diffs) and they really suck" which might be an example of an attempt to poison the minds of the reader toward that individual.

However, linking to either quote may be perceived as an attack on the part of the linker especially if it is regarded as a bad faith edit and part an attempt to smear or blacken the reputation of the subject. It depends on the context, although it is incumbent upon the linker to provide the reasons why the link satisfies WP guidelines.

The disclosure of personal information regarding someone who does not wish that material made public is an attack no matter what the context. The outing material is an attack, the site hosting the information is an attack, a link to the material/site is an attack, reference to the site is an attack, reference to the material is an attack. Although this information may well be "out there", there is the right within Wikipedia to edit anonymously if it is desired. Linking or referencing such information negates that fundemental priviledge. "Outing" is an attack on the expectation of the subject to be as anonymous as they desire. LessHeard vanU 22:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Even you seem unclear on exaclty where the line between an offsite complaint and an offsite attack. If say someone complains a lot on their blog or whatever about someone here, admin, editor, whoever, without outing them does that site automatically become an attack site? SakotGrimshine 02:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Do we really "need" to link to these sites?

This is mainly in response to Ken's statement two sections above this, in "Elinor's attempt" that there are circumstances where we "need" links to sites that violate the privacy of editors. Ken mentions a case on this talk page where a user apparently couldn't defend himself against attack site-related accusation because he couldn't make a link to show his actions were innocuous.

I presume that Ken is referring to the case where MONGO had posted the following:

Firstly, some of the commentators here that support these links are participants on wikipedia review and encyclopedia dramatica and soon as we start commenting, you go to WR (especially) and attack us.

Mangoe had then used that opportunity to link to a site which publishes personal information about editors, in order to prove that he was innocent.

A couple of points:

1. MONGO did not mention Mangoe by name. He said "some of the commentators here that support these links". His post was not addressed to anyone in particular; it began with the word "Folks". The "you" in "you go to WR" was obviously plural. That allows for the possibility that Mangoe supports these links but doesn't post on those sites, or that Mangoe supports these links and posts on these sites but doesn't go to WR and "attack us".
2. Given the above, I fail to see why it was so desperately important for Mangoe to defend himself, since no accusation was made against him personally.
3. MONGO (as explained above) had not said that Mangoe was one of those attacking editors here. Additionally, MONGO had talked about attacking "us" which could allow for the possibility that editor A had attacked editor X, and editor B had attacked editor Y. With the use of "some", and the plural "you", and "us", it could also allow that editor C had not engaged in any attacks, and that User Z had not been subjected to any attacks. Therefore, posting two links to things he had said about MONGO was rather pointless, since it could not prove that he hadn't attacked MONGO in his other posts, or that he hadn't attacked other editors. (And, indeed, nobody had said that he had.) Other than searching the site ourselves, we could only take his word for it that his other three posts that mentioned MONGO did not attack him, and that there were only three more posts that mentioned MONGO. And if we could take his word for that without links, I don't see why we couldn't take his word that he hadn't attacked MONGO at all on the other site, even without links that supposedly "proved" his innocence, but that in reality did nothing of the sort, and that were, in any case, quite unnecessary, since he had not been accused of anything.
4. If somebody said "some of the people in favour of banning links have engaged in bullying", and did not mention me by name, I would not feel personally attacked, and would not feel that there was a "need" to defend myself.
5. If I felt a need to defend myself from some mildly annoying accusation, but realised that the only way I could do so would have the side effect of putting other editors at risk of real life harassment and causing them distress greater than the mild annoyance I was suffering, I would prefer not to defend myself. I suspect that all my fellow editors who really care about the victims of harassment would share my feelings in this matter; I do not consider myself to be an extraordinarily unselfish person. In any case, as I have explained, there was not a need for Mangoe to defend himself, since no accusation had been made against him. And the method he chose for defending himself did not prove his innocence at all. Linking to two things that you have said does not prove anything about what you haven't said elsewhere. A sincere statement that he truly regrets the harm and pain caused to victims of outing sites, and that wishes to distance himself from such behaviour would be far more effective.

I continue to believe that the need to link to a site that would "out" a fellow editor can never be so great as to outweigh considerations of the distress and harm that it would cause. Mangoe's "need" to post links which he falsely claimed would prove his innocence of something he had not actually been accused of was quite unconvincing, to say the least. There was no need to prove his innocence since he hadn't been accused of anything. The links didn't prove his innocence. And if he had really wanted to prove his innocence rather than make a WP:POINT, but had felt a genuine concern for the security of his fellow editors, he could have sent a private email to an uninvolved administrator, asking them to look into his history at the other site and to make a post here confirming that he had never engaged in any attacks.

If you want to alert an editor that a site exists which attacks them, use private email. If you want to provide evidence to the ArbCom, use private email. If you think a link to a site which "outs" editors might improve an article (which is highly doubtful), send a private email to an administrator or an arbitrator asking for advice. The sites which engage in attacks and outing are most unlikely to provide proper, verifiable information which is necessary for an article and which is not provided by any other site. If you think a link really is necessary for an article and cannot be replaced by a link to an innocuous site, ask yourself if the article could survive without the link, and if Wikipedia could survive without the article. Is making a mild improvement to a relatively unimportant article more important than preventing harm to another human being? I think not. ElinorD (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how "need" is really the relevant standard. Nobody really "needs" anything other than food, water, and oxygen. Still, people find there to be reasons to want to have many other things. You can ask just as well whether there's a "need" to stop somebody from doing something. I do give some reasons why somebody might want to link to such sites, for reasons unrelated to attacking anybody, in my essay on the subject. *Dan T.* 18:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm familiar with your essay, and I consider that it fails to take into account the fact that more harm is done by making it easier for stalkers to torment their victims than from simply not linking to something that might be slightly useful or mildly interesting.

Let's look at it this way: if I'm making a beef casserole, I put garlic in it. Garlic improves the flavour of the casserole. Now if I were cooking for a large number of people and I knew that there was a risk of harm to a few of them if I used garlic, I wouldn't say, "Well, in that case I'll only use garlic if I think it improves the flavour of what I'm making." That would sound as if I'm expecting a pat on the back for not using it in strawberry ice cream! I just wouldn't use it, full stop. If it would add a slight but not indispensable improvement to some dish, but at the risk of causing considerable harm to some people (who might be allergic), then I'd think that not harming people was more important. Yet, on this page, I see people acknowledging that most of these sites (e.g. WR) are not reliable in the sense of being suitable verifiable sources for our articles (like acknowledging that garlic wouldn't improve ice cream) but feel that we should link to them if they have even the slightest benefit in discussion on talk pages. It's like saying "If there's any reason at all to link to a site that could cause severe harm and distress to other Wikipedians, then, even if there are ways around it, such as finding a non-outing site with the same useful information, or emailing links privately to the ArbCom as evidence, we should go ahead and link to it regardless of the harm and distress that it might cause to our fellow editors." ElinorD (talk) 01:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, common sense (there's that phrase again... it keeps coming up on all sides of the debate!) says that there are many instances where one needs to restrain oneself in what one adds to food they're cooking, or articles they're editing. If you know (or strongly suspect) that somebody is allergic to garlic, then don't add it to any food you're making for that person. If you know that somebody was deeply psychologically hurt by something said about them on a Web site, don't wave a link to it right in their face (like by including it in a comment made to them on their user page, or a reply to them on a talk page). On the other hand, the fact that there may be people allergic to garlic nearby, but they're not the ones you're cooking for, doesn't necessarily compel you to leave it out of a dish you don't expect them to eat anyway. Your best friend loves garlic and that's who you're making the dish for; the fact that Jim, down the hall, is allergic to it is not particularly relevant. Maybe he feels a little bothered when he catches a whiff of the smell of garlic and knows that others are making good-tasting food he can't eat, but that's not really your problem. That's closer to the situation when somebody puts in a link to a non-attacking item in a site that has attacked people, and the link is part of commentary not aimed at the attacked party. Banning things on the basis that somebody finds their existence to be mentally distressing is just not a sound basis; it's used all too often in the "real world" to ban, or attempt to ban, everything from "dirty" words on the airwaves to Harry Potter books to "politically incorrect" speech on college campuses... you can always find somebody offended by anything you want to name, and some busybody types even go out of their way to find things to be offended by. (People who use the Wikipedia feature that shows pages linking to a particular site, then go around removing the links even from stale old archives, seem to be in that category, right up there with "decency" groups that go out of their way to listen to "shock-jock" radio shows to find things to complain to the FCC about.) Now, back on "what not to put in food", never put rat poison in the food you're serving... even if you think it will add great flavor! (But note that the drug warfarin / Coumadin, prescribed as a preventative measure against blood clots for people susceptable to them, began as a rat poison. So even the most obvious "don't ever eat that" rules end up having special-case exceptions.) *Dan T.* 02:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is public. You never know who's going to eat what you cook here. Leaving out the foods that you know produce strong reactions in those not far away is a reasonable restraint to exercise in those circumstances, unless there's a particularly compelling reason to use garlic in that recipe that day.

Let's not get carried away with the metaphor - we're talking about posting links on Wikipedia, a top-ten website, to a couple of relatively little-known websites (non-notable at least, by our standards), which have gone out of their way to violate some of our volunteers' privacy. What great purpose outweighs the fact that that's not a very cool or respectful thing to do?

There's no harm in erring on the side of "do no harm". It's a good life-skill, on and off wiki. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

If you follow your do no harm link to the proper page, there's a link to [10] which points out that it's nowhere near as straightforward as assumed, and I'm sure with some Googling I could find even better links.

In this case, it doesn't really apply anyway. First, you're assuming that harm is actually being done by a link to an attack site. Remember, we're not talking about linking to attacks, which obviously does cause harm. We're talking about linking to non-attack material and the "harm" is much more speculative and direct. Second, "do no harm" can end up causing harm by omission. If we cannot provide an otherwise useful link, or if someone accused of something related to attack sites cannot defend himself, that's harm too. At some point, this harm will outweigh the harm caused by making the link.

I'll also point out that we link to sites that violate the privacy of people other than Wikipedia volunteers and everyone's fine with that. If we're really going to "do no harm", shouldn't we remove the links to Landover_Baptist_Church first? After all, it's not "do no harm... to Wikipedians".

I'll give you another food analogy. You're in the restaurant business and many of your good recipes have garlic in them. However, there's always a chance that a guy allergic to garlic could walk by your restaurant, smell the garlic, and get sick. Do you stop making dishes containing garlic? Ken Arromdee 13:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the Westboro Baptist Church? The Landover_Baptist_Church is a parody, but that one is serious... though it can be hard to tell, just looking at their positions and rhetoric. *Dan T.* 14:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ken, hi. "If you follow your do no harm link to the proper page, there's a link to [11] which points out that it's nowhere near as straightforward as assumed". First off, don't tell me what I assumed; you have no idea. Secondly, I'm not going to post a link to you without doing my homework; thanks much. I know ethics are complicated; I've studied the topic rather thoroughly.

Secondly, you seem to be muddying an issue that's actually quite clear. I'm not talking about preventing people from defending themselves against attacks. I don't believe that anybody in this discussion has needed to link anywhere to "defend themselves", but if such a situation were to arise, I'd be right there, defending the person's right to exculpate themselves, helping them do so.

If they couldn't find any way to do it without posting public links that are clearly upsetting the people around them, I'd be unimpressed with that person's communication skills and/or general cluefulness, and I might suggest to them more effective ways to defend themselves without generating drama, which is ultimately counter-productive. I can think of a dozen ways to defend one's good name without linking to the sites in question; can't you? Is it so important to defend yourself in that particular manner that all questions of courtesy and respect go out the window? Are we at war here? You're not painting a very convincing picture, Ken.

You mention that we link to sites that violate the privacy of non-Wikipedians. If we're linking to any site that's breaking the law, we need to stop. In other cases, we try to balance the possible harm of a link against its usefulness in making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Nobody's claiming that links to WR are making this a better encyclopedia. The only benefit I've seen offered is that someone can defend himself from an attack relating to his activities at WR, but that argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny, as far as I can tell. I'm open to being shown otherwise.

The food analogy is well past its usefulness. Garlic allergies bear no resemblance to what we're talking about. There's no analog for the great recipes the restauranteur makes with garlic; just a tenuous claim that such links are somehow necessary for self-defense. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

But to what extent is anybody compelled to restrict their speech because somebody else is troubled, bothered, offended, or feels harmed by it? As I've said before, there are an awful lot of things in the "real world" that bother others, and the attempts to suppress them have led to everything from on-campus political correctness crusades to FCC indecency crackdowns, all of which have been highly controversial. If you let the most-easily-bothered people be the standard by which everybody else's speech is regulated, you don't have very much free speech. If you force everybody to defend the "necessity" of saying something when somebody else is bothered by it, you frame the issue in a way that's slanted in favor of censorship, and you put the other side in a burdensome position of having to defend their case without actually violating the speech ban in doing so. There have been some pretty bizarre radio and TV shows where commentators have debated the pros and cons of banning "dirty language" on the airwaves, without being able to actually say any of the words they're talking about. Now, I'm not supporting saying something offensive for the explicit purpose of being offensive (which is a relative thing depending on time, place, and context), like going into a Southern Baptist convention and screaming obscenities like a drunken sailor, or to a gay-pride event and addressing people there as "faggots" or "sodomites". Anybody who does such things is being a jerk. But anybody who goes out of their way to find things to be offended by is also being a jerk. *Dan T.* 17:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

We may disagree less than you think. I'm not trying to "suppress" anything, I'm suggesting that we all treat each other excellently and respectfully, and that going out of one's way to do something you know to be offensive to others nearby isn't a very excellent or respectful thing to do. Surely you don't disagree with that?

Q: "To what extent is anybody compelled to restrict their speech because somebody else is troubled, bothered, offended, or feels harmed by it? "

A: To the extent that they're civil and kind. I wouldn't say "compelled", either. I'd say we don't want to offend each other. Am I right?

This really isn't about freedom of speech; it's about whether or not we respect each other. I'm not trying to "let the most-easily-bothered people be the standard", I'm suggesting that it's not actually necessary to link to Wikipedia Review from this website, and that a kind and civil editor (which I hope we all try to be) will therefore refrain from doing so unless they've got a very good reason. You seem to be arguing from a position where there's some real suppression going on here, and I'm just not seeing that. All we're asking is that people not be jerks, even if someone on "the other side" is a jerk. After all, there's no number of "wrongs" that will eventually make a "right", you know.

Now, what are we disagreeing about? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You're seriously understating the scope that this is being used to challenge links with, which in some circles is essentially "any link that could ever lead to a personal attack". Well, that means www.google.com is right out. The Globe and Mail allows user feedback in forums below news stories, so Canada's Paper of Record could easily become unlinkable, and the same danger is there for the New York Times The New Yorker - which is actually already excluded per the Essjay scandal. Any University's whole website could be lost to a single student or prof who posts anything "attack-y" on their personal webspace there. I've also seen attack page links be useful once or twice, to a forum where co-ordinated disruption was being planned. Attack or outing pages should almost never be linked to - but to exclude whole domains is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. WilyD 19:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This has come up again and again on this page: the Essjay issue is a complete red herring. We are talking about sites that out people who have not voluntarily publicly identified themselves. Essjay did that. He posted on Wikia that he was Ryan Jordan. Then, on his own talk page at Wikipedia, he confirmed it. If some stalker, before Essjay confirmed his identity, boasted on his website that he had got hold of Essjay's IP, and had worked out that he was Ryan Jordan, then we would remove links to that site. We don't remove links to sites that say that Mindspillage is Kat Walsh or Anthere is Florence Devouard, because these editors acknowledge their identities. So please accept that those who are trying to protect those who wish to exercise the right to edit anonymously are not trying to ban links to the New Yorker. As for banning all links to Google, no, of course not. Nobody from the no-links side is arguing for that. Google is not a site which engages in the practise of harassing and outing editors. However, it would absolutely not be permissible to link to an URL of Google search results that violated someone's privacy. So if the third hit on a search gives you an editor's real name (or speculation about it) and that editor does not voluntarily reveal their name, then you don't post an URL to the result of your search.

The Essjay case isn't as much of a red herring as it would seem. He left a trail external to Wikipedia, got caught, and was "outed" to the major media. It's only different in that he let his identity out somewhere; that kind of "mistake" made everyone's work easier, but I'd question whether it fundamentally changes matters. But the problem of identity fraud remains, and it is not a personal attack to expose such fraud when it has a bearing on that person's editing. It certainly had a bearing is the Essjay case, and his "outing" was meet and right so to have done.

The "harrassing" intent is perhaps the most problematic issue here. If a bunch of disgruntled (ex-)editors get together in their own forum and gripe about the Wikipedians that (they think) did them wrong, is that harassment? I don't think so. If they think they've figured out the real identity of their "harassers", it is only natural that they are going to mention it form time to time. And if they think that someone is editing very POINTedly, it's only natural that they are going to want to figure out that person's angle; and identity will naturally fit into that.

The Essjay case is going to be repeated, and when it is, if someone in a blog is the first person to expose the fraud, it's likely that the culprit's defenders are going to try to censor out the evidence. Of course, that will fail, because the newsworthiness of the incident will make it impossible to defend the erasure against its obvious notability. So we'll get to be embarassed again. Mangoe 15:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It is quite true that this can be misinterpreted, and misused to remove links to sites that do not count as attack sites, either by good faith but misguided users, or by trolls who want to make the policy look bad. That's not a massive problem. People misuse 3RR, and ignorantly or maliciously file reports on users who were reverting vandalism or who had not actually reverted four times, or whose reverts were not within a twenty-four-hour period. We don't scrap the whole 3RR policy just because some trolls or clueless newbies are going to make false reports. If links are removed which enhance articles and really do not harass users, then they can be calmly put back by administrators. The main thing is that we should play safe. ElinorD (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I consider that the MONGO comment that provoked the reaction was "...there have been plenty of people supporting these links and they have edited the policy as well as commented here. That the more vocal supports of linking to attacking websites have decided to fillibuster this issue is no surprise...they are the ones with the most to lose, since we are going to remove links to their precious commentary made at the attack sites whether they like it or not." which I consider an extremely bad faith attempt to stymie the debate as representing all active participants in opposing a blanket ban as firstly pro-linking rather than non-absolutist banning and secondly contributors on the various sites. I strongly resent both accusations, and especially the second. I requested clarification from MONGO that he was not referring to me as a contributor to Wiki orientated off-Wiki sites, and other than asking me if that was the case (and I confirmed that I do not post WP orientated comment anywhere but wikipedia), he declined to respond.

Mangoe also responded to MONGO's inflammatory pronouncement, but was hindered as discussed above. I cannot speak for Mangoe, but I felt slighted and very angry that my legitimate concerns regarding transparancy and the ability for Wikipedians to avail themselves of any legitimate resource were inferred in such a way. Unlike Mangoe I have no links (allowable or otherwise) to provide which "proves" I have never posted outside of WP on matters relating to it - although this is not the first time that MONGO has been confused by the difference between lack of evidence and evidence of lack - but this inability to defend ones stance in such a way is one that has been exploited by MONGO in presenting his arguments against the characters of some of those he disagrees with. LessHeard vanU 22:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Proving a negative is always rather difficult. And saying that you're going to do what you wish "like it or not" is an uncivil, uncooperative attitude to take into a policy debate. If somebody were to announce that they're going to keep adding attack-site links "like it or not" regardless of how the policy discussion came out, he'd be likely to be banned as unable to abide by the consensus of the community, but the other side seems not to regard itself as similarly constrained. *Dan T.* 23:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

For those who haven't seen enough of the history of this, it was brought out long ago that Dan Tobias and I are active on WR. "Active" is a relative word in either case; DT hardly posts at all there (and mostly does so to criticize them) and my activity is pretty limited. Now, I see nothing wrong in principle with side channel discussions of what goes on in WP. And in spite of the impression that "attack site" tends to give, that's mostly what goes on there. Indeed, it can actually be rather hard to find the revelations that are the ostensible justification for the banning. But then again, that was also the case with TNH's website: once you find the offending blog post, there's 373 comments to wade through in order to find the "attack". In fact, your best pointer to the information being there is here.

MONGO didn't name me; but it was clear to those of us who knew the backstory that he meant me. This whole dispute, almost from the beginning, has been marked with an element of exaggeration; but it has proven impossible to correct this because any attempt to give an accurate picture gets censored. And I don't think there's any extra chance of real life harassment, and not just because this also is real life. A citation of a quotation from WR is not the gateway that people are making it out to be.

E-mail is not enough. To be able to discuss this, people need to know what's really out there, becaus what are really out there are a few fugitive references which you almost need to already know in order to find. My point throughout this has been that the disruption of the erasures isn't worth the pitifully small protection gained. But the casual way with accusations is also a problem. Right now, frankly, I don't have enough confidence in the processes to go through the e-mailing etc. complaint route. I started one once, and it went nowhere anyway. Mangoe 03:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Its impossible for me to assume good faith out of anyone who wants to link to websites that out others real life identities. It is as simple as that. I have yet to see any examples where this is necessary since this stuff, in it's fullness, can easily be emailed. Copy and paste as well as link in an email...it's pretty simple.--MONGO 04:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Mongo, this is really getting tiresome. You continue to attempt to frame the debate as if anyone who disagrees with you is in favor of outing editors. This is simply not the case, as has been explained to you countless times. —Steve Summit (talk) 11:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

We've done this loop a few times and it never changes so let's all give the baiting a rest - huh? Sophia 11:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

(With apologies to Sophia) I do not see why an editor has to be restricted to providing quotes by email to a small preselected audience regarding (an imaginary concern) that WP's servers are not being maintained and may start crashing, simply because the site with this information also hosts outing material. An editor should be able to link to the server discussion page. This is not facilitating an attack site, and a policy of links to attack material is not permitted is not violated. I find this a very simple concept. LessHeard vanU 12:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, to make a directionless observation, I'll note that in once instance posted links to an "outing site" lead to my investigation which resulted in the offending content being taken down. "Emailing a select few" is not always the best approach - as far as I could tell, I was the only one who saw that the content was still there (it took a bit of digging) - and there was no way I'd have been on any relevant emails. WilyD 13:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Nobody get confused between Mongo and Mangoe? Just thought I'd mention. Sorry --Doctor11 14:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It's Mangoe and MONGO-- easier to tell apart than Gracenotes and Grace Note. Mangoe 15:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"If I felt a need to defend myself from some mildly annoying accusation, but realised that the only way I could do so would have the side effect of putting other editors at risk of real life harassment and causing them distress greater than the mild annoyance I was suffering, I would prefer not to defend myself. I suspect that all my fellow editors who really care about the victims of harassment would share my feelings in this matter"

That's an ad-hominem attack. It's equivalent to "you don't really care about the victims of harassment if you disagree with me."

At any rate, yes, we can't let the risk of real life harassment override anything else, because the proponents of this new BADSITES are putting no bounds on how small or indirect the risk is. Normally, when one says "we can't take the risk of this happening", there's an implied "because the risk is pretty big" attached. Hardly anyone really means we can't take *any* risk. Ken Arromdee 13:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Current Situation....

..just checking in, and saw the above discussion, and also noticed that it may not directly relate to the policy page as it currently stands - i think it's actually pretty good - perhaps the attack site thing is in the past...? -- Purples 14:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The current wording is perhaps a bit of a Rorschach inkblot test, in that it's nonspecific enough that people with all sorts of positions on the "attack site link" issue can read it and think that it supports their side. Thus, it may be good to let the page stay in this state to end the unproductive edit-warring, but one shouldn't think that this will put a permanent end to all possible fighting over the issue; the fighting will begin again, like it never ended, just as soon as anybody either adds or removes a link and claims that doing so is in conformance with the policy as written. *Dan T.* 15:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Nothing we write on a policy page will completly stop people who want to fight from fighting. I think the current state is better than most past states I've seen. Wikipedia is always a work in progress, and small steps forward are a Good Thing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The current wording is the closest thing we've seen to a compromise since this imbroglio was initiated. I'm putting further work on the Med request on hold, thanks to all who indicated interest. Feel free to break open again in case of emergency.—AL ^FOCUS! 20:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to know...

...why I have such a distaste for the concept of banning links to particular sites on the basis of some kind of fighting going on between them and Wikipedia, see this blog post giving the story of a couple of people who were kicked out of an eBay conference for wearing Google shirts, apparently because this was "promoting a competitor" and there's currently bad blood between Google and eBay. Any link bans on Wikipedia based on conflicts with other sites give off a feel and smell like that. *Dan T.* 16:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC) (And before any of you get all indignant about how "that's not the same", I didn't say it was, only that it gave off a similar "smell". And it's likely that, if they're held to sufficient heat to feel compelled to support their actions, Ebay management would make some claim that Google, and/or the particular people in Google clothing, had been engaging in unfair or abusive activity of some sort that needed properly to be suppressed, like attempting to infiltrate conferences to gain trade secrets or steal away customers (why they'd do that while wearing Google shirts I don't know... I'd think they'd be smart enough to be more low-key than that if they were really trying to do surreptitious spying). *Dan T.* 17:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't want to know and I don't care. Why not move this self-serving rant to your user page?--Mantanmoreland 18:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It's probably an unavoidable outcome of people "identifying" with particular brands, in a tribal manner. It may be unfortunate, but it is interesting from a soc. science perspective.—AL ^FOCUS! 21:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe WP is in conflict with any site that may be subject to bans on links to attack material. WP does not advocate the closure (AFAIAA) of these sites, and does not request them to take down material that may cause links to be banned. That some editors believe these sites to be odious (and I include myself in that grouping) for their disregard for the privacy of individuals in the pursuit of their own agendas is not a reflection of any WP policy. I support the ability (not the requirement!) to be able to link to non-attack material on these sites since I acknowledge that there may perhaps be occasion where it is necessary, and it will thus benefit WP. My distaste for some, or most, of the content of such sites does not restrict me from using them if it serves the interest of WP.LessHeard vanU 21:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

So we shall expect to see you linking to such sites when you consider it to be beneficial?--Mantanmoreland 22:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Providing it does not constitute a link to attack material and it is permitted in WP policy, specifically this one, then yes. Don't hold your breathe, though, since I will not be looking for such content... I support the ability (not the requirement) in as yet hypothetical situation. LessHeard vanU 23:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, you feel distaste for the material on the attack sites. However, some editors don't feel distaste for that material; in fact they embrace it. Some editors appear to be here for the express purpose of advancing the agenda of the attack sites. See, that is why I tend to come down on the side of an express prohibition of links to attack sites, not just "attacks". If you have ambiguity, it promotes wikilawyering by trolls and troublemakers.--Mantanmoreland 03:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

So are you happy or unhappy with the current wording?—AL ^FOCUS! 03:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, now you have slipped on your "Wiki editor" hat? You just had on your "attack site troll" hat. You just self-reverted a personal attack on me that was not just the usual gratuitous trolling for which you are known, but also snidely pushed the agenda of one of the attack sites that is the subject of this thousands of words of discussion for many months. To make matters worse, you included a snide edit summary. You are not my "friend" and you are not a "friend" of Wikipedia. You are here to ridicule and belittle targets of attack sites, and snidely push their agenda every chance you get.--Mantanmoreland 05:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, that is going to happen. It may happen to a lesser extent if there was an absolute ban to such sites, but is the drop in trolling and wikilawyering justified by the inability for the community to quickly review and act upon relevent information that is available on such sites? To go back to one of my earlier considerations, if it were recognised that WP:IAR would negate any ban in any such situation then it must be concluded that the basis of the ban is not sound. It would be so much harder however to denigrate a ban to attack material since it has not been concieved where a situation might arise where IAR could be applied. To attempt wikilawyering over a page which contains an attack is futile, whereas it may not be so as regards the site. The concern that a legitimate (per my preferred wording) link to a site generally may facilitate access to attack material disregards both RS (outside of articles on the subject and the exceptional case I have hypothesised) and the fact that such sites are easily accessible by anyone with a search engine outside of WP. LessHeard vanU 23:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

This cartoon expresses pretty well what I feel about arbitrary limitations on what somebody can say. *Dan T.* 03:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

To make it fit the current debate perfectly, just change the dialogue in the first panel to: "Daisy, why did I get in trouble for linking to that site?" "Oh, Dudley. There are lots of sites on the Web, and just a few that upset people. You have to learn to express yourself without linking to them." (The rest of the strip will work unchanged.) *Dan T.* 04:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[12] This is my impression of the approach to actual security around here.—AL ^FOCUS! 04:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we have a cartoon moratorium for a few days? --Mantanmoreland 05:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Some more teeth needed

In light of the very sad situation regarding User:H, I think we need more teeth in this policy to keep this from ever happening again. Blueboy96 13:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much needs to be written into the policy page. GTBacchus has given excellent reasons why it might not be a good idea. (Hint: WP:BEANS.) I agree with him that there are disadvantages, but am not convinced that they outweigh the advantages. However, I would urge caution in the case of anyone wishing to put "more teeth" in the policy; it could be very counter-productive. What we really need is more administrators who take the "solidarity" ruling from MONGO's ArbCom case very seriously. We had a user a few months ago, who, whether in good faith or in bad faith, attempted to put "more teeth" in the policy. His actions turned out to be the most disastrous thing possible for victims of harassment. ElinorD (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

ElinorD you obviously don't know that H was forced off wikipedia through deaths threats to his family how much more "disastrous" do you think it gets. As for WP:BEANS that is a weak argument, they are already doing what ever they want to wikipedians. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 16:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, don't know any of the details of the "H" situation, but it sounds horrible. However, regrettably, anything that is done with Wikipedia policy will have absolutely no effect on outside harrassment or death threats, since pretty much by definition these are being done outside Wikipedia. The police may have to be brought in for such cases, but Wikipedia admins are powerless to do anything effective to protect the victims. Now, regarding the "Solidarity" provision in the MONGO ArbCom ruling, that is just one of many things in the ruling I find somewhat troubling; it can easily be (ab)used to justify cliquish "ganging up" on anybody declared to be an "enemy" of somebody who's the alleged victim of an attack. Showing friendly support for somebody who's under attack is one thing, but getting all the admins to circle their wagons in defense of somebody who might be committing acts of incivility him/herself is another. *Dan T.* 16:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[ec] I'm quite certain that Elinor knows what happened. But the point is, we cannot stop events like that one by using meaner words in WP:NPA. We already say that far less serious actions can lead to blocks without warning for extended periods of time as well as to ArbCom sanction. That is all the power we as Wikipedia editors have. That's all we can do. The kind of people who are willing to make death threats against editors' family members don't care what we write. They don't care about being blocked, or having their IP banned. We have absolutely nothing that can leverage their behavior. Sure, we could say something like "Editors who are bitter about having an article deleted and so track down the deleting administrator in real life in order to send death threats to his or her family will be banned." But why would we? It adds nothing to the value of the policy. It helps no one. On the contrary, it risks suggesting that course of action, especially to people who are going to be banned anyway (that's the essence of WP:BEANS, after all). And to the overwhelming majority of people reading Wikipedia policy, it either 1) makes us look insane or 2) makes editing the project appear so inherently unsafe as to be undesireable ("Oh my God ... they have to put that in writing in policy??"). I hope that the Foundation considers a more serious legal stance in issues like this, but that's not a policy-level determination. I feel for H and his family, but rekindling the NPA edit war doesn't help them. Serpent's Choice 16:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

1)"Oh my God ... they have to put that in writing in policy??" Yes apparently we do as the user who aided this is still not Perm Banned. And the lack of support for editors like H is making working here "undesireable"

2)The defeatism here is even more worrying, i mean why bother even enforcing policy if your just going to be run over like this.

3)"NPA edit war" don't know or care about this, what i do care about is the lives of the editors and there families.

4)WP:BEANS if thats your argument why have WP:npa as that just creates personal attacks. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You mean this indef-blocked user?[13] A ban is, by convention, an indef-block that no one will lift. It would take, as conversations with him by admins have already stated, "UN-level diplomacy" to have any chance of that ever occurring. He's gone. I care about the lives of editors and their families, too. I hope the Foundation assists H with legal action. But that's out of our hands. Our policy has been enforced. What happened to H has nothing to do with policy — he was the victim of an offline criminal act. It isn't defeatism to say that we cannot prevent that with a policy document; sadly, it's the real world. Serpent's Choice 17:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps someone familiar with the situation could explain what happened to him and how it could have been averted via a change in policy. That is not clear from his user page. --Mantanmoreland 18:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Short version, to the limits of my knowledge. Some time ago, an editor (who is now essentially banned), posted H's personal details on an off-wiki website and harrassed him at his place of employment. More recently, someone generally believed to be associated with an Internet trolling organization (whose article was, after much kerfluffle, deleted by H) made physical threats against his family. We don't know the details, but the assumption has been that they were enabled by the previous outing. In any case, other than the banning of the originally-involved editor, it has all taken place off-wiki. Serpent's Choice 18:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Good points, everyone--especially Elinor's point about taking the solidarity ruling seriously. Hypnosadist earlier suggested that there needs to be zero tolerance for "outing" Wikipedians. In looking back, it seems that it's already de facto the case that if you out someone's real-life identity, you're banned. At least one LTA page is devoted to a guy who outed someone's real-life identity. That's the whole reason ED's been blacklisted from here, and the main reason there was so much of a stink raised over Daniel Brandt being allowed back. I personally think it needs to be written in somehow ... but how do you write it in a way that won't encourage someone to do it? Oh, and I've been assured via IRC that ColScott will NEVER be unblocked. He's old-style community banned--no admin in his right mind will ever unblock him.Blueboy96 18:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

We are talking about the wording of a policy in regard to editing in WP space. I concur with Serpent's Choice that there is no remit here to stop people (who may have edited WP) doing anything outside of WP to people who are members of WP. It is beyond the ability of WP to stop the creation and population of sites containing attack material. The best we can do is to deny people the right to post links to any such material within WP, and permit the blocking (to facilitate the non-linking policy) of those editors who do so. Nobody here believes such material should be linked to, although some do not wish any ban to automatically apply to sites hosting such material. Would H have been harrassed had there been a stringent ban on all links to attack sites? Regretably, the answer is yes. The harrasser only needed a search engine and some basic information. Will it happen again? Again, regretably, yes. There is a lot of personal info out there. WP can make it extemely difficult to link to it (hopefully impossible where it is on an attack page) but cannot make the information disappear. Since that is the case then what we have here is a debate about a wording that provides the most reassurance of protection to the right of anonymity against the interests of the community as a whole. LessHeard vanU 19:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Nobody here believes such material should be linked to. On the contrary there are editors who lap up the kool aid and revel in linking to attack sites. Some think it is a great big joke and behave like three-year-olds trying to test mommy's patience. (For all we know, of course, some of these editors might actually be three year olds.) If there were no editors who behaved that way, there would be no purpose in having this discussion. I would like hear some concrete proposals from people on H's side before dismissing the suggestion that more can be done. Based on what I have heard I am not sure what could be proposed that hasn't already been proposed.--Mantanmoreland 21:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Nobody here (i.e. this page/debate) believes...; If I meant Wikipedia I would have referred to it by name or abbreviation. LessHeard vanU 21:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I just re-inserted a sentence removed in the last edit. It is a crucial component of Elinor's version and is needed for clarity.--Mantanmoreland 14:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• I will just point out that User:H had, at least at one time, posted his real name here on Wikipedia; I read it myself. So - while I have no doubt that User:H has been terribly harassed, he was not outed. Of course, any links to the harassing information would be inappropriate - except that I recall it was discussed in some detail on AN/I when User:H himself brought it up. In other words - the policy as it existed on April 17, 2007, was more than sufficient to have managed any on-Wikipedia issues, and nothing we say here on Wikipedia has any effect on websites anywhere else. Risker 19:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I cannot stress strongly enough that when people give information before they become aware of how dangerous it is, and later change user name, or remove information from their pages, or in other ways stop giving that information because they prefer to be anonymous, then every decent editor will respect the wish to be anonymous, and the indecent ones who start searching for information on the internet, and then post information about name, address, workplace, etc. are most definitely "outing" the victim. And what we do on Wikipedia may not have any effect on what these stalkers post on their websites, but it can certainly have an effect on the number of people who will read them and find out more confidential information. ElinorD (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Give me a break, ElinorD. Thousands and thousands of people potentially saw User:H's real name on his former user page, which was directly linked to his "new" user page. User:H was interacting online before many of our editors were even born. Everything here, including what is on user pages and user talk pages, is subject to the GDFL - once the information is posted somewhere, it is available for any other person to use under any circumstances (provided credit is given). Nobody gets to take back what they have said on-wiki. I'll also point out that, if your opinion that once the info is removed from on-wiki it is therefore potentially "outing" to repeat it, then that means we are back to The New Yorker outing Essjay. Which is where this whole pile of nonsense started. Risker 19:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
      • • I don't know why people insist on bringing Essjay into it. This didn't start because of Essjay. This started because there was a probable troll who wanted to weaken the position of those who were trying to protect themselves and others from real life stalking, there were editors who had been badly harassed, and there were editors who were very sympathetic to the harassment victims. The second and third group of people fell into what was probably a trap set by the first person. As far as I know, administrators had been deleting harassment posts and links before I even joined Wikipedia. And Essjay was not someone who incautiously gave enough information in his early days to allow stalkers to track him down, and then regretted it and deleted the stuff and edited in security for a year before someone found the deleted edits and leaked it to trolls under GFDL. Essjay was someone who originally guarded his identity carefully, then got a job at Wikia, and then decided to acknowledge who he was. Once he had voluntarily said he was Ryan Jordan, there was absolutely no reason not to link to the New Yorker. (Nor was there any reason before that, of course.) If he had put on his very first version of his user page that his name was Ryan, and had given a little more information like where he had been to school, and had then removed that information, and Brandt had got hold of it, and had posted on some site that he had discovered that Essjay was Ryan Jordan, then there would be very good reason not to post to that site, especially if it was a site that regularly hosted and encouraged outing of Wikipedians. The two things are completely different. ElinorD (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Actually, it is more comparable to an author having written an article in what was at one time an obscure journal, that suddenly becomes very well known - and then complaining that people know his name. The bottom line is that User:H recognises that his situation is directly attributable to having posted his own name on his own page, as he clearly states on his talk page. The Foundation does not under any circumstances say that it will protect people from this sort of thing in its privacy policy. It is a huge stretch to suggest that something that was on Wikipedia at one time becomes "secret" because someone revises the page. Risker 21:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Although, playing devil's advocate as is my wont, I'll note that the GFDL rules pertain only to copyright law, and have nothing to say about such things as "outing", privacy, defamation, personal attacks, and the like. *Dan T.* 20:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• (restore indent) I sent an email to Jimbo awhile ago suggesting that it might be a good idea to include a "personal info advisory warning," with bluelinks to appropriate explanatory pages, on the first page users arrive at after they initially log-in, like how the "secure your account" password information currently appears on the initial log-in page before they log-in. He wrote back saying he agreed with the concept, but hasn't taken action on it as far as I can tell. I personally think they are waiting for someone to get killed due to a personal information revelation on WP before the necessity of taking any sort of preventative or cautionary action on a systemic level sinks in.—AL ^FOCUS! 21:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Does the first notice of Essjay's real name belong in the Essjay controversy article?

I will leave it to you, readers. Another editor has identified that the link to the first non-WP discussion of Essjay's real name belongs in the Essjay controversy article. One of the admins participating in this conversation disagrees, and is citing the MONGO Arbcom case as the reason. I am going to stay out of that conversation, as I feel I have a COI; however, others may wish to include their thoughts. Risker 21:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

So much for Essjay being a red herring or a straw man or whatever people (including one just a few comments above here) want to label it when they say it's "totally different" from anything we're dealing with when we talk about not linking to attack sites... now it's being used to suppress a relevant historical source in an article on this notable controversy. *Dan T.* 22:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. Fred Bauder clarified that WR counted as an attack site, covered by the MONGO ruling. That has nothing to do with my statement that people keep on stating inaccurately that the people who remove links to WR would remove links to the New Yorker, and that the New Yorker "outed" Essjay. We wouldn't, and it didn't. It reported that this formerly anonymous user had now admitted in public that his name was Ryan Jordan. The problems with WR are not that they say that Essjay is Ryan Jordan. I can say that here and not feel at risk of being sanctioned. I'm sure you're aware that the objections to WR are based on other considerations. ElinorD (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• ElinorD, could you point me to Fred Bauder's clarification on WR, thanks. - Nigosh 23:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Here. ElinorD (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

1. So, "Wikipedia Review should be considered an attack site", I still find the term attack site ambiguous, and believe it refers to no defined policy.
2. Fred Bauder, who he exactly? Just because he has checkuser and oversight, it doesn't mean that he can dictate the consensus.
3. Case was closed on 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC), and discussion petered out, to resume in April this year under the title MONGO#We_still_have_a_clarification_problem - I think we do.
4. It is unpleasant to see people wandering around with the big banning stick in support of this shambles of an impolicy

- Nigosh 01:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• To me, this highlights the difference between accepted (if debated) policy on external links and rejected proposal on attack sites; since all policy appears to derive from the MONGO case principles, I would like to examine the three key ones here

3) Links to attack sites - may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking.

• Attack site reference is ambiguous.

7) Support of harassment - Users who link to webpages which attack or harass other users or to sites which regularly engage in such activity are responsible for their actions Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Off-wiki_personal_attacks.

• References policy.

11) Outing sites as attack sites - A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances.

• Attack site reference is ambiguous.

After the MONGO RfA (Case Closed on 02:08, 20 October 2006), the attempt to clarify what constitutes and how to deal with an attack site (reject and point to new discussion at 02:48, 28 April 2007) now redirects to WP:NPA, so all the policy that I can be guided by is to be found below the somewhat moving target of WP:NPA#Off-wiki_personal_attacks, it seems to me that continual citing of MONGO confuses editors, and the frequent reverts without discussion the talk pages and threats of banning by some admins does nothing to demonstrate WP:AGF.

I personally can see no problem with either citing the base URL of particular sites, or where appropriate (as with the essjay comments by Brandt in January 2007) a link to a specific location within the site. Links to outing/stalking pages & threads are the only situations where I could support the kind of admin intervention that I see being promoted here. But again, as my userpage has recently been "visited" by MONGO and ElinorD (including the disappearance of a couple of months of page history) I suppose my intervention may be regarded as not neutral.

WP should strive to represent itself with honesty, transparency and neutrality.

Nigosh 23:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Nigosh, a Wikipedian emailed you with concerns about the content of your user page several weeks ago, pointing out that you were increasing the readership of sites that engage in attempts at outing the identities of Wikipedians. You were apparently completely unmoved by the distress that your facilitating of these privacy violations might bring into the lives of your fellow editors, and you not only refused to remove them, but added other unnecessary links. Another Wikipedian removed them, and you reverted him. Rather than engaging in an edit war and leaving curious editors free to look in the history of your page and find all the sites that could lead them to discover the identities of administators, start harassing them in real life, make threats against their families, contact their workplaces, etc., I deleted the page. I then restored all the versions up to and including the last non-harassing version that existed. I then manually readded to your page any non-harassing material that had existed in the deleted versions. Then, I explained the principles on your talk page, and offered to email you the deleted content of the page, in case you wanted it for your own records. You asked me to send it to you, so I did. I really don't see that you have anything to complain about concerning the "disappearance of a couple of months of page history". Regarding your comment that WP should strive to represent itself with honesty, transparency, and neutrality, I'll add kindness and solidarity to that list. Regards. ElinorD (talk) 01:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Solidarity can be a mixed blessing; when it turns into ganging up against anybody who disagrees with the ruling clique, it's not so kind. *Dan T.* 01:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

ElinorD: But it is those principles that should be being debated here, your explanation was your opinion or interpretation of WP:NPA#Off-wiki_personal_attacks, and you still haven't replied to my talk page response... - Nigosh 01:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Userspaces don't belong to you...they are on loan to you. Promoting anything is not considered to be the way to use your userspace. Linking to a website that has a history of posting the personal ID's our editors against their wishes is about as bad a misuse of userspace as I can imagine, aside from directly attacking people by name. Best thing is to just not do it and instead, get busy writing an encyclopedia.--MONGO 10:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

As MONGO says - go write an encyclopedia. Way too many words have been wasted on this already. Sophia 10:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks like one contributor felt that things got a bit too personal Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FMONGO, [14], [15] - Nigosh 22:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Nutshell reword

I propose a rewording of the text in the nutshell. Comment on content, not on the contributor. doesn't really capture the essence of the whole page, in comparison to other policy pages (e.g. WP:NPOV, WP:SOCK). Maybe something other than just one line of text. Any suggestions? +spebi ~ 07:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"Personal" attacks on groups?

Is there a policy for dealing with veiled personal attacks where a group of editors are attacked ie. based on their nationality? When someone crafts a post thats sole purpose is put down ones nation as a whole with a motive to wage an emotional war on those editors?--Alexia Death 12:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

May I advise you to stop forum-shopping in most improbable places on Wikipedia? As one Estonian said to my Italian friend in Tallinn, "Remember that a Russian's eyes may be blue, but his arse is black." Such attitudes are better covered by WP:CIVIL than by WP:NPOV. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Asking for advice is still not illegal in WP as far as I know. --Alexia Death 13:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Can someone tell me what to do now?

I just received an offensive email from User:Gprice, because I gave him a vanalism tag (he replaced a Petey Piranha image with something else) (the title of the email being called "Wikipedia e-mail"):

"Sorry, I made an honest mistake. I promise I won't do it again. In
the meantime you sanctimonious, teenage, Nintendo-playing, Australian
asshole, why don't you just suck my dick.

"Vandalism at Image:Petey.jpg

"Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you
did to Image:Petey.jpg. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been
reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Hardcore gamer 48 10:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)" "

Am I able to report this guy to anyone? I checked the paragraph about out-of-Wiki attacks before, but it gave me no information as what I can do (there was no email address that I could see). I apologise if there was, I'm just too furious at the user right now. How dare he call me sanctimonious? If I didn't leave a message for him, someone else no doubt would have! >: ( Hardcore gamer 48 11:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

you should be more upset with the comment about being australian. i dont know where he is from but i reckon he would like male on male like he referred to.

Now you take it to WP:AN/I--Alexia Death 11:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. : ) Hardcore gamer 48 11:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Should we tag this page?

Seeing as there are two recent requests for help regarding receipt of personal attacks, should we have a template at the top of the page noting that this is policy discussion rather than a complaints venue? It might help if there was an indication where the complaint should be made. LessHeard vanU 12:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Maybe something like at the top of Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. --Coppertwig 15:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Limited removal?

What is "limited" removal of personal attacks, anyway?:

"There is no official policy regarding when or whether most personal attacks should be removed, although it has been a topic of substantial debate.[1] Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern. On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited."

Like, for example, if someone responds to your message with "<blah blah blah> You're a stupid, idiotic pathetic little weasel and troll that does not deserve a life <blah blah blah>", what would be "limited" removal? Would just removing the "You're a stupid idiotic pathetic little weasel and troll that does not deserve a life" part be too much, too little or just right? mike4ty4 07:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that all apart from the <blah blah blah>, which I presume is the point/counterpoint the party is trying to make, should be removed. If someone is making a reasonable argument then it is only the unreasonable personal attack aspect that requires removing. LessHeard vanU 12:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Where to report Personal Attacks

I can't believe the main page doesn't have a very clear link to reporting personal attacks page. Is reporting personal attacks being made more difficult for some reason? 24.6.65.83 02:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

A simple solution is Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Durova^Charge! 22:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I should be allowed to say "some asshole admin"

That's not personal, it's pretty vague, and it's not an attack. I just referred to an admin an asshole for being an asshole, that's all. Miserlou 17:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a verifiable, respected third party source and quote it, then yes, I suppose you can. If you call an admin (or any other editor) an asshole because you disagree with their actions, and there is no cited reference, then you likely to be violating NPA and WP:CIVIL. LessHeard vanU 21:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

If you seem to mean a particular admin (as in "some a--e admin just reverted my edit on (page)") then it's definitely a violation of NPA. If it's vague, as in "what if we write the policy like this, and then someday on some page some a--e admin ..." you might possibly be able to argue that it isn't a violation, but it still looks uncivil to me. It could put people into the position of qualifying themselves as targets of the remark by their actions at a later time, so perhaps it's still a violation. If it puts a chill on certain actions because people don't want to so qualify themselves, I see that as a counterproductive method of influencing people: it generates an uncomfortable, unsafe-feeling working environment. I would guess that in many uses of the phrase there would be some ambiguity as to whether it refers to specific individuals or not; in that case I would still tend to consider it a violation. --Coppertwig 15:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

A quick search reveals exactly one occurrence of asshole admin outside of talk pages (plus nine in talk pages), at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 25 discussing the successful undeletion of User:Argyriou/SirNicholas, and it's legitimate IMO. So yes, you should be allowed to use the phrase, and you are allowed.

But who really cares? If you're in doubt as to whether it's a violation of the letter of the law, or as to whether the community will censure you for it, just don't do it, and let's all get back to the job of writing the encyclopedia. I think it's far more important to find out why you want to use the phrase. That's the issue. There's something there that needs fixing.

Admins are volunteers like yourself. We aren't perfect. Are you?

There would be also a case for using it in discussing a quotation in which it appeared, but that's a stretch, there are no occurrences and it's not what you're asking anyway.

If you do use the phrase in a particular context, I can't guarantee whether it will or won't be considered a personal attack, by me or by the community. But don't do it is still my advice. Andrewa 01:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

External links

i am extremely outraged. Community First credit union page How can someone be expected to write about something he is extremely passionate about without 1) stating some common statistics, some facts and figures which will of course be located on any company's website. and 2) how can anyone place these figures, statistics without unintentionally promoting the company and its products and 3) of course these facts are going to seem to be an advertsement, all wikipedia is in a way an advertsement, some sort of promotion and communication to a specific targeted audience in this case wikipedia users.

I have tried to make this as impartial as i can without trying to compromise the reputation of this organsation and compromisde the inforamtion people need to make decisions. The aim of an encyclopedia article is to inform and provide vital inforamtion, if i made it any broader then the information provided would be meaningless and of no use to any one, therefore destroying any initial intention of the article.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Noah_Evander" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noah Evander (talk • contribs) 01:06, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

I added If there is consensus in a particular case, such removals are not subject to the three-revert rule. I think the earlier formulation might mislead people into thinking links to off-site attacks may be removed against consensus. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I can't say I'm happy with that. It weakens it considerably. I know an editor has been blocked for removing links, so technically, you're correct, but really, that block shouldn't have happened. If there's consensus that a link is to be removed, then it's unlikely that someone would have to remove it four times. Admittedly the recent block was in a case where the "victim's" identity was already known, so it was more nastiness than "outing", but really, in a case where it involves a site like ED, which engages habitually in publishing the private details of anonymous editors, the MONGO ArbCom ruling did not require that you had to get general agreement in order to remove those links. If anything, it gave special protection so that you could remove them without consensus. It seems to me that your addition will just strengthen the position of trolls who engage in stalking. I think it would be preferable to have modified the wording with a note to say that such removals are not subject to the 3RR, though admins may disagree over whether or not a particular link qualifies for this exemption. ElinorD (talk) 02:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

ElinorD, we have just seen another case of editors deciding to remove links to entire websites when they perceive an attack in one section of the site. I believe this policy is being used by some editors to game the system and provoke predictable reactions from certain other editors. It has become more and more clear that one person's perception of an attack site can be radically different from another's. The way this is currently written, a single editor can forcibly remove every single link to a website they personally and solely believe is an attack site, without any recourse by any other user or administrator. I think Tom's edit is reasonable and identifies that sometimes the community is going to overrule those users. Risker 02:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Links to attack site states:

3) Links to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking. Pass 5-0-1 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Short, sweet, and unequivocal. I still think the wording in the policy needs work. - Crockspot 02:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom doesn't make policy. Policy is made by consensus; ArbCom can only interpret it. If consensus goes against something ArbCom said last year, then consensus trumps the old ruling. *Dan T.* 03:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That would appear not to be true. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams 2#Arbitration rulings. - Crockspot 03:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Crockspot, you have missed an important point in my comment. We have, in the past six months, seen multiple cases where one user decides that a site is an attack site, but the community disagrees. There is a problem when a policy gives the right to any one person to decide unilaterally that a site is an attack site, and then enforce their personal opinion without regard to consensus, 3RR or any other policy. Risker 03:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC) EDIT: Just what are you getting at with that CheeseDreams thing? Please QUOTE the section you mean, because the one you linked to said nothing about Arbcom making policy. Risker 03:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think it was necessary to quote the short sentence I linked to. It says that their rulings are binding on contributors to the english wiki. Policies are adjusted to reflect new arbcom rulings on a regular basis. And I don't think that there was any lack of consensus that the site is attacking a contributor. The lack of consensus was over what to do about it. One user decided not to sit on his hands like everyone else. He should not be punished for being bold, and doing what was likely the right thing. - Crockspot 03:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You can't write a rule that won't be gamed. Since User:Krimpet's block of User:Noroton's was directly contrary to the policy as it was then, I thought the policy should change to reflect that. There's no point in leading people to believe their removal is exempt from 3rr and then blocking them for violating 3rr. Yet ElinorD makes a good point, and I tend to think that her wording more accurately reflects what happened in this case. It's possible too that this is one of those edge cases that do not generalize well into policy. Ultimately the block was contrary to policy, and I don't see how to change the policy to make it fit, without making the policy say nothing at all. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

As there was some edit warring going on as to who's wording was best Tbeatty reverted both versions. I've reverted beack to ElinorDs version, as I think that there is agreement that her version reflects practice better than no version at all! Theresa Knott | The otter sank 07:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Why are "administrators" specifically mentioned? May the rest of the non-admin community not disagree as well? I'm not sure that even needs to be specified. It's a given that people are going to disagree on just about anything. I don't disagree at all with Tbeatty's reversion to the original. I think a wider discussion is necessary before this policy is changed. - Crockspot 11:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but they can't block you for violating 3rr, which is what happened in this case. The block was later undone by another admin. If most people think the block was appropriate, this policy needs to change to reflect that. If people think the block was a mistake, then no change should be necessary. What we should not do is have a policy that says removing links to off-site harassment is exempt from 3rr if that is not the case. If removing links is only exempt from 3rr if doing so has consensus support, or if something is only harassment if a consensus says it is, then there is no need to make the exemption. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I agree with Tom Harrison. In the past six months, we have seen three separate users decide that a website was an attack site without community consensus, each time resulting in significant disruption to the encyclopedia. I don't just mean the drama at AN/I, which is bad enough. I mean the quality of the articles, from which links were removed in an arbitrary fashion simply because one or two webpages were deemed by one or a few people to be personal attacks. In each case, consensus eventually overturned the individual editor's personal opinions; that didn't mean all the damage was undone. Risker 12:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'll point out that there seemed to be consensus that the page in question contained an attack. The lack of consensus was over what to do about it. These changes in no way address the problem that occurred last night. - Crockspot 12:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The page was, and is still, at least harassment. The removal of the links to it was appropriate and supported by the policy as it was then. Yet, the user was blocked for violating 3rr, even though he was unblocked later. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just reread the version currently on the page. We are placing people in double jeopardy with this wording. According to the policy, removals are exempt from 3RR except if administrators disagree. The vast majority of edit wars don't come to the attention of administrators until people have already violated 3RR. Editors who have a good faith but erroneous belief they are removing links to a personal attack in accordance with this policy could find themselves blocked for 3RR by an administrator who disagrees. This isn't fair. Better yet would be a statement that, if there is a challenge to removal of a link alleged to lead to an off-wiki personal attack, editors should bring it to AN/I for discussion. Risker 13:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Stalking victims are most unlikely to want the whole readership of AN/I to be clicking on the link so that they can all be involved in deciding whether it really is somebody's address and phone number or not. Do you want them to actually ring the number before they decide. If something is harassment, remove it discreetly. If necessary, report it to the ArbCom by private email. If you disagree with someone's removal of a link that gives personal information, discuss it by private email with some trusted admins. Do not further publicise a privacy violation. ElinorD (talk) 13:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"If you disagree with someone's removal of a link..." Could something like that be usefully included in the policy? Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Very usefully, I would think. ElinorD (talk) 13:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

New wording

Links or references to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against Wikipedians are not permitted, and should be removed. Such removals are not subject to the three-revert rule. If you disagree with someone's removal of a link under this policy, do not further publicize it. Discuss it with experienced users by private email, or privately contact the arbitration committee. Attacking, harassing, or violating the privacy of...

Thoughts? Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Good job Tom, the problem with mentioning concensus is that people like michael moore have so many fans they just say its ok to do anything to a right-wing wikipedian (presumably because right-wing people arn't people) and damage wikipedia in the process. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I would support that wording, Tom. It's never so urgent to have a link in an article that Wikipedia would lose credibility if we didn't have a link that might be useful or relevant. After all, there are hundreds of articles about living people that don't have photos, although the photos would be useful and relevant. Of course we don't want trolls making a WP:POINT by removing links to sites that are mildly critical but that don't "out" anyone. ElinorD (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

ElinorD, many of the links that have been removed for supposed NPA have been references, in some cases the key references to the article. That disruption results in more and more editors being drawn into the discussion. Permitting, nay encouraging, this widespread deletion of links to sites that a handful of editors consider to be "attacking" an individual editor has spread the drama and the perceived attack much further. Risker 16:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

So its ok for THF to get hundreds of emails calling him Fat and many other insults because that only hassels one user while doing something about it is disruptive because several people have do some work? WTF! ^{(Hypnosadist)} 16:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You know, out of respect to the editors involved, I had NOT been referring to any editors by name. But since you insist on bringing up a specific example, Hypnosadist - I will point out that THF himself was the one who posted to AN/I and widely publicised his supposed outing. And good editors with well known blind spots of course behaved in their predictable fashion, creating even more drama. Not one of those deletions prevented a single email going to THF. His page was linked to from outside Wikipedia and we had no control other than to protect his page and seal off his internal email - which could have been done by any admin without any fuss whatsoever. It was completely pointless to remove the links to the Michael Moore website, especially from the Michael Moore article - even a casual reader would have identified its absence and perhaps reinserted it. Risker 16:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend changing "experienced user" to "administrator." Only administrators have the authority to block users, delete pages, and so on; the biggest messes we have seen are when "experienced users" have taken the lead in addressing these situations. I remain concerned that editors who receive an unsatisfactory or ridiculous response to their inquiry will risk censure if they take it further. There is still a perverse irony to having a no-3RR rule for removing external links that have often been determined NOT to be personal attacks after deletion rampages through the encyclopedia, while there isn't even a consensus to delete on-wiki personal attacks. There has never been a good explanation for this. Risker 16:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Its simple, linking to off-wiki sites is done to try and get round wikipedia rules, full stop. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 16:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope you understand that deleting links that have existed in articles since long before the purported attack occurred were clearly NOT made to get around Wikipedia rules. And it is those links that are systematically destroyed. Risker 17:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I should have been more explicit, i was refering to links to attack sites or as in the case of MM.com a site with one attack posted in talk space not removing main space content as that was cut our nose off to spite our face. But just bending over and taking it like a man is not good enough! We must use any legal protection we have for wikipedia and ALL wikipedians, we have professional and semi-pro vandals and outers NOW and its going to get worse if nothing is done to stop them off-wiki. The problem is that in the words of a famous athenian "It is not a cities friends that teach it to build thick and high walls." and it will take a black wikipedian hanging from a deep south tree or an editor like me who edits on terrorism articles to be harmed because of that for something to be done. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

When people start comparing or connecting linking to so-called "attack sites" to lynchings, or to rapes as has also sometimes been done, then that is a sign that people really need to dial down their rhetoric quite a few notches. *Dan T.* 17:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No i'm saying one day an attack site will lead to someone getting hurt in the real world. MM.com's readers are mostly nice people and this generated many attacks, if THF had been black and his picture and real name had been placed on KKK.com this would have been delt with stronger because of that sites readership. Remeber one admin has already been forced to leave wikipedia because of the death threats to him and his family recieved at his home and job. Suprise nothing was done to help him or the next person. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 18:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line - if you are worried about your safety when editing Wikipedia, stop editing. There is not one single thing that Wikipedia can do to protect you. Removing links does absolutely nothing to make editors safer or prevent harassment. What DOES help is protecting user pages and blocking email accessibility. Your "real life" example is invalid, in that links to the attacks involved were not posted to Wikipedia within an article - and incidentally the admin involved very specifically stated that he had edited with his real life ID and accepted (with understandable bitterness) the consequences of his actions. Your hypothetical argument is even more specious - but it is noteworthy that the Wikipedia article on the KKK doesn't link to any website belonging to them. Risker 18:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"if you are worried about your safety when editing Wikipedia, stop editing" Are you quite mad! So your idea is blame the victim of the crime. So all i have to do the next time i have a problem with an editor all i have to do is start a website say RiskerMustDie.com and get the guys at wikipedia review to give me your real name and address. That would fine would it? If not what are we going to do to stop this? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

If it's a noncommercial site, it should be RiskerMustDie.org, or perhaps RiskerMustDie.info, to emphasize its informational content... .com implies a commercial entity. The KKK ought to be at kkk.org rather than kkk.com, too, though I'm not sure where their actual site is, if they have one. *Dan T.* 02:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Thanks for the help and lightening the mood. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 03:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

As with any policy, I think it would be better to phrase it descriptively than prescriptively, but given that caveat, Tom's wording seems good. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I like Tom's wording, but there is a bit of a potential problem with the "discuss with experienced editors/admins" part. I didn't see the 3RR noticeboard notice until it was all over. Neither did the party being blocked. The characterizations of most of those initially making the report were a little, shall we say, inaccurate and biased? (I'm thinking particularly of the claim of consensus that was made.) I think these recommended private communications should include the supposed violator as early as possible. It would seem a little too easy for a small group of editors with a particular POV to gang up and convince an admin to block someone, without any transparency. I'm sure if the blocked user had been notified BEFORE he was blocked last night, he would have provided justification that may have prevented the block in the first place. - Crockspot 17:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your concern for potential abuse, Crockspot. Risker 17:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I struck 'with experienced users'. Feel free to put up another version if you like. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the problem isn't the wording at all. Maybe the problem was one of notification of the 3RR report? Maybe we are jumping the gun to bandaid something that isn't bleeding. I like the original wording. It is consistent with arbitration principles. - Crockspot 18:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If Tom's proposal is to be implemented, it needs further clarification. The first sentence, "Links or references to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against Wikipedians are not permitted, and should be removed", is not clear. Links to sub page of ED are expressly forbidden (per the MONGO case), and may be removed; that much is clear (but not from the proposed text). What about links to other websites which host content that is critical of editors? Like Slashdot, which is currently hosting information purporting to "out" an established editor as a spy?

Additionally, I dislike the inclusion of "attacks". It is vague; what some editors consider an "attack" is not what other editors consider an "attack"; it depends upon how thick your skin is. I do, however, support removing links to sub pages of sites, or to sites in general which, like ED, hold "numerous pages [which] purport to disclose detailed information concerning the names, geographical locations, ISP's, and personal attributes of various Wikipedia administrators and editors" ( MONGO ArbCom case). --Iamunknown 18:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that we shouldn't go crazy on entire websites that might have one subpage that contains an attack. The problem with the current issue is that the attack is on the main index page of the site. That puts it in a slightly different category. If you happen to be viewing the main page of a website that has an attack somewhere else, you would have to go looking for it. If it's on the main page and you are viewing a sub page, all you have to do is hit "home". - Crockspot 18:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

In reply to message by Risker 18:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC): People don't have to follow that advice. Perhaps many people have a mild concern about their safety but choose to edit anyway. Some people may not feel concerned until harassment begins. When it does, it may be more productive to edit in order to remove harmful material than to stop editing. There are things Wikipedia can and does do to assist victims of harassment (somewhat); the above suggested policy wording is one example. --Coppertwig 19:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to have something like this, we must have a clearer definition of "attack site", and Arbcom must be willing to harshly sanction people who abuse the invulnerability from on-wiki disagreement. Banning public dissent should happen only in strictly controlled situations when absolutely necessary. -Amarkov moo! 19:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That is the problem Amarkov, no one can adequately define the term "attack site" so that it gains consensus; even if one can, it probably would still cause disruptions. How many times have you seen an editor accuse another of a personal attack, when you did not necessarily consider it a personal attack? I've seen it quite often, and that is because it is perceived as a personal attack by the person on the receiving end. That is the only true definition of a personal attack. The same problem is/will be ran into trying to define an "attack site policy", for the purpose of protecting Wikipedia editors. Any attempts to define an attack site will result in even more disruption. In a nutshell: You don't need to make a policy for something that there is no need for, even if it makes you feel better.

Are these noble and empathetic attempts at protecting identities regardless of the circumstances helping or hurting the encyclopedia? daveh4h 00:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Simple Attacks sites are Sites that provide "outing" information on wikipedians and/or calls for edits to be made to a wikipage. The problem with concensus on this issue has been the interference from the attack sites themselves that twist the debate and concensus. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, i only care about protecting wikipedians, WR.com can say wikipedia is communism, the 4th reich or the 2nd coming, i don't care. I only have a problem when sites Out wikipeians or organise editing of wikipedia to push a pov. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 01:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess we can't link to anything by Stephen Colbert, then, since he's advocated vandalizing Wikipedia several times on the air (with the video segments also being put on the Internet), naming specific articles like Elephant to be changed in specific ways. *Dan T.* 02:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks. What person on wikipedia has Colbert attacked? Criticism of the project is not a personal attack. - Crockspot 02:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Again its not what he says about wikipedia its the fact he advocates vandalism of wikipedia. Taking links off his page is not going to stop him and fans damageing wikipedia. Stephen is damaging wikipedia for money and should stopped by legal action or he will continue to do so. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 03:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Since when do we label a site an "attack site" when it "calls for edits to be made to a wikipage" or "[organises] editing of wikipedia to push a pov". It is irresponsible of the site to organise POV pushing, and we should then be on our guard to swiftly deal with the inevitable SPA-POV-pushers that will come, but by no definition I have read is the site an "attack site". --Iamunknown 02:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Its an attack on wikipedia because we (the editors) have to waste our time cleaning up the POV or vandalism created by this. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 03:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It is very easy to call anything one dislikes an "attack on WP". I se nothing wrong with comment on WP here or elsewhere; and I see no reason either for trying to retaliate against places that have unfair attacks on us as an institution. The thing to do is to ignore them. The point of this policy is to deal with direct and indirect attacks on individual wikipedians, or on individuals made through use of WP. We cannot ban every site where an attack on a WPedian has been published. It's futile and immature in people or institutions or civilizations to try that. We obviously should not link to undoubted bad-faith individual attacks. There are not many of those. The difficulty here is not to remove the links, the difficulty here is to prevent the policy spreading too far. Anything that looks like out-of-proportion suppression is a hazard to our mission. DGG (talk) 04:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. "Criticism" does not equate with "attack". "POV-pushing" does not equate with "attack". While criticism may be good or bad, and while POV-pushing is most certainly bad, we do not react to sites promoting one or the other by a wholesale removal of any link to the site. Any implementation of an "attack sites" policy should not be absolute. Removing links to, say, Slashdot because it hosts content purporting to out an editor is not feasible (as many articles link to legitimate Slashdot articles as references). --Iamunknown 06:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, the P in NPA does not stand for 'Pedia. You cannot Personally attack the entire editing community, or a diverse group such as admins. Calling editors "geeks" or admins "power drunk nonentities" is simple vandalism, and should be dealt with as such. Adverse comments on the basis of ethnic, religious, political, etc. groupings is already covered. You further cannot personally attack Wikipedia, the Foundation, or any of its various offices since they are not persons - they are entities. Nope, generic attacks on Wikipedia does not fall under NPA so removing links to such sites does not fall under this policy. LessHeard vanU 08:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Without a reasonably restricted view on what an "attack site" is, this is unworkable in any wording. At the very least, no removal claiming something to be an attack site should violate Wikipedia:External links#What should be linked point #1: "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any" unless there is consensus on the talk page of the article that the official site, as a whole, is an attack site. Nor should an article reference be removed because a different page on the website is an attack page.

In fact, it would be better to eliminate the concept of "attack site" and use "attack page". For those few sites that truly are attack sites, where a primary purpose of the entire website is attacking Wikipedians, we can be more restrictive. But the basic prohibition should be to specific links that attack. I think a viable solution will be found more quickly if we eliminate "attack site" from our lexicon. GRBerry 18:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

And the thing about removing such links (however defined) being exempt from 3RR is just a bad idea... it's unnecessary in the case of attacks that there is consistent consensus to remove (like where somebody says "Here [link] is User:SomeDummy's home address and a map to get to it... go over there and beat him/her up!"... that would be an "attack link" even if the link were to Google Maps, which is clearly not an "attack site" by itself), in which case there'd likely be plenty of editors around to revert it, admins who will quickly block the offending attacker, and in the unlikely event more than three reverts are needed by one user in the course of this, WP:IAR would be applied... nobody would want to punish somebody for reverting that. On the other hand, where there is good-faith disagreement about whether removing some link is a good idea (as has been the case in a bunch of recent instances), giving a 3RR exemption to one side of the debate is not only unfair, but it invites destructive edit-warring, just the sort of thing the 3RR was devised to stop. *Dan T.* 18:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a few points. I think it needs to be pretty clear that we're talking about "attacks" that are actually attacks. Off-site criticism of an editor, even moderately abrasive criticism, should not be covered by this. The rule here should be "If I typed this out on Wikipedia, would it be considered in violation of WP:NPA?". I also agree that we need to be clear that it is specific attack pages that are bad, not "attack sites". The wholesale delinking of entire domains because one specific subpage has a personal attack is not productive, and doesn't really help at all — it basically just comes off as a punitive action. I also would note that the 3RR exemption is probably okay, if you add the caveat that it should be a blatant violation, just like for vandalism. If there's any question about it, it should not be getting removed. While we want to stop people from re-adding the same "User:hdkhajh is a pedophile" page, we don't want to encourage people to edit war over a "User:hdkhajh is a bad editor for these reasons..." page.

Basically, it boils down to that off-Wikipedia links should be treated as an extension of Wikipedia. If we can't edit them, we remove them. Since we blank privacy violations, and personal attacks, on-Wiki it makes sense to remove the links to them off-Wiki. --Haemo 07:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Good points. If a personal attack, when typed in to Wikipedia, would be removed, then a link to a page that contains such an attack and no other relevant information could similarly be removed. However, there is no consensus for removing all types of personal attacks from Wikipedia pages in all situations. Furthermore, the page might have relevant information in addition to the personal attack; we don't blank a whole talk page just because there's a personal attack somewhere on it. So stricter standards have to be applied for removing a link to a page that contains an attack plus other information, than to removing an attack typed directly on Wikipedia. --Coppertwig 15:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Very good point; Within WP it is standard practice to remove the attack content of a comment, in the first instance. If the rest of the comment is simply a vehicle for the attack content then that may also be removed. It is extremely rare that the entire contributions of an editor is removed, and that only after per persistently violating Wikipedia rules. The effect of blocking linking to sites containing attack material seems to be the reversal of this. If, as Coppertwig comments, a link to a personal attack within Wikipedia is removed, but not any other relevant information, then the same principles should be maintained to such material existing outside Wikipedia. LessHeard vanU 15:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I am disgusted by your views ...

... and you are a lousy person for having them!

This seems to be a frequent type of personal attack that isn't encompassed by the categories described on the policy page. I'm referring to the sort of comment that doesn't actually express a view or any information about the subject being discussed; it only expresses spite towards another editor because of the views they hold.

Here's a made-up example. Let's say that the article under discussion is, say, legal drinking age:

There are a number of studies [1] [2] [3] that suggest that if the drinking age in the U.S. were lowered or eliminated, people would be more accustomed to the effects of alcohol and would be less likely to binge-drink. After all, in countries where teenagers are served wine at the family dinner table, binge drinking is much less common. We should cover this more in the article. Any suggestions? --Joe User

You disgust me! How can you suggest that children should be allowed to get drunk?! That's just sick. I hope you never have children. --Bob Loser

Bob's comment does nothing to lead improvement of the article, and it only barely pertains to the subject at hand. It is simply an expression of rage at Joe. I suggest that comments that merely express rage at (what one believes are) another person's views, should qualify as personal attacks in the sense of WP:NPA. --FOo 02:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the appropriate response is for Joe to WP:IGNORE/WP:DENY Bob. Warning Bob for NPA invites a discussion (in which the words censorship and depravers of childhood(sic) are likely to feature) and wikidrama which is the probable intent of Bob anyway. Only if it escalates - i.e. it was not ignored - would a NPA warning be appropriate. LessHeard vanU 08:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I think a useful response of uninvolved editors is to remind Bob about NPA or to ask Bob to stick to productive remarks about the article content, not about editors. Uninvolved editors can mention NPA, since they're not so likely to get drawn into a debate. The most productive, in my experience, is for editors who are expressing or have expressed agreement with Bob about article content on this point to remind Bob about NPA; or for someone to find something to criticize both editors about at the same time, and make sure both know the other is also being criticized, e.g. "I also left a message on so-and-so's talk page." In this example I can't see anything to criticize Joe User about, but if you wait a few minutes after the above exchange, the chance of him providing such is fairly high.  :-) --Coppertwig 15:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

What is Bob's response to a NPA warning? If it is to retreat then all and fine, but wouldn't ignoring Bob have had the same likely response. However, if Bob then declares that he is being censored for speaking his mind then the matter is conflated. NPA should not be a first response unless the language is so severe to potentially warrant a block - AGF being the reason why only a warning is issued to a new user. LessHeard vanU 15:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Ive seen this kind of attack a lot on a national level.

I know you are of nation X. Nation X is [insert usually groundless spiteful accusation]. Thus all you have to say must be wrong.

And this is exploited rather openly to aggravate opponents.--Alexia Death the Grey 16:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this happens a lot in the case of longstanding national rivalries. However, this case is already covered by the examples in WP:NPA dealing with racial and ethnic remarks. --FOo 07:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

But NPA IS not enforced on that level. Specially since the last sentence is often omitted and the whole goal is to just insult the opponents nationality.--Alexia Death the Grey 11:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

WP:NPOV is a Foundation issue. This policy cannot supercede it. The external links section attempts to supercede this policy by declaring that personal attacks can never be linked to under any circumstances is thus not policy.

The policy could be reworked to clarify this, and I've created a section that does so, but as it stands, I have removed the section of this policy that is, well, not. I remind everybody that there exist entire Wikipedias that have been forcibly closed due to a policy of violating NPOV. While this is unlikely to happen to en, the fact remains - "remove all personal attacks while ignoring NPOV oh and btw the 3RR doesn't apply here" is not policy, never has been, and never can be by the basic definition of "policy" on Wikipedia. Phil Sandifer 20:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Phil, you've not explained how this policy conflicts with NPOV. You just say it does. How come? I see it as being perfectly consistent with NPOV.--Mantanmoreland 05:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

How does your view fit with WP:BLP? Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ummm... BLP also doesn't trump NPOV? Phil Sandifer 20:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Does BLP apply to me? Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The biographies of living persons policy is about poorly sourced/unsourced information about living people and about articles covering living people written with a negative slant. If the article is neutral and has reliable sources, how does BLP possibly apply to the "notable personal attack" issue? Seems like a red herring in this discussion. Picaroon (t) 20:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless you've unfortunately passed away since the above was posted, I would assume so. But, again, BLP does not trump NPOV, and NPOV also applies to you and subjects you are, whether by choice or by unfortunate accident, connected to. Phil Sandifer 20:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You're correct, Phil, that this policy does not supercede the neutral point of view requirement, and it is this this reason that I doubt a clarification is needed. In the unlikely event that a personal attack is notable, relevant to an article, and can be reliably sourced, then it should be included, unfortunate as the content is - remember, we're only writing up what other reliable sources have covered before us (which is precisely the reason the "notable personal attack" is unlikely to come up very often). To be a neutral encyclopedia, we need to include information that meets our criteria even if we as contributors disagree with it. Does anyone dispute this? Picaroon (t) 20:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, yes. Though that dispute is currently rolling off-wiki, this is, shall we say, a matter of somewhat heated debate. Observe, for instance, what's going to happen in a few replies to the discussion with Tom above. Phil Sandifer 20:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The importance of this has just been illustrated by the bizarre edit here: [16]. Note the removal of verifiable information contained in the references in supposed adherence to NPA. It is not acceptable to use NPA to remove relevant information from articles, and if NPA is currently being construed as advocating that it needs to change immediately. Phil Sandifer 23:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Phil's addition clarifying that this policy does not give people carte blanche permission to screw around with articles has been removed by Crum375. I hereby propose it is readded, and tweaked as necessary. Do we have any objections? Picaroon (t) 00:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I favor adding it. NPOV is a fundamental, non-negotiable policy that takes precedence over the bruised egos of editors who feel attacked. *Dan T.* 00:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. When I saw the external link text before I always considered it to be about things outside of article content. Article content should be driven by NPOV and regular old 'good editorial judgment' (or the best approximation available). A simple statement making it clear that it doesn't supersede NPOV would avoid the text from being misapplied. I think this is what was always intended. Alternatively, making it clear that that whole policy doesn't apply to the main namespace would be even more clear and easy. (We don't need this policy in article text because regular editorial and style policies would already keep any personal attacks against editors out of articles which are not needed due to NPOV). --Gmaxwell 03:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the section as in any way conflicting with NPOV. Seems to me you can have a restriction against linking to attacks on editors and still have a totally NPOV article. The Judd Bagley article, if it survives the AfD, would certainly not be harmed or less neutral if the site Bagley runs is not mentioned. The purposes of NPA are to prevent attacks on editors, and it seems to me that attacks in article space are worse than attacks elsewhere. Seems pretty obvious to me, which might be why the subject has never come up in all these many months. --Mantanmoreland 05:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

How is the sentence "Prima runs the site Alpha" a personal attack? --MichaelLinnear 05:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree it should be added. People removing the official link to notable organization's and people's site because there's some post on their forum saying some editor sucks is stupid, and needs to be proscribed. ←Ben^B4 05:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

NPA requires removal of links or references to attacks, not links or references to a website containing an attack buried inside. The distinction was resolved aeons ago when "Badsites" was shelved. It is now being dredged up again, despite having been resolved previously, this time under the bogus grounds of NPOV.--Mantanmoreland 05:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

That should be made explicit then, because people have been removing links to top-level sites. ←Ben^B4 06:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Query I believe the prohibition on attacking external links is meant for talk pages, the Wikipedia namespace, and so forth, but not for articles. If a negatively-worded site is a relevant source to an article, it could be construed as an attack, but due weight suggests we should link to it anyway. SO, can we resolve this by adding "except in articles" to the relevant section? >Radiant< 09:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Phil's invocation of NPOV is disingenuous; NPOV is irrelevant. These personal attacks are themselves fringe views and therefore do not meet the startd for inclusion. NPOV does not insiste that we include all views, only notable ones. Moreover, they should be views of notable topics. There is no article about me on Wikipedia, because I am not a notable topic. Thus, a personal attack against me does not merit its own article, nor does it met the NPOV standard for inclusion in any article. All views about communism and capitalism, fine. All views about Stalin and Hitler, fine. But all views about a specific Wikipedia editor? Absurd. It is not an NPOV issue. It has to reach a certain level of notability as an encyclopedia topic, before we worry about NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You do realise that this segment of the policy has been used on multiple occasions to delete external links within articles? Michaelmoore.com and so on? NPOV means don't delete useful links within articles, even if there may be an attack somewhere in the website. This is why the external links portion of this policy is in dispute. Risker 15:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and I can think of lots of reasons for adding external links - but NPOV is not one of them. Moreover, NPOV states, "give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well." I am not at all convinced that our committment to an excellent encyclopedia requires us to provide links to sites that attack our editors. Surely there are other ways an encyclopedia article can cover whateever is worth covering in an encyclopedia article without giveing comfort to trolls. And while we can argue over this, and I've no doubt that for every good reason I have you may have another, I just don't see NPOV as being one of them. There is by the way a bigger context here, which has to do with the way some Wikipedia editors use articles about attack sites as ways of attacking other Wikipedia editors, albeit indirectly. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It's probably true that a link necessary for a neutral presentation should not be deleted simply because it is an attack on someone. It's also unlikely that including such a link is the only way to ensure neutrality. Anyway, these circumstances are pretty rare, to the point that someone might have to gin up an article to demonstrate them. This is not the place to to work as an automaton and apply an all-inclusive policy that accommodates every edge case, no matter how unlikely. Any policy, no matter how carefully written, has to be applied with reason, taking each situation on its merits. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be an effort to make the Judd Bagley article a test case. The article was such a fantastic test case that it has been shrunk to one sentence by yourself, because it violates BLP. Will the claim now be made that NPOV conflicts with BLP so the article has to be reinstated? NPOV has as little to do with NPA as it does with BLP.

The essence of NPOV is "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly." That is not an issue with Judd Bagley. There is only one POV stated in the sources, which is that he is a rotten SOB (reliably sourced). The presence or absence of a link to his website does not swing the POV to one direction or another. It is totally irrelevant. If the external links section is terrible or good it has nothing to do with NPOV.--Mantanmoreland 20:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The issue, with Judd Bagley (or any other case), is this - is the presentation of a notable perspective on the article's subject diminished because of the need to dance around something? The answer here is clearly yes - there's a gaping hole in the article that is obvious to anyone who reads it. And God forbid we expanded the article to actually include some of Bagley's choice moments - totally acceptable under all our sourcing guidelines, but what, we couldn't actually reference antisocialmedia.net because it contains personal attacks? If there's one thing the article clearly needs its a good choice quote of "for instance, Bagley did XXXX" that would almost have to be referenced to ASM. But this entire aspect of the article's presentation is cut off because of this policy. That does violate NPOV. Phil Sandifer 14:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Not only are there no gaping holes in that article, but if anything the article goes overboard in describing Bagley's activities. The "choice moments" of a third-rate corporate hoodlum have no place in an encyclopedia, and in my view neither does an article about the hood. Any sourcing to ASM would be clearly banned by WP:RS, which prohibits references to far more reputable websites than that manure collection. I really wish you'd stop hauling out the WP:NPOV as a kind of all-purpose truncheon to get your way in this dicussion. You still haven't done more than declare that NPOV supports your position.--Samiharris 00:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The way your side keeps hauling out BADSITES and its relatives as an all-purpose truncheon to get your way? *Dan T.* 02:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

"administrators may disagree"

Links or references to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against Wikipedians are not permitted, and should be removed. Such removals are not subject to the three-revert rule, though administrators may disagree over whether or not a particular link qualifies for this exemption....

What's that supposed to mean? If an administrator disagrees, it is subject to 3RR? Whatever the implications of it is, should be spelled out. ←Ben^B4 23:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

A rewording is needed to make the policy clearer, as well as to bring it in agreement with actual recent practice, which has pretty much without exception rebuffed attempts to remove links on the grounds of their being alleged "attack sites". The revised policy should also take into account Jimbo's comments, which call for thoughtfulness about what we link to, taking into account what personal hurt might result, but balancing this with other concerns which will usually take precedence (NPOV is an obvious one). *Dan T.* 00:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It basically means that you can't dodge the 3RR by claiming you're removing attacks if you're not actually doing that. >Radiant< 09:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

How does saying administrators may disagree imply that? ←Ben^B4 15:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• You are welcome to reword this page to make it clearer. The point is that if somebody removes a link of what he claims to be an attack site, and an admin investigates and disagrees with the contention that it is an attack site, said somebody is subject to 3RR as normal. >Radiant< 15:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

(undent) How about this:

Links or references to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against Wikipedians are not permitted, and should be removed. Such removals are not subject to the three-revert rule unless an administrator disagrees that the link is to an attack site....

? ←Ben^B4 16:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. This would make the rule pretty much superfluous, as there are numerous administrators who philosophically disagree with the view that any site should not be linked.--Mantanmoreland 20:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Um... there are administrators who disagree with i) what constitutes an attack site, and ii)disagree that a site rather than the attack material/page should not be linked to. There may be some who disagree with removing any links whatsover, but they are in a minority. LessHeard vanU 20:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

That's what I said.--Mantanmoreland 02:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"numerous..." does not usually signify a minority. LessHeard vanU 12:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This section is a classic example of double jeopardy. An editor could believe that they were removing links in accordance with this principle, it gets taken to AN/I, administrators disagree, and the editor could find himself being blocked for disruption. And what about where one admin agrees, and another comes along and disagrees, or the editor acting in good faith here keeps removing links, gets reported at 3RR and finds himself blocked without being asked what the heck he is doing? No, this addition was a really bad idea. Risker 02:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Really, the whole idea of giving a 3RR exemption is a bad idea... it just encourages edit warring. *Dan T.* 04:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

And, in fact, an edit war on this very issue is now in progress on Don Murphy, with a link-removing warrior already in violation of 3RR and proclaiming in the talk page that the past arbcom ruling (now under review in a new case) gives him the right to ignore this rule. *Dan T.* 12:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to prohibit linking to harassment you have to have a 3RR exemption to give it any teeth. The "administrators may disagree" loophole is what is problematic.--Samiharris 00:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, then, we're better off totally rid of the whole link prohibition, since giving a 3RR exemption to one side in a dispute is just plain unfair. *Dan T.* 02:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to exempt enforcement of a rule from 3RR to give it teeth. Even our Foundation policy of WP:NPOV does not provide for enforcement exempt from 3RR. -Amarkov moo! 01:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the need to mention administrators may disagree part is necessary. Instead simply link to Wikipedia:Three-revert rule which lists all the exemptions and which also explains that editors should be aware that "it is only in the clearest cases that they will be considered exceptions to the rule". Nil Einne 14:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The "administrators may disagree" part is confusing, and was added recently. Policies that cite other policies should do so through wikilinking, not through attempting to restate the policy in another place. Policies change, and keeping up with all the places where that policy might be cited is a big headache, and leads to confusion, and unwitting violations. Dean Wormer 16:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom case

An ArbCom case has been proposed on the "BADSITES" subject. *Dan T.* 01:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Small request

{{editprotected}} Could the disambig notice be moved below the banners? It looks weird at the moment. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it will be OK once the protection banner is removed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for edit

{{editprotected}} Can a sysop change the wording in the first paragraph of Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks#Off-wiki_personal_attacks, so that it says "The Wikimedia Foundation", instead of "Wikipedia"? Bushcarrot ^Talk _{Please Sign!} ^{Let's go Lightning!} 23:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the sentence should consistently say "Wikipedia," as this is an English Wikipedia specific policy, not a Foundation policy or a Meta policy. English Wikipedia does not have control over the contents of, for example, the French Wikipedia. Risker 02:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

 Not done - if you can get consensus for this change please replace the {{editprotected}} template. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No Personal Attacks Doesn't Have Consensus

Like profanity, insults are the product of an unsophisticated mind. Wikipedia only hurts itself by trying to control what people can and cannot say. The rampant Wikiality and censorship aside, people need to behave like adults by not resorting to name calling but also by not reacting to insults.

It goes both ways. I like to call people names, and people should have the mental fortitude to not cry about it. This is not an issue which users should be blocked for, as long as Wikipedia remains worksafe. This is why there is so much protest over this. People are being blocked for calling people stupid. Oh noes. Grow up, kids. Sticks and stones and so on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demonesque (talk • contribs) 21:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• The point of the NPA policy is to get editors to focus on the content, not on each other's perceived faults. Wikipedia would become just another web forum battleground if the floodgates of personal attack were opened. Dean Wormer 16:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. We have simple and basic civility policies in place to facilitate collaboration in producing an encyclopedia. We hardly refactor comments, unless these breach WP:BLP and/or are blatant attacks on a person's race, beliefs, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That does not justify the policy. Wikipedia is a very important site, and it is the internet that allowed it to come into being and thrive. The policy cannot be defended if wikipedia is going to be truly egalitarian and neutral in its POV. By censoring and wikialitying and blocking for personal attacks the wikipedia community is, by the very nature of its acts, defining a POV on what is acceptable behavior and what isn't. If two users want to swap insults all day long, what does that matter? If it offends a third party, no one is forcing them to read it. No one is forcing anyone to read anything on this site or any other. The three major flaws of Wikipedia have been created by idiots who want to cry over getting called names on the internet. I maintain: grow up. --Demonesque —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This is getting annoying. I signed this one and have specific memory of signing it before. --Demonesque 01:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It's four tildes, not three. Three only gets your username, four gets it and the date. Picaroon (t) 02:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• The need for this policy is obvious from any observation of the course of disputes at Wikipedia. A substantial number of content-related disputes escalate into disputes between individual--once this happens, the chance of a resolution that will have a positive outcome for the individuals or the articles is very low. At least at present we have some policy that editors who may be tempted otherwise need take into account, that can be used to warn against it, and if necessary can be used to bring a halt to it. The idiots on the internet are those who call each other names. They provide an atmosphere which prevents people from cooperating and which deters many individuals. Yes, individuals can and should generally ignore them--that's almost always what I advise when someone complains. But nobody should have to, and they give the impression that this is not a place for cooperative work. DGG (talk) 02:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Unfortunately, a lot of the namecalling and personal insinuations these days come from the supporters and defenders of the NPA policy and its BADSITES relatives. *Dan T.* 03:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If anything, I think NPA should be strengthened. There should be something similar to 3RR for personal attacks. We could call it 3PA. After the first uncivil comment you get a polite request to stop, and are requested to read the policy on incivility. After the second you get a warning, after the third you get blocked. Each addition PA leads to a longer block. Personal attacks are harmful to Wikipedia. Left unchecked they can destroy the project. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh God, please no. At least 3RR can be enforced with objectivity, by comparing the text of edits to count reverts. There is just no bright line between fair criticism and an attack. ←Ben^B4 07:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

A personal attack is very easy to determine. It is criticism of an editor instead of the edit, labeling a person instead of objecting to a particular behavior, or otherwise making a disagreement "personal" when it does not need to be. If someone is blocked for 3RR or 3PA for a day it is not the end of the world. If they continue to offend, attack and disrpt, that IS a problem. When the environment here becomes toxic, reasonable people will leave. That is far, far worse than the occasional over-zealous 24 hour block. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 00:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It can't be defined that simply though. Some editors have a pattern of disruptive behavior, and we shouldn't open the door for them to claim "OMG HE DO 3PA BLOCK NOW!!!!!!" when someone comments on that. -Amarkov moo! 00:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not understanding your point. Commenting on disruptive behavior is different from commenting on the person making the disruption. If someone comments on behavior by saying "stop being a jerk", that is a personal attack. Compare these responses: "Your an idiot", "You don't know what you're talking about", "You clearly need to spend more time researching the topic", "I'm certain that is not correct". They all say the same thing. The last comment clearly isn't a personal attack. It seems there is always a way to comment without attacking the person you disagree with. It will also be clear if people are trying to learn from their mistakes or game the system. When I've blocked people for 3RR, some of them go off the deep end, and some of them make a genuine effort to learn from their mistakes. The editors who go off the deep end are probably not suited to this environment, and everyone is probably better off if they leave. The 3RR block often separates the wheat from the chaff. Editors who adopt 1RR as their norm never have a problem with 3RR. Editors who never make personal attacks would never have a problem with 3PA. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 19:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

well, as someone who has spent a considerable amount of time rewording comments to avoid the word "you"--and almost always managed to find a way--there is a grey zone, e.g. the continuum: you are an idiot/the author of the previous comment is an idiot / the author of the previous comment does not understand / some of the people who have commented earlier do not understand / perhaps not everyone understands But at least some sort of definite statement like this will work for the people who are too angry or thoughtless to consider what they are saying. That's a start. I have my own standard--anyone who right away apologizes without raising further difficulties, it wasnt a serious personal attack. It shows they either understand, or at the very least know the virtue of pretending to be polite. DGG (talk) 04:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed new section

We need a section which informs contributors that personal attacks are a known feature of the Wikipedia community, and that this policy can't be construed as any kind of statement that they won't be allowed to occur.Proabivouac 08:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they will never be "allowed", but there is little that can be done until they occur. Perhaps you intend that it should be indicated that this policy is reactive rather than proactive? LessHeard vanU 20:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This conflicts with WP:COI

Right up front, this policy states: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Isn't that in conflict with Wikipedia's "Conflict of Interest" policy? If content is good, it shouldn't matter who writes it, right? --Earthboat 16:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

NPA:External Links should be removed for the moment

Once the arbitration is concluded, the disputed section should be removed from the policy page. Maybe it would be a good policy, maybe it wouldn't-- but as of this moment, it clearly isn't policy-- i.e. it is highly disputed, and is not, in its current form, not supported by consensus. --Alecmconroy 01:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you had the chance to read my recent re-write? Privatemusings 01:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The sentence you added is true enough "Linking to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against Wikipedians is controversial, discouraged, and many editors consider it to be in violation of this policy." But the remainder of the section just reiterates BADSITES basically, and doesn't have consensus.

Not to debate what the policy should be here-- but whatever it should be, it doesn't seem like the current text truly has consensus. There's widespread argument, edit waring, and arbitration over the text-- it doesn't have consensus right now, it isn't part of Wikipedia policy, and we should get it off the page until there's some policy that DOES have consensus.

When a policy on external harassment does achieve consensus, it makes sense to summarize it here. But first you get consensus for a policy change, then you institute it / incorporate it in pages that are listed as Policy. Inserting something that doesn't yet have consensus and then edit warring over it-- that's not the way to do it.

Granted, while arbcom is in progress, it makes sense to freeze the page. But I think we can safely predict that the arbcom decision isn't going to be one which makes this text have consensus. On the other hand, maybe BADLINKS will have achieved consensus by then, in which case we can just change the text here accordingly. --Alecmconroy 03:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Per the above, i've removed the section. Primairly my motivation is to encourage participation in, and discussion of, the new policy page. Privatemusings 08:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this removal. The content has been there for a long time and there has been little input or discussion about this removal. I'm going to restore the material pending a more significant consensus to remove it. Its presence should not affect the ongoing drafting at Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment, and if this material is superceded by another policy then obviously it will be removed at that time. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you know where consensus was formed to add the section in the first place? Could you link it for us? Not trying to be contrary, I'm actually unaware. Picaroon (t) 19:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not aware offhand. But I do see that the text has been here since April. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I won't revert because any escalation is a bad thing, but I would note that consensus is necessary for inclusion, not the other way around. Also, I'd like to encourage as much participation as possible in the policy proposal which renders this passage redundant. Privatemusings 21:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

purely on logic if there is no agreement on whether there is consensus for this policy, then there is obviously no consensus for it. It should be removed. Unless perhaps someone can show that there was consensus for it when it was added. As i remember, it was challenged from the first. DGG (talk) 03:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Look at the talk page and you can find debate from the very beginning. Just look at the edit history and you can find many removals even at the very beginning. [17][18] The NPA#EL proposal policy just hasn't achieved consensus as of this time. After the arbcom case is concluded, one of the first orders of businesses would be to restore NPA text to only the parts that have consensus, and to start over trying to build consensus for a policy about the links of this kind. --Alecmconroy 04:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If other editors agree with me that this section would be better omitted for the time being, then I would encourage them to remove it. I would also recommend that all editors here stick to 1RR as a good way of ensuring calm debate rather than any warring. Privatemusings 04:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not approipriate for a couple of editors to question a policy and remove a big chunk a day later. This material has been inthe polcy since April and should not be removed lightly. If there's no consensus for this then I don't see how there will be a consensus for Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment. If folks want to re-write this policy then they should do so properly, by soliciting opinions at the Village Pump, or an RfC. This is virtually a "stealth" deletion, made with little discussion and based on a little input. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the evidence that this has consensus, or has ever had consensus? So far, all you've offered is that the edit-warring over this text has been going on since April. That the dispute has been longstanding is not evidence that the dispute does not exist.

It's fine to say it should be policy-- as you well know, there's lots and lots of debate over this. But the debate DOES exist-- it's just not credible to claim that there's no major debate or controversy over this section. The section isn't just disputed, it's highly disputed. --Alecmconroy 05:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll make the ridiculous point that vandalism often stays in articles for a very long time, but that doesn't mean it should be there. Another way to put this is "Just because it remains doesn't make it valid." This debate has been somewhat of a war of attrition from the start and I've nearly gave up arguing or questioning any position.

I can only speak for myself in saying that I was naive enough not to edit war over it and hoped that discussion would take place on talk. Currently, I'm not sure if I am still that idealistic or just fed up with it. I participated in some of the discussion that took place and followed nearly all of it; I would say that this does not have consensus. As a matter of fact, many that edit warred over it got to a point where they hardly participated in talk page discussion. MONGO was commendable in that he at least had the courtesy to comment here and not ignore it completely. When I asked about the lack of discussion (when making substantial changes to this section), I was told that, among other reasons, that people aren't participating to protect themselves from harassment and that it is foolish to debate anyway because "attack sites cannot be tolerated" (my paraphrase, the response I got from MONGO is here) I'd say that if points are questioned over and over again by a substantial amount of editors there was no consensus, but I didn't argue about it then and I probably wouldn't now. It's such an emotional issue that I've found it extremely difficult to have a productive discussion. Or maybe all things on Wikipedia are like this and I just haven't been around long enough to figure that out.  :-) daveh4h 06:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to changing policy. But if it's going to be changed, whether by addition or by omission, then let's have a fair discussion, with proper notification of the community. If we need to determine the consensus we can hold a survey. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so, we agree that a consensus is needed amend policy. You just added in a section entitled NPA#External Links. Where is your proof that that addition to the policy is supported by consensus? --Alecmconroy 08:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Policies are not edited in the same way as articles. There's a necessary presumption in favor of the status quo applies. It is disruptive to have editors remove long-standing policy text and then demand proof of a fresh consensus in order to re-insert what shoudn't have been removed to begin with. Please don't change policies without first eliciting community input first. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see where you're misunderstanding me. I'm not demanding proof of a fresh consensus-- I'll accept any proof that the text has reached consensus and is no longer particularly disputed. But it has never had consensus-- as best as I can tell, it hasn't even had a majority.

Put another way-- there is a portion of this page that seems to be unsupported by consensus. The evidence I can point to, in order to prove that portion of the policy is disputed, is multifold. I can show you BADSITES, which was defeated using essentially identical langauge. I can show you the Arbcom case, where many many many people have disputed this section. And I can show you the edits wars that have occured on this page over the dispute text, and I can show you the debate that has occured. And if none of that convinces you, I can point out that if a number of editors are having a dispute about whether or not there's a dispute-- that's pretty good evidence that there's a dispute.

NPA#EL IS disputed. It does not have consensus at this moment. It is not policy. Maybe it should be. Maybe someday it will. But as of today, it is not. --Alecmconroy 09:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

So to prove the point why don't you post some notices in relevant spots, like the Village Pump and the ongoing RfAr, saying that you believe there's no consensus for a policy prohibiting the harassment of editors and that you're intending to remove the text from WP:NPA. That seems like the logical and reasonable way to proceed with a major policy change. Though you contend that it isn't a policy, it's been there for the past six months. It's sensible to spend six days discussing its removal. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't help things much to describe the proposed removal in biased, emotional language like "no consensus for prohibiting harrassment of editors", any more than it would to use biased, emotional language in the other direction like "no support of repressive suppression of politically incorrect links". Part of the problem is that both sides are trying to frame the issue in highly loaded ways that prejudice the results, and I've been one of those doing it; it's unavoidable, I guess, when you're passionate about something. What's needed is a statement of the dispute in a calm, rational manner that can be brought up as a survey question to determine where the true consensus lies. *Dan T.* 12:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's the proposal here. Folks aren't proposing to alter this provision, but to delete it entirely, and without any community input. As for passion, considering your history of posting links to your essay at every opportunity I'd say you're the most passionate advocate involved in this matter. If folks here actaully support he measure they're drafting, Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment, then the best thing would be to further it towards being a policy that supercedes this one rather than working to delete this first. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent)We're making this far more complex then it needs to be. Forget, for a moment, that there's a new proposed policy, forget about the arbcom case, etc.

Let's just consider NPA#EL, right now. Does it have consensus or not?

If you think it DOES have consensus, what is your evidence? If you think it does NOT have consensus, then it should go.

--Alecmconroy 18:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Your initial comment that started this off was "Once the arbitration is concluded, the disputed section should be removed from the policy page." So you assert a linkage between the ongoing ArbCom case and this policy. As it happens, the ArbCom case has not concluded so your own deadline hasn't even been met yet. Regarding finding consensus for an exiting polcy, can you prove there's a consensus for WP:NPA? It's not so easy to go back after months or years and determine what was what. The fact that the text was in the policy following a long discussion indicates that there was a de facto consensus to retain it. What's clear today is that there was no effort to inform the community of a plan to alter a core policy, and the deleton was made less than a day later after it was mentioned. A deletion is a change to a policy and shouldn't be made without reasonable notice and discussion. Is there a problem with letting the community know that there's a plan to remove all prohibitions on linking to harassment? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"Can you prove there's a consensus for WP:NPA" Sure I can. For one, nobody's disputing it-- whereas NPA#EL has been disputed by lots and lots of people in lots and lots of venues (as, of course, you well know). If you check the archives, you'll find ample discussion in support of it, along with a poll that had vast support for making NPA policy. In contrast, NPA#EL has no such poll or consensus in discussion, and when a functionally-equivalent policy was proposed at BADSITES, it was rejected.

There's no such thing as a "de facto consensus". There is no "home base" or "statue of limitations" where if you can just edit-war long enough, something becomes policy. Ya really do have to have consensus.

If you feel like this has just all been sprung on you out of the blue, then feel free to take a few days to try to generate consensus. As long as the arbcom case is in progress, I don't feel an overwhelming need to press the issue, just out of courtesy. But if you are going to argue that this section is supported by consensus, you should go about demonstrating such a consensus now. Personally, I think there's been ample discussion about this over the past few year that we all know it's highly disputed-- but if you feel a few more days will change that, have a few more days, after which you should be prepared to demonstrate a consensus or accept its removal.

Having looked over the whole issue, I can no evidence that NPA#EL is supported by consensus, nor have you offered any. (Nor have you even overtly asserted that it is, indeed, supported by consensus.) If I'm correct and the section isn't supported by consensus, then it is coming out-- it's only a question of when. --Alecmconroy 23:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact that something sat in policy for months is not evidence of a de facto consensus - it's evidence that the pro BADSITES group won the war of attrition. Being the last one standing isn't the same as having convinced everyone to agree with you.

On the other hand, there's no need to remove the section either, as it's doing no harm. I would suspect anybody trying to remove or re-add the section of silliness. As I've said from the start, the inclusion or exclusion of that paragraph doesn't affect policy one bit. Its inclusion doesn't protect anyone, nor harm anyone, nor does its exclusion protect or harm anyone.

Especially in its most recent form, what does it matter? It's practically content-free. What's at stake here, for those who would remove it? How about for those who would keep it? What do we imagine we're arguing over? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

For me, the main concern is that we are trying to adopt a policy that might have consensus. Doing so will be much easier if it's clear that there currently is no policy whatsoever on this-- not two conflicting policies, nor one currently adopted policy and one proposed change to that policy.

Additionally, by just allowing the text to sit here in the policy page, that only serves to validate it. Eventually, we see people like Will arguing that it's mere presence on the page is proof that it is, in fact, policy. There's no emergency hurry, but this sort of policy making needs to stop-- edit warring on an existing policy page when a proposed new policy is rejected. It's gone on since April, which I think is more than enough indulgence. --Alecmconroy 00:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Policy is what it is. There should be no question that policy includes anything unreasonable, nor any doubt that it includes whatever is reasonable. The existence of a paragraph on WP:NPA shouldn't get in the way of developing an independent policy, but such policy will be much better if it's simply a description of existing good practice. Most if not all of the dispute here comes from people believing in word-magic that doesn't really exist.

I'm curious as to what exactly is disputed about the paragraph in there now. It reads to me like a description of common-sense... so what's the problem? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the current version is certainly far closer to something that could be supported by consensus than earlier texts that have been here. But it's still seems to imply that merely insertingo otherwise appropriate links to controversial sites is a violation of NPA.

The word magic is a useful point, and I wouldn't be inclined to stress over it if the NPA#EL section hadn't already caused substantial disruption. So, for example, not to pick on Will, but in the past, he and other editors have felt comfortable purging dozens of links based on NPA#EL, then edit warring over the deletions. Substantial disruption over multiple incidents-- the people who run the website he purged are very upset by the whole thing. He hasn't been warned for his past actions, he hasn't promised not to repeat the behavior in the future, and the existence of the NPA#EL fauxpolicy is why.

Now, that one site isn't just the issue. The past is the past, but the future is the issue. We need to get some sort of a consensus on the whole thing, and the very first step to that is recognizing that NPA#EL does not itself have consensus in its present form-- and more than that, recognizing the inappropriatenss of forming new policies just by edit-warring existing policy pages. Until we get that cleared up, nothing else will ever get solved, I would think. --Alecmconroy 00:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The first step in creating a survey is deciding on the phrasing of the question. I propose: "Shall we delete Wikipedia:No personal attacks#External links?" Is that accptable? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

A survey would be one way to do things-- so long as we're clear that something NEEDS consensus to be policy, and proposed policies which do not have clear consensus either way are NOT policy. Ultimately, I don't really think a full-fledged survey is necessary-- it's most clear from all the discussion at BADSITES and Arbcom that the attack sites policies embodied by the earlier NPA#EL didn't have consensus.

If you would want another survey, I'd suggest proposing the text you want to reside here, and then seeing how that goes. "Should we delete" might be a little problematic, since most people feel we should eventually get SOME sort of policy on this. A nice straightforward "I propose X, what do you think" would work though.

Alternatively, we could just put something totally uncontroversial up saying that the applicability of NPA to articles has been a much-discussed subject, no clear consensus has emerged yet, and then directing people to BADSITES and the ARBCOM case for a more thorough discussion. --Alecmconroy 02:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Id assumed we'd mention the text in the survey. I'll post a survey request tomorrow and post notices in relevant pages. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it, here beith my reasoning: as worded the section means nothing. "Some people think it's against this policy" shouldn't be in a policy page; something either is against policy per community consensus or it's not. If there's not significant support to have it stated outright that "this is bad and you will be blocked", as is clear here and on a number of pages, it shouldn't be in there at all. The material was also very open-ended regarding what an attack site is. I think the link to the developing policy should stay though, as that page is sure to be more explicit on defining attack sites.

Actually, "some people think it's against this policy" is great in a policy page. We strive for our policies to be descriptive as opposed to prescriptive, and indicating what people think is a fine way to be descriptive. "You will be blocked," is inappropriate in a policy page. "People have been blocked," is much better. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no. How would you like to walk around a town where "some policemen think it's illegal to jaywalk"? What is some people's opinion belong in a WP:ESSAY not in a WP:Policy statement. We don't allow this sort of WP:Weaseling in articles because we know it's problematic. That goes doubly for policy. -- 67.98.206.2 17:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia policies are not laws, and should not be thought of as laws. I'm not suggesting putting opinion into policy. I'm suggesting putting in the factual observation that people have, at times, been blocked for certain behaviors. Others have not been blocked for similar behavior, therefore it would be inaccurate to claim that anyone using links in a certain way will be blocked.

As for walking around a town where some policemen think it's illegal to jaywalk, I do it every day. Yesterday, I jaywalked right in front of a cop. He didn't care. Neither Wikipedia nor life is a formal system. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the concern about "some people think" language is that, although true, it sort of circumvents the consensus process. What's needed is to reach some agreement on the basic principles about the subject. Is it okay to insert links for the purposes of harassing people? Is it okay to insert an otherwise appropriate links? etc. Simply saying "Some people think" leads to unending disagreement and disruption among people who both feel they're doing their best to implement the policy.

I would feel much better with a statement "Some people think the NPA policy_should_ forbid links..."-- i.e. saying "we don't have a consensus for this yet, but there is a group of people who want there to be one". --Alecmconroy 01:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Though I'm disappointed that someone charged with teaching the young would jaywalk, GTBacchus otherwise makes a lot of sense. Still, a re-write to consider the intentions of would-be linkers would be useful I think. I'm gonna have a go at it. Milto LOL pia 02:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

So rewritten. Comments? One thing I'll disagree with GT on is the appropriateness of the wording before, regarding "some people think it's in violation of this policy" - maybe would "some people consider it to be an attack" be better? Then it sounds like the opinion on the posting of such links is ambiguous rather than the policy... I wish I could word that better. Anyway, how do people feel on the new version? Milto LOL pia 02:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Big improvement. I think (hope)the text that currently is up as of right this moment is completely non-controversial, in the sense that-- everyone can agree that the sentences it says are true. Some people do consider links to be attacks, posting a link with intent to harass is prohibited, people should try not to post such links if they can help it,etc. I _think_ all those points are undisputed, right?

Obviously, the text itself is going to be a little controversial, since some editors would prefer a text that goes beyond this. But, keeping in mind that some people will want more statements-- 'can we agree that the statements in this version are noncontroversial??? '--Alecmconroy 03:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Meatpuppets

I've got a random question: is suggesting that two people are meatpuppets considered a personal attack? Ksy92003(talk) 23:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Depends on whether they're in or out of favor with the ruling clique. *Dan T.* 00:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean? For example, the comment that I'm referring to, one that I left and Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs) told me via e-mail (he's currently blocked) that it was, reads as follows:

I didn't do a thing wrong here, and you were the first to make a comment not related to the topic, so I haven't a clue why you're directing all the blame at me. Maybe it's because you and Chris are very good buddies and always side with each other and you want to defend him by making false accusations towards me, or at least that's what it seems like to me.

Ksy92003(talk) 00:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Calling another user a sockpuppet, meatpuppet, vandal, etc.. is acceptable and is not a personal attack if you have solid evidence for your allegation. Bandying those words around without basis may or may not technically be a personal attack, but it should be avoided regardless as it just poisons the atmosphere. Picaroon (t) 01:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

In this situation, I didn't have any solid evidence. All I did was raise the suggestion based on the fact that, by Chris' own admissions, he has conversed with Pats1 greatly via AIM, especially during times of Chrisjnelson blocks, as he has a couple times asked to talk to him via AIM when he was blocked, and I thought that the possibility existed. I didn't accuse them of being meatpuppets, and thusly, I didn't think that it was wrong. Ksy92003(talk) 03:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC: External links to harassment

Shall we delete Wikipedia:No personal attacks#External links, the current prohibition on external links to off-site harassment that is the subject of an ongoing ArbCom case? 22:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Previous version:

• Links to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against Wikipedians are not permitted, and should be removed. Such removals are not subject to the three-revert rule, though administrators may disagree over whether or not a particular link qualifies for this exemption. Attacking, harassing, or violating the privacy of any Wikipedian through the posting of external links is not permitted, and those who do so deliberately or repeatedly may be blocked. As with personal attacks, extreme cases of harassment by way of external links can be grounds for banning.

BenB4 version:

• 'Linking to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against Wikipedians is controversial, discouraged, and many editors consider it to be in violation of this policy. Many editors agree that removal of such links is not subject to the three-revert rule, though they may disagree over whether or not a particular link qualifies for this exemption

Miltopia version:

Linking to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against Wikipedians is discouraged, and is considered an attack by some Wikipedians. Editors may disagree over whether or not a particular link qualifies as a link to off-site harassment. Posting such a link with intent to insult or otherwise attack an editor is prohibited. As a matter of courtesy, editors should consider refraining from even good faith linking to such sites unless such a link is necessary to further discussion of an encyclopedic issue or is used as a source in an article. As with personal attacks, extreme cases of harassment by way of external links can be grounds for banning.

When other editors link to sites that may be inappropriate on these grounds, remember to consider the intentions of that editor above all. Appropriately assuming good faith can prevent needless escalation of a dispute, or other problems caused by misunderstandings.

Views in favor of retaining the prohibition on linking to external harassment

• There is widespread support for limiting the harassment of Wikipedia editors. Linking to off-site harassment is an extension of making on-site personal attacks. The current ArbCom case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites, finds that there is support for a policy which prohibits such links. While a potential replacement policy is being drafted at Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment, that proposal is not mature and has not been approved. Until a better policy is approved, we should retain the current prohibition on linking to external harassment. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Views in favor of deleting the prohibition on linking to external harassment

• Any sort of link ban, however worded, has been used as an invitation to overreaction on the part of some editors and admins, and the 3RR exception is an invitation for edit warring. The milder wording above is unobjectionable to me on its face, but doesn't seem to be able to stick before somebody insists on putting "more teeth" into it. Some sort of principle against using links for the purpose of harrassing somebody is fine (we don't want harrassment anywhere, any way... on a boat, with a goat, here, there, anywhere, or with a link), but it seems impossible to express this as part of policy without it being extended and misinterpreted in all sorts of ways that suppress legitimate commentary and criticism, so we're best off without any such explicit provision. Genuine, serious harrassment can always be dealt with no matter what the policy says. *Dan T.* 23:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Absoloutely, as per Dan's reasoning. Linking to a personal attack in the form of a personal attack is still just that, an attack which fits perfectly well with the rest of NPA without having to clearly assert it. It is a logical extension of the policy. However as soon as it is inserted into the policy, it gets hijacked for purposes that lack widespread community support (see WP:BADSITES) and are not logically part of a policy on personal attacks. We are better off without it. Viridae^Talk 07:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

None of the above

• The principle that editors shouldn't harass each other by posting links either is good, but the implementation is questionable. Using a paragraph that starts with equivocation like "many editors agree" but ends with immunity to the three-revert-rule and banning? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

As the editor who tweaked the more prescriptive text into the form above, I'm happy enough that it's clear about the status quo. My main priority would be to encourage all editors over to the policy proposal page, and I also mildly agree with the perspective that because of the work there, this para should be removed as redundant.

That's a firm 'don't really mind' then. Privatemusings 22:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: I've changed the text above to what was there before the undiscussed changes on October 1 [19], which I'd missed. This may change the views of you or AnonEMouse. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• The text makes it appear that linking to such a site at anytime, anyplace is a banning offense. The text should make it clear that linking to such a site for the purpose of engaging in a personal attack against another Wikipedian is prohibited and that linking to sites, any sites, for article content purposes, or in debates on the merit of such a site, doesn't constitute a personal attack. Linking to controversial sites in article space would be subject to the Reliable Source, Notability, and other content policies. Cla68 23:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This process, whilst no doubt intended to usefully address the matter in hand, could unfortunately be prone to causing productive debate to fork. I'd encourage editors to also contribute at the arbitration case, and at the policy proposal page. Privatemusings 23:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

A personal attack is a personal attack. The use of links (internal or external) to make a personal attack do not change that simple statement. There has to be a target of the personal attack for a link to be a personal attack. Making a personal attack using links is no different than making a personal attack using one's own words. The penalty to an editor making a personal attack using a link should be absolutely no different than the penalty for making the personal attack using one's own words. A link to material in some archive or talk page or project page or article unrelated to the supposed target of the personal attack is NOT a personal attack; removal of links from those areas should be under the auspices of WP:EL and this policy should have no comment on such link removals. I would propose a single sentence in the list of types of personal attacks that says that using links (internal or external) to make a personal attack is unacceptable. Risker 23:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

In terms of policy, I so far agree with the general shape of the proposed new policy, Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment. In terms of the text on this page-- the current text never went through the consensus-getting process-- it's just been editwarred to the point of attrition. It doesn't have consensus, it is highly disputed, it is not policy. It should be removed and replaced with something completely un-objectionable (like Risker's text), or a link to other policy proposals, or a summary of a policy that has achieved consensus (if one exists). --Alecmconroy 01:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)