Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks

Archives
Archive 1 Poll 2004 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 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

Proposal by Sophia

Wikipedia supports an editor's right to remain anonymous. All links to sites that publish, or encourage others to publish, personal information of wikipedians who have chosen to edit anonymously, will be removed. Such removals are not covered by the three-revert rule and repeated posting of such links may result in a temporary or, in extreme cases, an indefinite block.

• This is a suggestion for a simple and limited addition to the policy. Hopefully it addresses the issues with the subjectiveness of the word "attack" and also makes it clear that this is not about suppressing criticism, but is about the privacy and security of editors who choose to edit anonymously. Thoughts appreciated. Sophia 07:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I support this proposal. Bad-mouthin can be annyoing but in the end an editor can simply shrug it off. Giving away personal information (true or faint) is of a different kind. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I like it very much, except that I'd change permanent ban to indefinite block. Not all blocked editors are banned, and I'd say there are numerous cases of admins indefblocking some newly-created account for posting someone's name, but such users are not added to the Wikipedia:List of banned users. Thanks, Sophia. ElinorD (talk) 07:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support per ElinorD - great job, Sophia. KillerChihuahua^?!? 07:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Still with the "sites" verbiage. Get off that horse already. SchmuckyTheCat 08:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Looks good to me...concise and to the point.--MONGO 10:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Completely unacceptable, just like all the other versions with "...all sites that..." language. Total bans against entire sites muist be subject to case-by-case community discussion. In fact, this is really no different than several of teh proposals above, excapt that it makes celarer what they meant by the misleading term "attack". DES ^(talk) 13:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• That works for me. It's basically what I do now, and plan to continue. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• I can't support a blanket ban on linking to certain sites without regards to context. Frise 16:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong support. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I disagree that there is a need for context to apply this. The context is all there: 'Wikipedia supports an editor's right to remain anonymous.. What more context do we need? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• You aren't supposed to make policy by repeatedly trying the same addition until people get tired of it and let you put it in. Banning links to sites has no consensus. Banning links to sites 100% of the time without regard to context or unusual situations, and codifying that into the policy, especially has no consensus. Ken Arromdee 13:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why the default position is that these links are allowed. If there really is no consensus then the default should be to safeguard the privacy of Wikipedians by banning the links. Sophia 15:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Because the default position is that links are allowed. We are creating a special case rule for "these links" and special case rules need to be as tight as possible. SchmuckyTheCat 16:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how my proposed addition can be any tighter without naming links. Sophia 16:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

By not using the word "sites". Note that a policy that included a blacklist of specific sites would (besides beign counterproductive) be no more accpetable, absent a broad-based consensus discussion about the merits of each such site, IMO. I fully agree with Ken Arromdee's and SchmuckyTheCat's comments immediately above: the default is and should be that links are alowwed unless the re is good reason to disallow them, and policy proposals once firmly rejected 9as the idea of broad site bans has been, IMO) should not keep forum shopping. DES ^(talk) 17:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I missed this discussion the first time around - I'm not forum shopping any more than I would suggest that you are promoting stalking (AGF and all that). No consensus means the community is in two minds - not that one group has effectively defended the status quo and won. I'd still love to know what the encylopedia loses by not linking to grudge blog sites. Genuine criticism is fair and healthy - I wish balanced discussions could take place more often on Wikipedia without NPA being thrown around. I am firmly against the word "attack" as it is so subjective but this is a very limited situation. I genuinely do not understand why we would link to sites that indulge in this sort of harassment in the same way that sites that host child pornography are not linked even if there are pages that have content that is not illegal. Sophia 18:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What do we lose? We lose freedom of information. We gain instruction creep, which is to be avoided. We gain more arguments about what is and is not an acceptable site, which leads to more anger and disrespect and more "cliques". We lose editor hours spent bickering with each other instead of writing articles. SchmuckyTheCat 18:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh - we get to the heart of the problem - freedom of information. So you would advocate linking to sites that host illegal content such as child pornography or torture, as long as the pages actually linked were OK? As for its impact on mainspace - anonymity is what will enable proper NPOV articles to be written for heated subjects such as abortion. Sophia 19:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Look, those people whose privacy is most affected by this debate are probably better off without a "No links to any sites that do this kind of thing" sign in a prominent policy page. There is a stark difference between any sense of satisfaction attained from winning this debate and the actual security of anyone whose privacy may be affected by these sites.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 20:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Suppose, say, the New York Times had a picture that was ruled by a court to be child pornography. Would you advocate forever banning all links to the New York Times? I should hope not. What if instead someone wanted to link to a newspaper with Abu Gharib pictures, depicting illegal torture? What about Youtube, which contains illegal material (copyright violations) but where we might want to link to other pages that are not illegal? What about the links in DeCSS? Ken Arromdee 21:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I was being extreme to make the point that there are actually rules despite what some think and that all I am asking is that we cover "outing sites" as well. As for your examples - Youtube pretty much fails as an RS anyway and the New York Times would remove and never publish again anything that the courts deemed illegal be it child pornography or torture. Unfortunately WP:BEANS covers what else I would like to say so e-mail me if you are genuinely interested. Some of the DeCSS links are dodgy but that is a matter for the Foundation to deal with - I am not a copyright expert. I'll counter with asking how you would feel if a site "outed" a political activist in a country where their safety was in doubt? We can't stop it but we don't have to link to it or make it easy to find. Sophia 21:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If you can seriously make the statement "I was being extreme to make the point that...", you need to follow more of the discussion.

The problem is that there are people who *literally* want rules that are extreme as you suggest, with no exceptions whatsoever, under any circumstances. They are not being extreme as exaggerations to make a point, they are extreme for real. If you, in fact, are exaggerating to make a point, it's going to be impossible to tell you from them.

In fact, I still can't tell your stance on this. Are you one of those people who wants no links to attack sites *under any circumstances*, no matter how unusual, or do you think that links to attack sites are generally unwise, but there may be exceptions? Ken Arromdee 08:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have already made this observation to a comment elsewhere; the likelihood of an en-WP contributors identity being uncovered and having that contributor at risk from their culture/nation is so slight that it cannot be used as a legitimate reason to amend en-WP policy. Other language WP's contributors may not be so fortunate. This is not to decry the reality of the fear of harassment, hostility, embarrasment from groups or individuals within English speaking cultures should identities be uncovered. LessHeard vanU 22:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"'the likelihood of an en-WP contributors identity being uncovered and having that contributor at risk from their culture/nation is so slight" - You can't know which country an English language editor is in, nor say what threats they do or do not face. Andy Mabbett 22:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This is getting way off track. It's implausible to maintain that someone's identity, revealed on another site, is in any way protected simply because there isn't a link to it from WIkipedia. Mangoe 03:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It certainly won't give you full protection but it does give some. I'm sure you wouldn't argue that because a locked door and a burglar alarm don't give full protection against determined burglars we shouldn't bother to lock front doors or have alarms? There could be a certain individual who is mentally disturbed and abusive. He edits Wikipedia and is blocked for his abusive behaviour. At the height of his resentment, he looks at the user and talk pages of the admin who has just blocked him. Five seconds before that, a vandal has blanked that admin's page, replacing it with a link to an "outing" site that identifies the admin with workplace details, or a well-meaning but misguided editor has posted the link to the admin's talk page with a note saying "I thought I should let you know that this site is about you." The mentally-disturbed abuser now has the admin's details, and starts phoning their boss, making complaints, and causing embarrassment to the admin, even though the admin hadn't done anything wrong in blocking him. (I'm sure most editors don't really want to have to explain to their bosses why they're getting dozens of harassing calls.) Yes, determined stalkers will find out who you are if that information is on the web. But one particular aggressive spiteful nutcase, whom you happen to have blocked or reverted, might not think of going to all that trouble, but might still make bad use of information that he just happened to find on Wikipedia. ElinorD (talk) 05:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

response to Andy Mabbutt; You are right, it cannot be "known", but the likelihood is very slight. A citizen of a non English speaking nation, editing the en-Wikipedia on a subject which is a sensitive matter for their culture, being exposed on a non-Wiki (English language) site and then being discovered by an authority from the non-English speaking nation... there are far too many variables to justify an extension of policy on that basis. My other assumption is that the English speaking cultures are not prone to execute citizens for holding opinions outside of the excepted norms. LessHeard vanU 13:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

(restore indent) To me, it seems that there is no real difference in protection with either option that is being debated here... this debate isn't about a lock and a elaborate alarm system we could install, but about whether or not we should put up what amounts to a sticker on a glass window that says, essentially, "don't break this." While all WP policies effectually amount to that, absolutely nothing would change in WP's capacity to arrest harassment or stalking as a result of either side "prevailing" in this debate. No difference in real protection is at stake, except that admonitions against links to off-site attacks in policy pages could set off any number of randomly curious new Wikipedians and others blocked per NPA violations to go searching for them... which is of no consequence to me, so suit yourself.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 04:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I really think he's right. If we talk about "sites that host material devoted to revealing the true identities of Wikipedians" in this policy, then we clue in a lot of people who would otherwise have not known that such sites exist. A certain percentage of those people are going to go looking for them, and a certain percentage of those people will be creeps whom you don't want to direct to a site that hosts personal information about Wikipedians.

It's better to recognize that of course, current policy allows us to speedily quash any kind of privacy violating harassment quickly, decisively, and without need for red tape. There are people walking around here who you don't want putting beans in their noses. Let's allow them to remain oblivious. The best defense, in this case, is silence.

A good idea would be to do something to let people know how they can get help without attracting undue attention. That would be a much more effective protection than trying to edit policy to cover something explicitly that it has always covered discreetly, as well it should. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm still fishing for comments on a guideline proposal: WP:PARANOIA, that addresses how to respond to personal security issues with minimal further exposure to actual victims on WP. —ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 05:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal by DES

Here is a modified version of Sophia's proposal, perhaps we can all agree on this.

Wikipedia supports an editor's right to remain anonymous. Links to web pages on which personal identifing information of wikipedia editors is published against the will of those editors should be removed. Such removals are not covered by the three-revert rule and repeated posting of such links may result in a temporary or, in extreme cases, an indefinite block. Links to sites that host such pages, or that encourage others to publish such information, are discouraged. If such links apparently exist for the primary purpose of publicizing the private information, they should be removed. Only if a reasonable justification is made why such links serve the goals of the Wikiopedia project should they remain in place. If a site hosting such information has an article on wikipedia, or is more than trivially mentioned in an article, a single link to the main page of that site would be appropriate from such an article.

• It seems to me that this draws a good line between legitimate and illegitimate links. Can anyone suggest improved wording? what are your thoughts? DES ^(talk) 13:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• I agree. Links to pages containing attack material to be removed without incurring 3RR, allowance to link to site mainpages if absolutely necessary for purpose of article. Covers all concerns, I would hazard. LessHeard vanU 14:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• No way. We end up in one of those "let's discuss this on every WP noticeboard we've got until everyone who didn't know where the information was now does" situations. Sites that host this stuff need taking off the web let alone banning from wikipedia. We don't control the web but we can define what is unacceptable to us and send a clear message to these people who are basically stalkers. Sophia 16:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • • I can easily define what is acceptable to me, and you can easily define what is acceptable to you. What is difficult is reconciling the two, and all the other viewpoints between and beyond. Unless it is simply a blanket ban for all sites containing attack pages, which gives nothing to work with, is there a wording you would consider appropriate?LessHeard vanU 22:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

See above - this is not about "attacks" but is about editor security. Call me any name you want on a web page but don't print personal information as I wish to be anonymous. I don't see how more simple this can get. We have to ban whole sites that indulge in this bullying otherwise we get the silly situation where they can have links from their front page to the material but as the personal information is not actually on that page it then becomes OK to link to it. Freedom of information is not about doing whatever you feel like with no regard to the consequences. Personal security does trump all else. Sophia 23:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I've partly answered this below in my response to ElinorD. As far as consequences are concerned we take risks as soon as we go online. At what point does the attempt to mitigate the risk render the process unworkable, or (and excuse me if this sounds blunt, as it is not intended to be) when protecting the vulnerable disallows access for the wider community? You have the right to contribute without fear, and I have the right to contribute without constraint (or the fear of constraint). I am perfectly agreeable to having some of my freedom reduced to provide you with a degree of security, but perhaps not to the extent that my freedom is compromised. I know this sounds selfish, but it allows a majority to selfishly enjoy the benefits of WP while you need to be as vigilant as possible to reduce the risk to yourself. I wish I could find a way of squaring the circle, and I really do sympathise with you (having been trolled elsewhere), but there is risk to all aspects of life. All we can do is find something which gives most, if not all, most of what they want/deserve. LessHeard vanU 23:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Then go with one of the various versions above that bans links specifically to attackign content, and says nothing about other links. or just the first three sentances of the above. DES ^(talk) 16:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This proposal looks very reasonable to me. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Sophia. The last thing an anonymous editor whose details have been published on another website by some permabanned trolls wants is a nice community discussion where everyone looks at the link and clicks on it and finds out the name and address and workplace of the anonymous editor in order to have a nice community discussion at AN/I, where everyone feels included in the decision-making process, as to whether or not that particular link is appropriate for Wikipedia or not. As to allowing links to the sites that engage in and encourage these violations while banning links to certain individual pages on the site, well, the mother whose children are threatened as a result of some stalker getting hold of her details is not going to feel very much consoled by knowing that the stalker got to the details in two clicks from a Wikipedia page, but not in one click. ElinorD (talk) 22:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • When we discuss matters pertaining to attack pages/sites a troll is going to find their way to the subject matter, link or no link (and I too know how far trolls will go to find information), so the number of clicks is irrelevant. DES' suggested text disallows links to attack pages and only to the homepage when deemed necessary. Even the related article is likely to provide a troll with sufficient info to find the site in question. In the end there should be a balance between providing readers with verifiable information and the consequences of that information to the editorship. LessHeard vanU 23:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Indeed. I agree with LessHeard vanU, balance is needed. It is what I tried to provide above. In fact, once the info has been poste to the web at all, a dertmined troll will find it. And Sites such as Wikipedia Review, Wikipedia Watch, and Encyclopedia Dramatica are already well enough known that a determined troll doesn't need a link to check them. Even so, we should protect agaist invasions of privicy as far as we can without imparing the purposes of the project. That is why I propsoed that any link directly to a page with outing content should be removed without discussion, that any link whose obvious intent is to publicize such outing info should also be removed, where ever it goes, and that even links to sites that merely host outing info should be removed unless their retention is justified specifically. I think that is the limit of the protection we can give. Does anyone seriously dispute that if ther is an article about a site, a link to that site is proper, no matter what it hosts? Does anyone seriously doubt that a link that is specifically justified as "serve[ing] the goals of the Wikiopedia project" should be retained? If anyone doubts that any such link will be so justified, then fine. In that case no such link will be retained. Why prejudge the case if you aer sure of winnign anyway? and if you aren't so sare, then why insist on a "privicy above all" stance. The world is not free of risks, and we can't make it so, and should not pretend to do so. DES ^(talk) 23:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Privacy is important, it does not, however, trump all other considerations. There are legitimate reasons to link to some of these sites, and there could be more in future. The above bends over backward to make sure that only legit links are retained, and I expect that there will be few of these. it does not encourage or require "let's discuss this on every WP noticeboard we've got until everyone who didn't know where the information was now does". It puts the burden on the editor including any link to provide a justification, and supports removal in the absence of a reasonable justification. If we can't agree on that, then lets fall back to just the first three sentences that authorize removal of links to pages with "outing" info and omit the topic of links to outing sites entirely. Failing that, let's remove this entire topic from NPA and revert to the version before this issue came up. (17 april I think, but I may be incorrect) DES ^(talk) 22:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• There is no right to anonymity. There may, however, be a right to privacy. I think a lot of this conversation is neither here nor there. If some people concerned with privacy want to outlaw links to certain categorically defined websites on publicly viewed policy pages, hey, who are we to tell them this would be counter-productive to the purpose of A) not drawing further discrete attention to the sites or B) not drawing further discrete attention to Wikipedians whose personal information may or may not be exposed on these sites? They should proceed with their project of removing the offending links without trying to effect a policy change. This being the most pragmatic position, I fully support a revision to the pre-17 April version of NPA.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 08:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

There is definitely a right to privacy. Personally, I believe there is a right to anonymity, or ought to be. I think the in the wiki nature of wikipedia the actual identity of an editor is irrelevant. What matters is compliance with policies, including NOR and V and NPOV, not the credentials of an editor, for example. Sometimes I wonder whether having registered users at all - and I know, I registered a long time ago - is a good thing. Sometimes I prefer to see Wikipedia as the work of a host of URL's nothing more. The only qualification I can see is that these rights stop where ArbCom's needs to enforce a decision, especially in the case of sock-puppetry, begin. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see any absolute "right to anonymity"; there's a right to choose not to reveal any personal information, but not necessarily a right to suppress anybody who tries to find out who you really are. If that leads to actual physical stalking, then the local police should be brought in, but it's not really a matter for Wikipedia policy. *Dan T.* 01:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

There is most definitely a right to try to stop people from revealing who you are. And Wikipedia policy should most definitely try, as far as possible, to protect its volunteer editors from any avoidable risk of real life harassment resulting from Wikipedia involvement. The police will certainly get involved if a naked body is found in a field, but are unlikely to put a lot of money and resources into dealing with complaints from admins that vulnerable family members have received weird and creepy phonecalls. They will deal with very serious stalking cases, but not with the kind that can cause severe disruption to someone's life without clearly endangering the person's life. We hear cases in the news of men who had stalked and terrorised their victims for eight years before being prosecuted, so any argument that allows linking to sites that identify anonymous editors and then says, "Hey, if they're stalked as a result, the police can deal with it. Nothing to do with us" is misguided at best and irresponsible at worst. ElinorD (talk) 06:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Problem is, "outing attempts" and other personal security violations taking place "anywhere" are more likely to get widespread notice if we mention them explicitly in policy... keeping a tacit understanding of what to do would allow for the discrete response that actual personal security violations would seem to call for.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 04:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed a guideline on personal security practices

Please comment, critique, condemn, etc—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 07:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Revert plus tweaking by Serpent's Choice

My apologies for having been away from the discussion for a couple of days. Discussion seems to be moving toward reverting to the 17 April state. I'd like to suggest two small adjustments to that 17 April page, in a final effort to resolve this issue (hopefully) without further controversy.

1) Amend the next-to-last bullet point to read:

Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. This includes revealing or threatening to reveal sensitive personal information about Wikipedia editors. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time, which may be applied immediately by any administrator upon discovery. Admins applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Arbitration Committee of what they have done and why.

2) Amend the final bullet point:

Links or references to external sources fitting the commonly accepted threshold for a personal attack against a Wikipedia contributor, in a manner that incorporates the substance or purpose of that attack into Wikipedia.

The first addition clarifies the unacceptability of stalking/outing, which has been a major cited concern. The second codifies the core of the external attack policy. This wording does not explicitly take a stance regarding indirect linking. However, it also is not restricted to direct links; the sole determination is about the "substance or purpose" of the reference. Indirect attacks still convey the "purpose". Project-appropriate links to sites might not (although clearly the level of scrutiny for certain sites will be high, but that is an editorial determination beyond the scope of NPA).

How's it look, folks? Serpent's Choice 09:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The problem with this wording, in my opinion, is that you are specifying outcomes in this sentence: Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. But want about stalking, harassment, and all other negative consequences of such violations of privacy? And what is sensitive information and what is not? This wording leaves the policy too open for wikilawyering, IMO. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The "threats or actions ... any others" clause has been in NPA for, well, longer than I have been interacting with the policy page. To my knowledge, it has never presented a problem. Stalking and harassment are to a real extent covered in this already as "persecution by ... any others". I've suggested the next sentence be added solely to clarify that; it is intentional that "sensitive personal information" is left vague. Any effort to have an exhaustive inclusive list is prone to failure and presents other problems. I would hope that the community is able to trust that administrators (and other editors, for that matter!) are able to judge what is "sensitive" enough to present a problem. Serpent's Choice 02:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I would still be happier with this wording: Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to harassment, or political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

While I am beyond caring about the outcome at this point, "sensitive information" could be clarified to mean personally identifiable information. There already is a guideline against harassment, however, and prohibiting "actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to harassment" would seem to also preclude placing text in a policy page that suggests off-wiki sites dedicated to such purposes exist. Prohibiting links to them points them out...rather prominently I might add.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 04:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur with your proposal, Serpent's Choice. I suggest that we revert to the April 17th version, add the additional line, and remove the "disputed" section. Risker 03:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Boldness

It seems to be consensus that the 17 April version is preferred to what we have now, although there is still some legitimate discussion about the details of some wordings. In an effort to be BOLD and prevent this discussion from gradually drifting astray, I have made this reversion.

Additionally, I have included the copyediting change SlimVirgin introduced on 7 May and the modifications I had most recently suggested to the bulletpoint list (including Academy Leader's proposed clarification.

I am certain that there are still some finer points to work out in discussion, but I am hopeful that this action, while bold, reflects consensus and will help to resolve the wider concerns.

For my part, I might suggest the two sentences beginning with "Violation of this sort..." from the next-to-last bullet point might be better served in the Consequence of Personal Attacks section, both to keep similar topics together and to make the list more readable. However, I have not done this at the moment -- only so much boldness at once is a good thing, after all. Serpent's Choice 04:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

These changes have been largely reverted. I have opened dialogue with the editor performing the action in lieu of giving the impression of an edit war over this issue. Interested parties should feel free to comment in the discussion on this page, or to leave me a message if related directly to my role in this policy development. Serpent's Choice 04:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This is clearly the only thing that has anything close to agreement. SchmuckyTheCat 06:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Can't be penalised for off-wiki attacks

I disagree with the section that said, "While an editor may not be directly penalized for off-wiki attacks, such attacks may be taken as aggravating factors when any on-wiki policy violations are being considered." My understanding is that an editor may be penalised for off-wiki behaviour, if it is clearly something that would be considered harassment related to Wikipedia, and if it is confirmed that the person engaging in off-wiki harassment is the same person as the person being penalised on Wikipedia.

That doesn't mean that if two Wikipedians know each other in real life, and one of them is rude to the other in the pub, the rude editor will be blocked. And it doesn't mean that if someone creates an account on another site with the same username as a user here, and then posts inappropriate content about Wikipedians on that site, the editor here can be blocked. But it does mean that if it is confirmed that someone engaging in harassment of Wikipedians outside of Wikipedia, but in a way that relates to and results from their involvement with Wikipedia, is the same editor as an editor here, action can be taken.

I have read somewhere (not sure where the link is now) that someone was desysopped because after an admin had deleted a page where someone had posted personal information about an editor, he offered to look up the deleted edits and post them to an external site where trolls were dying to know why some versions of the page had been deleted and what was in them.

I'm not familiar with all the details of the case (it was before I joined), but if we take "attacks" in the broad meaning that DennyColt gave the word (which I don't agree with), and accept that violating someone's privacy is an "attack", then that is clearly a case someone was penalised someone for off-wiki attacks (or rather for showing themselves willing to engage in off-wiki attacks, as I don't think they actually posted the stuff). ElinorD (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Would amendment of that section to read "While an editor may not be directly penalized for exclusively off-wiki attacks,..." satisfy your concerns? To refer to your examples, once the attacks "relate[] to and result[] from ... Wikipedia" they are no longer "exclusively" off-wiki. Serpent's Choice 07:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC) Addendum: If this is an acceptable solution in principle, I'll also likely italicize the "exclusively" addition in an effort to clarify that it any on-wiki action voids the clause. Serpent's Choice 07:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't see a need to mention it at all. It's quite obvious that if I persuade a friend to join Wikipedia, and we later quarrel over my choice of hats, neither of us can be penalised on Wikipedia for the nasty things we say to each other. That's so obvious that we shouldn't have to mention it. On the other hand, putting it in without that clarification leaves open the possibility of a Wikipedian setting up a website to stalk other Wikipedians and thinking s/he can't be penalised. Then there'll be all sorts of wiki-lawyering about what exactly an "off-wiki attack" involves. ElinorD (talk) 07:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Giving another go at the 17 April compromise, with a few more tweaks, including this one. That clause has been striken entirely, and I actually agree that the section reads more tightly without it. Good call! Serpent's Choice 07:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Serpent, I liked your first suggestion for a compromise (if it was yours), but it's been changed since then, and now is very unclear. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I saw lots of people agree to this compromise, so I suggest we insert it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Links or references to off-site personal attacks against Wikipedians should be removed. The removal of such material is not subject to the three-revert rule. Additionally, ArbCom and the community have determined that some websites "engage[d] in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants ... should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances" even if the specific attacks are not linked directly. Repeated insertion of inappropriate links and references can result in a block. No explicit list of attack sites is maintained. Editors questioning whether a specific reference, link, or site might be subject to this policy should inquire at the administrator's noticeboard.

That is not a compromise. It still says that sites may not be linked to under any circumstances, with no allowance made for context or special cases of any kind.

Moreover, it brings back the idea that ArbCom determines policy, which it does not. Ken Arromdee 15:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest change the last few words to "should inquire by private email to a trusted administrator" or "to the arbitration committee", or something like that. Something that doesn't give extra publicity to such a site, enabling people to start googling for it. ElinorD (talk) 10:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It was mine, at one point. The problem that we are having, put simply, is that there is a significant group of editors who object to the "under any circumstances" clauses. Initially, I came to this discussion biased in favor of that construction (both due to the MONGO case and a firm belief that there would be no acceptable reason to link to sites that host attack pages). I have gradually been convinced that the an absolute prohibition is probably ill-served in policy, for a couple of reasons:

1. Having some sort of site ban requires a list, somewhere (just as there are lists of banned users). But unhelpful editors might consider this a tool, and it draws attention to the very things we don't want attention drawn to.
2. "Attack site" is going to be impossible to define. We're failing at the moment to keep a version of this policy static without kilobytes of debate and periodic reversions. Every attempt to define attack site has failed. How many attacks are needed to seal a site's fate, for example? Are exceptions made for rogue editors or for free-user contributions? How do sites clear themselves from the badlist?
3. Lacking explicit text to that end in the policy doesn't prevent the link removal, especially to ED, which is an ArbCom enforcement matter (although I believe that is also blocked via the blacklist).
4. Despite the mixed opinions of appeals to ArbCom, Matt Brown thinks that existing policy was sufficient for enforcement without an explicit policy supporting site bans. Given that the 17 April version was (basically) the "existing policy" he referred to, I cannot justify using an ArbCom ruling (MONGO) to change policy wordings when the very Arbitors say it isn't needed...

Slim, Elinor, I'd appreciate your input. Serpent's Choice 10:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverting a non-abusive edit which has an abusive edit summary

An anon edited this policy page with a very foul and abusive edit summary. It showed up on my watchlist. It seemed inconceivable that such an edit would not have been vandalism. I pressed undo, and actually saved the undo without waiting to see the content of the edit. I then saw that the anon's edit had simply reverted to Serpent's Choice, making my revert a content revert rather than a vandalism revert.

I'm nowhere near 3RR, but with edit summaries that very very strongly indicate vandalism, I think I would nearly always revert first and look second. In any case, I don't intend to self revert now, because since I prefer SlimVirgin's version, I think it would be a bit silly to revert it, even though I hadn't planned on reverting to it. ElinorD (talk) 10:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I've given the user a strong warning. One more stunt like that and it's blocking-time. (Er, no, not referring to Elinor.) Bishonen | talk 10:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Revert war again.

Can we please stop revert warring and edit warring on the policy page, and continue discussion on the talk page instead? DES ^(talk) 16:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I've requested page protection and am now running away. My the last reverter win! -- Kendrick7^talk 00:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

recent changes

The following text has been added to the policy page recently: The ArbCom has ruled that "[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," [2] and that "[l]inks 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."

I think it is clear from the discussion above that there is NOT consensu for this insertion. Note that 1) The arbcom does not make policy, and 2) other arbcom statements (which i will find the link to if anyoen needs it) have siad that the above is not to be taken as a general precedant. Is ther any reason that the above text should not be removed forthwith and in toto? DES ^(talk) 16:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, I propose returning to this version until there is a consensu for a further change one way or another. DES ^(talk) 16:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus to revert back to that version either. The arbcom fndings in that case have been used and cited for reasons to exclude attacks on our editors...we my as well have the obvious made policy since we already do it anyway. Having it spelled out seems to be a necessary "evil".--MONGO 19:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That version had consensus in mid april, before the edit warring stsrted here. It also had the support of several editors on 'both sides" of the dispute above, if I am readign the discussion corretly. it did not have full consensus, no. but it is a) the nearest thing to a compromise that I see to date (if it is not your prefered version, neither is it mine), and b) the stable version from before the stsrt of this debate. Therefore it seems a reasonable place to return to as a holdign position, pending a broader consensus on the page. otherwise, thre is just as much justification for me or anotehr editor to revert or edit to a preffered version, since the current version was changed to in the celr absence of consensus, while discussion was underway. Not that unlike some, I am discussing my intentiosn prior top editing the policy page, and I am proposing a comproimise version as a temporary measure, not simply moving to my prefered version (which obviously does not have broad consensus either, at this time). DES ^(talk) 21:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The April 17th version, with the one-sentence add by Serpent's Choice, was entirely appropriate and addresses the issues without cutting off Wikipedia's nose to spite its face. Frankly, this whole ArbCom addition is inappropriate - it was a finding, not a remedy, that is being quoted; and ArbCom reversed itself at the next opportunity. ArbCom does not make policy, its role is to interpret it; and they have not been consistent in their interpretation. In respect of this, I have re-added the disputed tag to that section of the policy, and also added the link to the reversal. If one ArbCom ruling is quoted, then both should be. Risker 04:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Seeing the support of two editors, and no only one editor's expressed opposition, in close to two days after my annouced intention, plus the support of a number of editors for the April 17 version previously, I am about to make the revert. DES ^(talk) 14:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I support this as well. Frise 15:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I oppose. I think a lot of editors have been burned out by the endless discussion, which is why you don't "see" any opposition. The version to which you reverted is neither "stable" not is it "consensus."--Mantanmoreland 16:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I also oppose, but have been rather busy lately. I notice that the revert reinstated the false claim that "an editor may not be directly penalized for off-wiki attacks", although I had explained above that that is not the case. ElinorD (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That seems like an empirical question. Have editors been directly penalized for off-Wiki attacks in the past? If so, then this policy should reflect that fact. If not, then we should say that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

And the one you reverted to is? Frise 17:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It's quite possible that the burnout has taken its toll on both sides of the debate; I, for one, am mostly burned out regarding the issue and no longer find much point in responding to every single thread that comes up regarding it, although I haven't changed my position of opposing a complete link ban. *Dan T.* 17:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

My feelings as well. This is turning into "consensus by exhaustion". It's clear that there is no consensus for this, and that continued discussion isn't creating any. It's just creating people who are tired of having to reiterate their opposition. It's time to scratch it and move on. Mangoe 18:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus for linking to attacks sites. We have been routinely removing such links for some time, so it might as well be written in policy since some don't seem to understand that we're not here to help the google ranking of a website that sponsors and or endorses harassment of our editors.--MONGO 19:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Some people have been routinely removing all such links for some time. That does not make it policy. There is also no consensus that all such links should always be removed. Enshrining the statment in a policy document would make it appear that there is a widely accepted consnesus for this, which is simply incorrect. Frankly the April 17 version is the one that most correctly describes thos points on which there is a widely accepted consensus. DES ^(talk) 19:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec) MONGO, you're not even reacting to carefully made arguments about why it's a bad idea to write this principle into policy. Nobody's suggesting that we link to so-called "attack sites". (You won't drop the rhetoric, even when it undermines your position, will you? Is it more fun to shoot yourself in the foot than to think? Is it more fun to feed beans to trolls than to provide effective protection, which is what I've been arguing for?) Nobody's suggesting that we link to these sites. Nobody. We're suggesting, very carefully and thoughtfully, that making the policy explicit where it should be discreet is a terrible idea that will increase harassment. Do you want that? Are you even going to try to respond to this point? Do you have a response to it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

GTBaccus, your condescenion is noted. It appears that you are the one with a problem with rhetoric. I have pointed the finger at no one in particular, yet you now, and have been, attacking me on a personal level...you need to cease doing this immediately...I completely disagree that not linking to WR or ED or WW is a terrible idea. I think linking to them ever is a bad idea. Whatever they have to say that might in some extreme circumstance be needed, it can be emailed to those needing the info. This is a really simple point.--MONGO 20:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, I have never attacked you on a personal level, nor do I wish to do so. I consider you an utterly blameless child of God, full stop. I love and honor you as a human being. Please understand this.

When you say "I completely disagree that not linking to WP or ED or WW is a terrible idea," I am a bit perplexed because I did not say that linking to them is ever a good idea. We are in agreement on that point. Linking to those sites is a terrible idea. Linking to those sites is a terrible idea. Linking those sites is a terrible idea. I think that making our policy explicit rather than discreet on that point is also a terrible idea; please read my words more carefully before putting ideas in my mouth that are not mine.

Now, I'm not being condescending when I ask that you reply to the argument that making the policy explicit is a bad idea because of WP:BEANS violations. Do you have a response to this point? I haven't seen it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

(to MONGO)I agree with DES' point, you can only see those actions which remove the links. There is no way of telling how many people have viewed the article and not seen fit to remove them. Therefore practice does not create consensus. LessHeard vanU 20:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU is quite correct, not removing a link leaves no record, which makes determination of consnesus on the basis of actions (rahter than discussions) hard. GTBacchus is not quire correct. I am suggesting that in some cases links to sites such as WikipediaReview and WikipediaWatch (which some people chose to label "attack sites") are legitimate and should be made, but only in very limited circumstances. For example, there was recently a Signpost article on the unblocking of Daniel Brandt, and a link was properly inserted ther and improperly removed. For another example, mentions of those sites in the Essjay controversy and Seigenthaler incident articles might well be legitimate, given the roles played by users of thsoe sites in thsoe events. That is the sort of situation where I think such links, to pages that do not include anyoen's persona data, ought to be allowed. RfC evidence sections might be another occasion. DES ^(talk) 20:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

New approach: addressing removal rather than definitions

In January, I spent quite a bit of time with a mock-up of NPA at a subpage in an effort to hash out consensus without disturbing an active policy page. Given that reversions have led to page protection for WP:NPA again, I have returned to Wikipedia:No personal attacks/Proposal to sandbox a suggestion.

It has occurred to me that we all -- myself included -- have been approaching the policy page in the wrong way in an effort to resolve this conflict. There is generally little disagreement about what is or is not a personal attack per se, but rather a great deal of disagreement over what and when to remove. Please examine the Proposal page linked above (or at least this version if it should change), for another approach. Beginning with the 17 April version, and tightening the wording in several places as noted elsewhere in this discussion, I turned my attention to the Removal section in an effort to find a workable compromise to the core concerns fueling this situation.

As always, I'm open to suggestions and amendments, although I do hope that some middle-ground can be agreed upon. I know this debate has drawn itself out for quite some tme already...

Thoughts? Serpent's Choice 11:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless this version has some funny wording that I missed (which is always possible), I can't see a big problem with it, but I somehow don't think you'll end the argument. It's inherently impossible to compromise on this issue--one group of people says "no links to attack sites under any circumstances whatsoever" and the others say "no links to attack sites except under rare circumstances when they may be necessary". There's nothing between those two positions (unless you want to allow half of the rare exceptions), so there's no middle ground. Ken Arromdee 15:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

There are some people in the "no links" camp who are nevertheless agreed that the "attack sites" language is unhelpful. Perhaps a solution lies in that direction? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I myself have moved closer to the "no links (or references) under any circumstances" point of view, with full knowledge this would also prohibit references on policy pages, so I must still be against those I've moved to support, alas.

The way I see it, there are two not necessarily related or co-dependent things being debated here:

• Whether or not any links to sites hosting personal attacks or privacy violations against any Wikipedians should be removed.

• Whether the outcome of the previous proposition should be reflected in public policy.

I must say, however, and not facetiously, what about the privacy of vandals? WP:Vandalism#Tracing_IP_addresses seems to give a green light to efforts to discover the identities and locations of those persistently considered harmful to the project. While I am not saying WP is an "outing site" in the same sense as the sites the proposed amendment seeks to ban, it utilizes the same methodologies to develop personal profiles of vandals. While these profiles are not written in defamatory or libelous language, they would seem to qualify as "outing" or privacy violations in the same sense we are trying to prohibit here.

I am not protesting this. I am bringing it up to say there can be no moral basis for prohibiting actions we ourselves must engage in in the course of "defending the encyclopedia." The nature of the position the wiki software places us in requires us to play defense against the offensive strategies of off-site communities. But there are different ways to play defense, and I would say the most obvious solution is not necessarily the best one.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 22:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Re the vandals, the matter is (IMO) the same as in society. People have a right to privacy, and to be treated with respect. Those people who conflict with society, or its rules, lose the right to privacy in respect of the actions by which they attack society. Also, WP does not publish any identities of vandals but uses the information gained to limit the damage that they may do. There is a big difference between obtaining information (even without the consent of the individual) and publishing it. LessHeard vanU 23:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You are entirely right, but still the example points to the almost indefensible nature of anonymity in an on-line environment, given that these techniques for tracing identities are also publicly-known. You are right that the difference is that we don't publish this information, but if there is (already published!) knowledge out there it is findable. Best,—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 23:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What we are focusing on are those sites which use such information in a manner which is potentially (and sometimes actually) distressing and even dangerous to contributors to Wikipedia. If all parties which collected information which resulted in the discovery of identities were to be subject to consideration then we would need to start looking at Government and Law Enforcement agencies. The aforementioned agencies are likely enabled under law to discover identities where appropriate, and Wikipedia (and other similar organisations) will likely include the capacity to do likewise within their Particulars of Association (or whatever) to protect themselves. Although it is outside the scope of this policy, I doubt if all or any of the sites are permitted to do what they do within their host terms.

In the end, we are considering how to deal with the disclosure of personal information relating to Wikipedians on pages hosted by off-Wiki sites. We seem to be having enough trouble resolving this to be including parties that collect such data. LessHeard vanU 23:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I personally don't think any WP pages should contain links to the NSA or FBI sites, which probably have interal files containing all our identities, but that's my own paranoia;-) —ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 23:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't know if WP is like a law enforcement or other government agency, though. The thing is, the advent of the internet/information age seems to have enabled universal public surveillance, not only in an Orwellian sense, but in an unanticipated sense that people on the positive side of the digital divide will voluntarily and enthusiastically sign-away their privacy and make themselves accessible to advertisers and stalkers on social networking sites like MySpace. WP here at least allows for an interesting experiment to see how public consensus can be created to effectively if voluntarily regulate notions of and protections for personal privacy. —ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 00:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

WP is only like Government Agencies in that they are likely to use a legal text to allow themselves to locate and identify some individuals under specific circumstances. Government Agencies do this under national law, WP would do this by use of clause or other text in its legal documents (which is duly permissible under State or national law). They are only similar in that they have the right to do such things.

Your points about individuals signing away their rights to privacy while interacting on the 'net is well taken. We may have waived that right ourselves to WP by editing here (WP, not this page!). Again, it is only what is done with that information that concerns me. LessHeard vanU 08:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• I could support Wikipedia:No personal attacks/Proposal as it now exists. it seems to me to be a quite workable compromise, that would result in such links rarely if ever being included in wikipedia, and with the legitimate desires of editors for privacy being as well respected as can be managed, without preventing links in those rare situations where they might be legitimate. DES ^(talk) 23:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• I am here signaling impartiality as to the outcome of this proposal. I am neither for it nor against it at this point. Addendum: I've had a closer look at it and I must say you've found a wording that most compellingly straddles all the bases here. Your solution has my complete support, for whatever that is worth, as I am not one of those you have to convince here. —ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 00:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll ask some questions:

1) Do you feel that this proposal would justify removing the link from Wikipedia signpost mentioned earlier?

2) Do you feel that this proposal would justify removing the link on Jimbo's user talk page warning about Brandt? (I think it's [1] though I'm not completely sure that's the one).

3) Do you feel that this proposal would justify removing the links to attack sites given as examples of useful links in the talk page discussing the proposed attack sites policy?

If your answer to any of these is "yes", then the proposal encourages blind removal of links regardless to context, and I oppose it. Ken Arromdee 06:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that proposals don't justify things, reasons do.

If someone feels they have a reason to remove, say, the link from Jimbo's page and email it to him, then they might well do so. It's a free world. It's also Jimbo's talk page, and if he wanted to restore it, I'm sure he would. Anybody edit warring over it (in either direction) would be causing a disruption. In the other two cases (the signpost, and the policy proposal talk page), if a dispute arises, then people should refrain from reverting anybody while they discuss it civilly. If someone suggests that the inclusion of the link is putting Wikipedians in danger, then I think the civil thing would be to leave it out, and find a way of talking about examples without linking to them. It's not that difficult, really, nor too much trouble to go to for the sake of courtesy.

The question of whether policy should explicity sanction the removal of links is an entirely different question from whether the links should be removed. The former is a question of the effects of written policy; the latter is necessarily decided on a case-by-case basis because this is a wiki. In a best case-scenario, people are decent about it, and people know how to get links removed discreetly and decisively in truly urgent situations. Providing that education, and leaving the policy discreet to prevent giving people ideas is the best thing we can do to protect ourselves, in my opinion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think that depends on the context; did these situations present a "specific, compelling benefit" to Wikipedia? I only have the one diff to examine here, so I'll focus on that. I'm not real well versed on all the Brandt drama, but taking the post and its thread on face value, it appeared intended to notify Jimbo of actions or planned actions by a third-party that might be problematic for this project. Arguably a valuable purpose (although I wonder why it couldn't be sent to him via private mail; he has it activated).
• Briefly addressing the other two... In the third case, that is simply not a situation that any possible policy wording is going to be able to determine clearly. There was substantial argument about whether such a list by its nature defeated its very purpose. That argument has also been made here. Whether those links were appropriate in the context of the discussion was a matter for the talk page, not for policy ... much like "the number" discussions regarding to the AACS controversy. And as to the first case ... I will assume good faith that the Signpost editors discussed the possible ramifications of such a link distributed via mass-mailing. If that were demonstrated to be true (and, were I one of those editors, I would have insisted on a link to a page detailing the editorial discussions involved), I'd concede its presence. If it appeared to be done without contemplation of its consequences, then I think removal would be reasonable. This is not unlike the decision of other newspapers to reprint (or not) the Muhammed cartoons; responsible outlets, whether reprinting them or not, provided insight into why the decision occurred. Had a newspaper just reprinted them for the own sake without commentary or justification, they would have been subject to deserved scorn for their action.
• No policy, no matter how well crafted is going to solve ALL our NPA and external site problems. It just isn't. There is no one perfect answer here. That's why we have IAR and editorial discretion and, heck, dispute resolution. Assuming that we don't want a Forever Edit War (apologies to Haldemann), some measure of compromise is inevitable. And so, just as you have asked whether this encourages "blind removal ... regardless of context", I in turn ask: Does this proposal provide a reasonable standard that will exclude what needs to be excluded, but leaves room for the possibility of rare, narrowly tailored (as they must be) exceptions?
• Ken, is it something you could support? Serpent's Choice 07:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I think its wording seems okay when interpreted reasonably. I'm not convinced that people will interpret it reasonably, even after this clarification. For instance, if you say "links should be removed unless there is a compelling benefit," but you leave it up to the person removing the links to decide if the benefit is compelling, then they'll just refuse to consider any benefit to be compelling, and keep removing everything regardless of context. Ken Arromdee 17:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a point where we just have to accept the limits of what the policy pages can do. No policy page, no matter how amazingly crafted, can prevent people who want to interpret it unreasonably from doing so. Trying to write policy that cannot possibly be misinterpreted or misused is impossible. Professional lawmakers struggle to even write laws that lack loopholes, and rarely succeed &emdash; and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, or a school of law, or a Congress. The goal should be to make the policy "good enough" and let the community and, if necessary, the dispute resolution process, sort out what to do with the rest. Serpent's Choice 01:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I can live with it too. I note that the people who have reverted previous attempts to take it to versions similar to this have not participated in this discussion; hence, I wonder if they will once again claim a "lack of consensus" if this change proceeds. But it is no good to have a policy with a great big dispute flag on it, and there is no way that the whole "external links" section is going to be anything but disputed, so let's give this a try. Risker 19:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I also think it should be tried. Even if there is a case where someone does indeed believe that there are no compelling benefit and removes every link they should not be able to use the policy to have someone warned or banned for violation if the link was returned, as the wording cuts both ways (the other editor believes there is a compelling benefit). It will not likely end the discussion, but it is a formula that allows all parties to continue participating. LessHeard vanU 21:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's try it. If it gets abused, we can go back to fix it. Ken Arromdee 03:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am contacting several of the editors who did not agree with the previously promoted version. I would like to take all due diligence to prevent further reversions or edit wars if possible. If there are no deal-breaking objections, or if they can be resolved without significant alterations (such as copyediting suggestions), I will contact the protecting administrator to inquire about promotion. Serpent's Choice 04:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There are websites that make it either their primary purpose or at least support efforts to harass our editors and to try and identify their personal identities. Linking to these websites is unnecessary. In the extremely ununusal event that something from these websites might be needed by arbcom or similar, the link can be emailed to them.--MONGO 05:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Are these sites encyclopedic? No. Would the vast majority of readers miss them? No. However I do agree that all this discussion is a huge can of beans so is best closed for the moment. MONGO is completely correct but this won't be the first time I've seen sense get lost in the noise. I'm prepared to leave this be as a statement of policy as long as we stick to the current practice that these links are removed on sight. There should however be an addition to the text which instructs editors to notify the Arbcom of such links by e-mail rather than an/i. Sophia 05:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I would note in response to MONGO that whether or not we need to link to these websites is an entirely different question from whether we should have an explicit policy forbidding such links. Several of us are making a case that we shouldn't link to them, but that mentioning that explicitly in policy is still a bad idea.

Why should we alert everyone who reads WP:NPA that there are websites out there trying to "out" Wikipedians? We should keep the policy discreet and take different, more effective measures to protect Wikipedians' privacy. Does anybody supporting an explicit rule have a response to this argument? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and therefore we cannot create policy on an assumption that there will never be an instance where what is proscribed now will not at some time in the future be permitted, under certain circumstances and perhaps only the once. While I admire your dogged refusal to countenance any suggestion that linking to "attack sites" will ever be of benefit, and that editors who do should be summarily warned and then blocked, I am beginning to question my assumption that you have the good of the entire community at heart; you seem unwilling to communicate anything meaningful to a group who are attempting to move this discussion on. Your determination of what constitutes benefit and mine might (is, I would hazard) be completely different but by agreeing to a form of words including that concept will allow us to put in place a policy that deals with personal attacks originating from off-Wiki sites.

Please, is there any way that you could agree to this or a similar wording? LessHeard vanU 19:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

(un-indent) If I understand MONGO above, he is still promoting the idea that links to such sites are to be removed 100% of the time regardless of context, and that they are never, as opposed to rarely, acceptable. If he's reading that into the proposed policy, then the policy needs to be reworded so as to exclude this reading. Ken Arromdee 14:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I am promoting. We already don't link to ED and WR is even worse, as I have stated numerous times. ED at least claims ot be a parody website while WR makes no such distinction and the efforts there are routinely to try and collate information which may or may not reveil the real life identities of our editors. Current wording on the policy states that links to these websites may be removed. So if I see them popping up, that is what I will do, which is something we have been doing for some time.--MONGO 16:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, I would say that you have the right to do that no matter what this policy says, and that I'll defend your right to remove inappropriate links no matter what this policy says. Now, could you please respond to the argument that specifically mentioning "attack sites" or "outing sites" in WP:NPA is a terrible idea, because it leads anybody reading the policy to realize that such sites exist, and potentially go looking for them. I haven't seen you respond to the BEANS argument yet. Do you discount it, or what? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

What if he's going to read that in, no matter what it says here? What if he's wrong that "what it says here" is the final arbiter of what to do and not to do? -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am frankly tiring of the continued usage of this thing to mount personal attacks on the users of The Unspeakable Site. There is increasingly little to defend from this proposal, because Wikipedia:Expert retention has been WP:OWNed by two of the interlocutors in the original WP:BADSITE battle (see this diff). I've made one change to the page since then, to no response whatsoever, which pretty much shows that expert retention as a topic is quite dead. The offending reference has been moved into an archive, but so far nobody has dared erase it again. In the meantime, I was hit with a "guilt by association" attack for participating on the Unspeakable Site (diff).

When it comes down to it, there's not really much harassment going on from the Unspeakable Site, or from Daniel Brandt's site, at least for the moment. (The two offending pages on the latter are, for the moment, 404.) Nobody is attempting to do much "clean up" on the unspeakable site, as a current listing of gives 193 entries. Attacks upon me and User:Dtobias for participating there have dropped off too. The whole matter has settled into a kind of sullen intransigence, relieved only by Ken Arromdee pointing out that all compromises have been nullified by promises from one side to delete anything linking to what amounts to a list of three sites, and MONGO essentially promising to do exactly that. The truth is that nothing is really happening. If actions speak louder than words, then the de facto consensus is that the attack site can be linked to. It seems to me that it's time to pack it in, go back to the April 17th version, and put this to bed. Mangoe 15:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You claim a few people are attacking the website's contributors and yet you then try to discredit those that are in opposition to your stand here...why is that?--MONGO 16:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Mangoe, what's "the unspeakable site", and why do you keep calling it that? That strikes me as being about as helpful as referring to "attack sites" as others keep doing. It must be very rhetorically satisfying, but we'd all understand you better if you just say "WR" or "WW" or "ED". I think that speaking as neutrally as possible is going to move us to a solution more smoothly than using less neutral language will. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Given that, at different points in this conversation, even the mention of the names of the sites was being reverted, I think Mangoe's use of the term isn't entirely out of line. Some of us have been involved in this discussion for seven weeks now - truly absurd, I know. Risker 15:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been around; I know what's going on. There's no good reason to be so obscure. Which site's name gets taken out, Wikipedia Watch, Wikipedia Review, or Encyclopedia Dramatica? They're all already mentioned on this very talk page, by people on both "sides" of the dispute. Are there any sites we're talking about besides those three?

I have to say, when someone wants to enshrine into policy a thinly veiled mention of these sites, it's kind of silly for such a person to remove mention of them from a discussion of that policy. It's like handing out beans, and then slapping people for having bean-breath later. I say just relax and use normal language; you're not under the gun here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This is really only about Wikipedia Review. There are no links to Encyclopedia Dramatica at present, and nobody seems to think there that there's any reason to link to it. There are some links to Wikipedia Watch, but the majority of them are to pages about the Essjay controversy and are clearly germane. There are about six links to the "hivemind" page, but seeing as how it's 404 for now, they seem to be moot; in any case, nobody is deleting them even though by the standard of things here there seems to be sufficient agreement that the particular page is an "attack page". (YMMV.) This all started with the creation of the WP:BADSITES pseudo-policy page and the erasure of a bunch of links to WR based upon what is now a proposal which has failed to gain consensus. There were a number of deletions on the talk page of that proposal, including someone deleting an entire response I made; the spectacle earned that discussion a place in the "Lamest edit wars" list. But since then, maybe three references have been erased. Either people are holding off in anticipation of consensus (which is plainly never going to happen), or erasing these references simply isn't a priority, even for the people who claim they are a problem. Mangoe 16:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I've rechecked the specific changes. On 27 April, there were 196 links; now there are 193. There appear to have been four links added, so seven links have been erased. I haven't checked the specific cases, but it's clear that nobody is systematically erasing these links. Mangoe 20:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, there can be no links to ED at this time, as that site appears to have been added to the mediawiki blacklist at some point. Serpent's Choice 01:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have wondered whether the ultimate intent of this policy change is to blacklist WR. Mangoe 01:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Time and again

I drop by this page to see if consensus has finally been established. If you all lose interest in this, someone please let me know, so we can finally go ahead and delete all of those links and appropriately warn users who posted them. —AldeBaer 05:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If consensus hasn't been established, then why are you presupposing what the ultimate outcome will be? *Dan T.* 14:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

AldeBaer, you can already do whatever you want on the wiki, as long as you're prepared to explain your actions if questioned. If it's a good idea, writing something down won't make it any more so. If it's not a good idea, writing something down won't make it so. Writing something down might be a bad idea for separate reasons, but it seems difficult to get people to care about that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I rather doubt that any resolution will give carte blanche to arbitrarily deleting links. In fact, having looked at most of the existing WR links, they are fine where they are - ArbComm cases, talk pages of specific users (who have always been free to delete them) and one or two into article/article talk space. It would be inappropriate to remove them from ArbComm cases, as they were the evidence or the issues being discussed in those cases. As to WW, most of the links are 404 anyway, and it seems all but the ones related to Essjay are at least a year old - if they weren't causing trouble before, they should just be allowed to sit there quietly, not hurting anyone. Mucking around in other editors' talk pages and archives without evidence of a clear and present danger to the encyclopedia as a whole is uncalled for. Frankly, deleting a link for a cartoon, buried on someone's userspace just makes Wikipedia look pathetic. Risker 16:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that attempts at outing are pretty clear and present a danger to WP. I'm fairly sure some people over there are following this debate quite closely, so if they really want to show first signs of good will, they could and should rigidly deal with such efforts, instead of enthusiastically participating in them. Doesn't that sound like a fair deal to you? Not demonstrating Wikipedia's unity when it comes to protection of its users is a definite long-term hazard. Who'd want to contribute in such an environment? What good is a link to such a site on a user page? And how'd you justify deleting and possibly blocking over posting a link to a talk page, while at the same time standing by while some users have it on their user page? I believe that there is no plausible compromise except for ArbCom related pages, and even then it should be no problem to notify Arbitrators by mail. —AldeBaer 23:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

AldeBaer, if you think that attempts at outing are a danger to Wikipedia (and I'm not disagreeing with that hypothesis), then why would you want to advertise the fact that outing sites exist, by making special note of them in our policy? Won't that direct more people to those sites. I think we could protect our editors better by being discreet in our policy, since we aren't strictly rule-driven anyway, and the removal of such links is sanctioned without it being specially mentioned in a "rule" somewhere. I really wish that anybody supporting a special rule would reply to this point. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Which takes us back to the original issue: the fiction that the identity of editors is irrelevant cannot always be maintained. This keeps coming back to the assertion that criticism of Wikipedia must always be on Wikipedia's terms. The world as a whole is of course not bound to accept such a theory, and indeed, it is likely to reject it. Sites which criticize Wikipedia will as a rule care who editors are, and it's obvious to anyone who watches or is involved with the editing of articles on many social or political controversies that Wikipedia is commonly, if not necessarily successfully, used to attack people. On one level this proposal is about attacking WR and anyone who posts there.

Wikipedia lacks unity on protecting its users because, for one thing, serious protection would require a lot of reining people in who (no surprise here) don't want to be reined in. The community is fundamentally irresponsible, and the anonymity issue plays into it as a way for editors to evade being made responsible for what they write. Maybe this is inherent in the model, and maybe it isn't; but right now, it is there. On one level, this is about those people whom WR criticizes shutting that criticism up as best they can. I personally think they need to get thicker skins, and while they are at it, lay off the personal attacks themselves. They protest too much; indeed, the chief effect of these attempts at cutting WR off has been to raise its profile. If matters had been left alone, I suspect the whole thing would have simply passed into the net's fading memories. Mangoe 02:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Well, I guess Wikipedia Watch no longer meets the definition of an outing site, since the Hivemind page has been 404'd. And reading this page, it is quite obvious that there is no unity in the idea of blacklisting Wikipedia Review or deleting all links to it. Links to specific threads that purportedly "out" editors - sure, that is exactly what this proposal will cover. Links to threads that make fun of a particular editor, posted on that editor's page (or in any other place intended to "bug" the editor) - clearly harassment, in my book. But going through and removing all existing links, many of them in archived talk pages and long forgotten, is just plain WP:BEANS. Any active editor is going to notice that their archive or talk page has been edited - and then check to see what is gone, and go to that site. (Doing the whole delete/restore thing is too Orwellian even to contemplate.) As far as I can tell, there is currently nothing on that site in the publicly viewable (i.e., non-member) section that "outs" an editor, or told me anything factual about an editor that I hadn't already figured out without their help. I have no idea what is in the members-only area, and have no intention of ever finding out - nor will 99.9% of Wikipedia editors, most of whom will continue their editing career oblivious to the existence of that site. I concur with Mangoe, neither of us were even aware of this site before this whole exercise started, and it was the initial removal of links to the site that brought editors like ourselves to this discussion in the first place. Risker 02:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Simplification

We're all seven weeks into this debate. I think, perhaps, we're trying too hard. This proposal is a greatly simplified version of the 17 April edition, with some substantial copyedit courtesy of Bishonen. It does not refer to the complex topic of "links that aren't personal attacks or outing efforts themselves but are hosted alongside pages that are" in any direct way. Why not? Two reasons:

1. Any way to address the issue directly has problems. Is it too lax? Too strict? Too beansy?
2. It is unnecessary because it is covered elsewhere. Where might these links occur? Three places: Article space, Talk space (of one form or another), or User space. WP:EL covers article space (mostly) and says "No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justified.". WP:TALK prohibits "Users who post what they believe are the personal details of other users without their consent may be blocked for any length of time, including indefinitely." WP:USER covers user space and says "There is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense."

Yes, someone could misrepresent and abuse this policy or those other policies, manuals of style, and guidelines. But we know that's wrong. Every level of dispute resolution, from informal editor intervention to ArbCom has to deal with people who try to make the policy pages say something they don't or who try to edit war over grey areas.

Someone uses a reference to a Wikipedia Review or Wikipedia Watch or Wikipedia Whatever-comes-next as an ersatz attack or to support outing efforts? Remove the link. It's a personal attack and vandalism. Someone discusses WR or WW or WW-C-N because they have germane commentary on the Essjay controversy or the Seigenthaler controversy or the 2012 Wikipedia election influence scandal? Keep an eye on it, but if editors discuss the issue and agree it's useful, fine. We link to a lot of sites that, for one reason or another, have some very harmful stuff elsewhere on the same servers (Stormfront, anyone?). The Internet's a big, scary place. Caveat lector.

But that doesn't mean we don't offer protection to our editors. When people add other kinds of harmful content, we revert them and ask them to stop. If they keep it up, we go to dispute resolution. People who don't take the hint, we block or ban. When people remove other content that isn't harmful, we do the same thing. We don't need a new policy to deal with this problem. We don't need to go into gory details in the policies we have. We just need to use common sense: "The spirit of the rules is more important than the letter."

Regards, Serpent's Choice 03:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you said it all, Serpent's Choice. Good work. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the new wording, clear, concise and to the point without being overly didactic or suggestive. —ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 06:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Generally, an excellent job. I have a bit of a problem with the first sentence in the "external links" section:

• • Links or references to external sources whose content would be considered a personal attack against a Wikipedia contributor are prohibited by this policy. (emphasis mine)

The first time I read that, I interpreted it to mean "you cannot refer to these sources," which I do not think is the intent here. Many people consider an entity (website, book, newspaper) to be a source, rather than the content contained in that entity. Perhaps this instead, using the term "acceptable" to match what is said in the previous section:

• • Links to content that would be considered a personal attack against a Wikipedia contributor, regardless of whether the content is hosted on Wikipedia or another site, are not acceptable.

For the record, I have seen some pretty nasty personal attacks made using links to Wikipedia pages, often disguised to suggest they link to something else. Risker 06:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ehh, personal attacks on WP are supposedly already prohibited, but a link is a link, I suppose. I agree the "or references" phrase can be interpreted overly broadly so as to allow blocks for anyone participating in a conversation mentioning those sites. While I think this could be reasonably shortened to just "links to content," I suspect others may disagree with this.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 07:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that probably should be worded better. The goal with the "links or references" phrasing, which predates my involvement here, was to prevent explicit prevention of URLs in plaintext or "roadmap" directions to problematic pages. Let me give this some thought; there ought to be a way to fix that problem and address Risker's legitimate intraWiki linking concern in a concise manner. Serpent's Choice 07:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It was my fault to begin with. I chose an earlier version of that wording when I initially forked the content from WP:BADSITES here [2] (The original source was even more poorly phrased, that I recall, but I was trying to save the sense of that, not override it.)—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 07:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Went back and found an original version thru Denny Colt's contrib list here [3], His version that I edited was:

"Links to, promotion of, or material imported from any attack site should be removed."

I think with "references" I meant "quotations from," to cover Denny's use of "material imported from." I remember thinking "promotion of" was a rather empty concept in itself without the other two, I did not include it as it seemed too indefinite and open to misinterpertation.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 08:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) Tried a couple rewording efforts. Currently settled on "Links that serve as personal attacks against Wikipedia contributors, whether due to the content linked or to the context in which the link is referenced, are not acceptable." However, feel free to suggest further improvement, that sentence structure earns a resounding bleh. Serpent's Choice 07:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I like it. You have quite the serpent's tongue, Mr. Choice.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 08:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That seems fine to me too... what matters is that something is done as an attack, not the specifics of what it actually is; you can make a personal attack by direct text, by links, by inline images, or by methods unknown and unsuspected at the present time (example: posting a picture of a chimpanzee using the target person's name as the caption beneath it). *Dan T.* 17:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, Serpent's Choice. Thank you for working so hard on this. Risker 01:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Works with me. — MichaelLinnear 04:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Objections to promoting?

Does anyone have objections to the above "Simplifciation" proposal? As this discussion has sat idly for several days now, and the policy page is no longer protected, I'd like to be able to promote the compromise version. If there are further objections or requested revisions, though, I'd rather approach them first, rather than precipitate another edit war in policyspace.

Thanks! Serpent's Choice 12:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the new wording is good. My only concern is that we haven't heard anything from the "delete them anyway" faction. Mangoe 13:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I can support the "simplified" proposal in its current form. DES ^(talk) 16:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd support it. I recommend doing a policy RFC on it to see how people not involved in this debate may respond to it.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 16:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The RfC is a good idea - I drifted off as there was no more to be said. The views of a wider range of editors will be interesting. Sophia 06:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This topic is now listed there. Serpent's Choice 09:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup. let's wait and see what others think.--MONGO 18:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Sophia, I'm puzzled by "no more to be said". I wonder if you could please address my question about why we should have language in this policy advertising the fact that there are sites out there hosting non-public personal information on Wikipedians. That strikes me as a bad idea, but I haven't been able to get any supporter of the "attack sites" language to respond on this point. I think it would be much smarter to keep this policy more discreet.

There will be people reading this policy who have no previous idea that outing sites exist. When we let them know that, a certain percentage of those people will be curious, and go to look for these taboo sites. Why are we directing them there? -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

That question deserves an answer, GTBacchus, and I'll give one when I get time. I haven't lost interest in this page. ElinorD (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess my response would be that "advertising that there are attack sites out there" is not a terrible thing in this context.--Mantanmoreland 20:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The "Simplification" proposal avoids the use of this phrase. Serpent's Choice 08:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and it's not clear whether those supporting the current wording support the "simplificiation" proposal as well. I'd just love to see a discussion from more than one point of view on the question.

It seems the two "sides" of this debate would cast the debate in completely different terms, which I don't find very encouraging. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

There's been no objection so far (finger crossed). I've tried to work with representatives of the differing viewpoints along the way; this proposal is by no means wholly my work nor that of one aspect to this debate. Here's hoping its good enough. Serpent's Choice 09:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This is in response to GTBacchus. I'm putting it at the bottom of the section in which he asked the question, rather than directly underneath the question and indented, as it's easier to see.

GTBacchus, it is an excellent question, and I think your concerns are completely reasonable. The problem is that while having such a policy clearly expressed may endanger people, not having it will also endanger people. If we had such a policy explicitly stated on a policy page, then any such violations could be dealt with swiftly and discreetly, without being harsh to people who might have innocently posted such links. (In fact, I think the MONGO case had some wording about not jumping on people who didn't realise that they shouldn't post these links, but I can't find it now.)

It's likely that without something clear and explicit which can be appealed to by those who are concerned for victims of stalking, there will be editors belligerently reverting removals of links, and wikilawyering, and generating extra publicity. For me, the Arbitration ruling is clear. I do not accept the arguments made by those who want to allow these links — that the Committee ruled differently in a subsequent case, and that that voids the first ruling. An official ruling that links to sites that out editors should be removed and may be removed without counting towards 3RR and that those who persistently add them may be blocked is NOT cancelled by the fact that in a subsequent case the Committee did not pass a similar ruling. Only by passing a ruling that says these sites may be linked to could they have cancelled the first ruling.

To get back to GTB's question, I think that not stating it explicitly will endanger people because of the possibility of extra publicity being generated by belligerent reversals of removals, by wikilawyering, by arguments on talk pages and admin noticeboards, etc. An explicit statement that posting links that out editors is not permitted could not entirely prevent that, but it could certainly lessen it. I also agree with you that stating it explicitly carries the unfortunate consequence that undesirable people will know what to look for in search engines. So it seems that there's a danger to both approaches.

That's not a unique situation, however. There can be a risk in having an operation, but the doctors may tell you that not having the operation carries a greater risk. The problem is that while I am quite sure that GTBacchus's concerns about beans are genuine, I don't think I've seen any other opponent making that argument. On this page and elsewhere, I've seen opponents talk about "censorship", make jokes about how they're looking forward to seeing what happens when signpost reports on the removal of links, imply that the WR people are justified in their harassment of our editors, state that the whole community should be allowed to see these links (with real names and phone numbers? and yes, that did happen) so that everyone can be involved in deciding if the site really is inappropriate, and even insinuate that the victims partly deserve what happened to them.

If all the people in favour and all the people opposing were motivated mainly by a desire to lessen the number of people who can find out personal details of editors who wish to be anonymous, but just disagreed as to whether having an explicit policy or not having it would be more likely to achieve that, then it would probably be easier to reach an agreement. We could simply argue calmly and civilly about which approach is likely to make things worse for the victim, just as we might weigh up the pros and cons of having a risky operation for a dangerous illness. (GTBacchus, I do know that you have a point. Do you know that I have, in saying that in some circumstances the absence of an explicit policy will lead to more publicity for these sites?) But as long as some people think that their right to post links is more important than the pain and fear of the victims, we're not going to reach an agreement very easily. ElinorD (talk) 07:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Elinor, thanks for replying. To answer your question right off the bat, whether I recognize that you have a point: I absolutely do. I happen to think my point carries more weight, and I'll explain why, but I'm certainly willing to have the discussion with an open mind.

Thank you for recognizing that I'm working in good faith. As for the arguments being made by others who oppose the policy... I'm not too impressed with much of that, nor do I think it's very productive to talk about what anyone's motives might be. We do better when we keep our eyes on the prize.

On point, I think I understand what you're saying: You believe an explicit rule will cause fewer people to put up a fight, becuase they'll accept what a written rule says. I don't think that people who are looking for trouble are very concerned with what the rule says. People acting in good faith should be pretty easy to talk with, should they question the removal of some link or material.

Maybe I have more faith than you in the willingness and ability of our administrators to handle such situations without escalation. I know this hasn't always been the case, but I like to think this community has learned from watching enough people spread fires around by attempting to stamp them out. I guess a lot of it was before you joined, but the community has had some experience with these cases, after which we saw some people adjust their behavior, and others hand in their mops. We're learning; I hope that our learning will be reflected in how we word this policy, and how we apply it.

We're talking about different kinds of disadvantages. I'm seeing a constant low-level disadvantage that we can't really do anything about. You're talking about a possible occasional serious disadvantage that can be avoided by applying good conflict resolution skills, and which the policy will not clearly obviate. I think we can work with such a circumstance by making sure that we have a pool of people with such skills who can be contacted in a hurry, and by making sure that users are educated regarding where to go for help. (This last area is probably the one most in need of people's energy, much more than keeping "attack sites" language in this policy.)

I would also argue that poor dispute-handling skills can lead to lawyering, drama and controversy whether or not they're backed up by explicit policy. Belligerent reversals aren't a problem for someone who knows how to de-escalate belligerent users.

In summary, I think the disadvantage you describe is real, but can be obviated by smart management. I see no way to obviate the disadvantage I describe, which is eventually a numbers game - after enough time, such an explicit policy will direct ill-intentioned individuals to sites hosting privacy-violating information.

It's not an all-or-nothing proposition; there's room for talking about how to make the wording of the policy less explicitly informative, while retaining something reasonable that people can point to. Whatever happened to the in-between version we were considering? The recent edit war seems to be between two extremes, or am I reading the history incorrectly? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Misuses of the pseudo-policy on "attack sites" continue...

The latest silliness is this diff, where somebody suppressed a link to Kelly Martin's blog on her userpage, on the grounds that it was allegedly an "attack site". It was soon reverted, but the fact that people are actually interpreting the policy to cover such things, even without such a policy actually formally existing (well, if you want to get technical, it sometimes exists, but is in an indeterminate state due to disputes and edit-warring), is problematic. *Dan T.* 23:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This is due to the subjectiveness of the word "attack". Sophia 07:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but there doesn't seem to be a thing we can do about it if we want to keep the ArbCom language... "attack" can be interpreted pretty broadly... "attack sites" even more so. Serpent's Choice and Bishonen's text still allows for these removals but I suppose people could still cite the arb com case if they want to.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 07:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Kelly Martin's blog is a object case of how we are never going to be able to come up with a policy. Here she is, keeping a blog of commentary on Wikipedia, and it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that there are going to be articles which are "attacks" in the weenie sense that is being used here: that is, they say negative things about specific people. And indeed, at the moment the most recent article says something negative about a specific editor. Whether it constitutes an "attack" is something to squabble over, but surely there are people who will choose to interpret it as such.Therefore it's an attack site, and therefore it can be censored.

I used "censored" because in this case that's what's happening. There's no specific dispute in which this link is being used as leverage; it's just a general invitation to read Martin's blog. So nobody is getting "hurt" who doesn't go out and look for this stuff. This whole thing is turning into a huge violation of Wikipedia is not censored because in practice the notion of "attack sites" is being used as a justification to censor (erratically) any website or blog or other reference that says anything negative about what someone does on Wikipedia.

I've changed my mind. I think we need to forget any notion of a policy here and go back to addressing individual patterns of abusive behavior on a case-by-case basis. The "never heard a discouraging word" basis for these erasures is proving as disruptive as the behavior it's supposed to be keeping in check; indeed, in cases it has become simply a means for that very behavior. Mangoe 12:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit wars again

I see that people are edit warring on the policy page again. This is a poor idea, IMO. DES ^(talk) 00:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look like edit warring to me... so far the only reverts have been of trolling. Fingers crossed, knock on wood, etc—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 02:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

There's an RFC open on this in an effort to get some final resolution. I know the policy page itself is unprotected now. But — right version or wrong version — wouldn't it be better to let it sit there a little longer while we can get some more input, rather than trying to get the last word in and having NPA wind up a gutted shell like WP:IAR is at the moment? Serpent's Choice 11:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The current version is internally inconsistent. I will not revert again on principle but you really shouldn't ask for restraint minutes after the page has been reverted to your preferred version. Sophia 12:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The current version is not my preferred version, such as I have one. I prefer whatever version will remain stable; that is my primary motivation in participating here. I am hoping that might be this version, discussed above, which is formatted differently, and does not include explicit references to "pages" or "sites" (largely by wording around the issue through a focus on context rather than directly on content). I apologize if I was unclear in this regard. Serpent's Choice 12:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Made an entry at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) regarding these issues.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 19:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

That attempt to get a broader discussion of the issue than the one that's been proceeding with The Usual Suspects over here has unfortunately failed to bring a response. However, some seem to be trying to turn Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gracenotes‎ into a referendum on this policy by making it a litmus test for adminship, though by a margin of over 4 to 1 those who either support or don't mind Gracenotes' advocacy of a non-absolutist stance on attack-site links are presently winning, despite the other side being vocal enough to make an amount of noise way out of proportion to their numbers. *Dan T.* 01:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The debate there is interesting. Maybe we should run everyone involved with this debate for adminship in order to keep up traction on the issue. I'll nominate you, Dtobias. You seem like a fine, upstanding Wikipedian.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 17:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well... my not everybody on the non-absolutist side of the debate all co-nominate everyone else who isn't already an Admin...? If the "other side" do the same, and most and if not all get promoted, we can up this debate from edit warring to wheel warring! LessHeard vanU 12:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC) y'gotta laff or else yer cry!

I've now had two people over the last day suggest me for Admin nomination. I would accept such a nomination (but don't give myself much chance of passing, given some of the politically contentious things I've said and the enemies I've accumulated by getting into controversies), but, if it passed, would definitely not get into wheel-warring in pursuit of my beliefs or philosophies. It would be wrong to use admin powers to try to get my way on something that is in conflict with policy; rather, I would wish to continue to use peaceful means within the system to try to get policy to agree with my beliefs, not forcibly confront it in a vigilante-like way. *Dan T.* 13:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

That's it. You've lost my vote:-)—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 18:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I was trying for irony, but it seems I am a little rusty. I would really like for one of the blanket banners to try for admin. I would likely support, and make it very, very clear that I was not allowing the issue to cloud my judgement... LessHeard vanU 20:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC) (I'm actually going to try and say something constructive a little bit further down. Bear with me.)

See User Talk:RITZ

This guy made a serious personal attack against me. Go to the link at the top of the talk page, read the last three comments on the longest section, then return to the user talk page. I'm not sure what type of warning should be given, if any, or if we should just go ahead and block him. Would someone with a bit more knowledge of this sight please do something? Supernerd 10 20:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If this does not involve personally identifiable information, I'm going to be bold and request you provide a diff [4] with the personal attack on it so the rest of us know what it is you are talking about. Otherwise, email an admin per WP:PARANOIA—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 21:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"Attack sites" debate has developed a new locus

Ok to post links to offsite discussions involving "attack sites," that are not themselves "attack sites," but reference one of the sites in question and otherwise hosts claims that could be interperted as "attacks" against prominent Wikipedians? [5] Please revert if inappropriate but provide fair warning before blocking me.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 18:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Taken to its logical conclusion, we'd have to ban links to sites that allow links to sites that allow links to sites that allow links to Attack Sites, wouldn't we? *Dan T.* 18:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever it takes, until every Wikipedian is safe!—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 19:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This speaks to one of my primary concerns about the original BADSITES proposal (the other being its unintended promotion of the sites in question): that the proposed wording was broad enough to encompass any site which allows any sort of user contributions, comments, etc. (Free Republic was the example I brought up). This could perhaps be addressed by amending any proposed wording to include "as a primary focus" or something similar, as I think it reasonably obvious that we don't want to strip all links to Slashdot because of the comment patterns of a few users. This was partly inspired by an email from SlimVirgin, who analyzed the Free Republic posts I viewed as potentially questionable and indicated that she believed that they were insufficient to render that site a proscribed link target. I agree with her on that case, so I think it important to ensure that any "site" language isn't over-broad. JavaTenor 19:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

MONGO has gone off and partially hid another reference to Wikipedia Review diff. I'm not sure what the point is of doing it as he did; anyone who wants to know can see that the link is broken and fix it. And it really doesn't solve the problem, which is that the passage in question could readily be considered a personal attack. Smudging the link doesn't change that.

But this does illustrate the problem: that trying to fit WP:BADSITES under this policy isn't working, because most references to the offending sites aren't personal attacks per se. The number of WR links is holding steady at 193, so it's clear that nobody is exercising the mandate to strip them out en masse.

So far, all this seems to be doing is providing grounds for "legally" being a WP:DICK. This latest smudging by MONGO is the only case I've seen so far that seems even remotely justifable. And at that, it's a problem, because his edit doesn't address the personal attack angle; he seems simply to be exercising his arbcom-given "right" to censor WR from appearing in Wikipedia. Well, the obvious interpretation is that this censorship is more important than the actual presence of personal attacks.

It's time to end this. If links as personal attacks are to be erased, it is because they appear in the context of personal attacks which themselves should be erased. Instead, links are being erased, haphazardly, out of what is essentially a vague sense that someone, somewhere, might be offended. It seems to me that we don't need to say anything about links here at all. Mangoe 18:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Glad we agree that is justifiable. I shouldn't have to explain the obvious. Next time, I won't just alter one letter, I'll just simply remove it altogether. This is something you'll need to get used to.--MONGO 18:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, see, that's just the point. You aren't deleting personal attacks (and in fact dropped one on my talk page, in the form of a false accusation); you're just deleting links to a website that you dislike and which you interpret as having official writ to censor. That seems to be the pattern all along: it's not personal attacks that matter, but simply the links, regardless of what is on the other end. If it is OK to delete personal attacks, and if JVM's response was a personal attack, then it should have been deleted in toto.

Since we're in an advice-giving mode here: I think you would be better off letting the various WR references slide. Eventually, it would all blow over. As it is, you're drawing attention to the fact that your rationale for doing these erasures traces back to an arbcom case in which you were the central figure, and of whose outcome, the chief benefactor. The (erratic) campaign against these specific links has, in your case, the appearance of unenlightened self-interest. And there's a limit to how much I'm willing to protect the links to WR (as in 2 out of the 193). But it seems to me that this erasure program has become little more than a disruption. It isn't protecting anyone from personal attacks, which is the only basis for it in the first place. Mangoe 19:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, one reason I haven't gone and removed old links to WR and other sites is because I see then as sort of grandfathered in, sort of. Indeed, the link I altered was a personal attack...did I need to spell that one out? I don't think so...it's a load of baloney anyway and, if it was neceassry, the same info is available here right on wikipedia anyway and could have been linked to from the original post that was made here. The problem is that when this crap is posted on other websites, there is then this blog effect which most of the time doesn't look at the nonsense as nonsense, but instead, (if one reads the rest of the thread) there are insults, personal attacks and other nonsense. Apparently, trolls like to feed off this stupidity. I don't have to put up with that, neither do you. Yes, calling people that oppose you on this a DICK is doing little to help you efforts here and I have requested you cease doing so. This is not the first time myself and others have asked you to stop attacking those you disagree with.--MONGO 19:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it isn't the first time you and other have engaged in such personal attacks against me. Or perhaps this time you were not reading carefully enough. Since a personal attack can be deleted outright, there is no need to appeal to anything about sites or pages or links of any kind to just delete the whole passage of such an attack. So theoretically this is about interpreting links which do not appear in such attacks as if they were attacks of themselves. That's where WP:DICK comes in, because it's an invitation for people to be (legally) a pest by deleting these links even though there's no personal attack involved. That's what brought on the whole WP:BADSITES uproar in the first place, because someone had to pretend that (for instance) a citation reference was a personal attack, when it was nothing of the kind. I don't know whether DennyColt intended to annoy the heck out of a lot of people, but it's clear that he opened a door to annoying people which has yet to be shut. As long as the whole "attack sites" pseudo-policy continues to haunt Wikipedia, people will, with great exasperation, revert erasures that seem to come out of the blue and appear malicious, even when the actual intent is merely misguided bureaucracy. Mangoe 20:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you are incapable of arguing about the merits of the situation one way or the other without impuning the integrity of those that oppose you. I guess there is nothing left to say on the matter here anyway.--MONGO 20:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Mangoe, you say that people might remove links just to be annoying, and indeed they might, but similarly people tend to add these links just to be annoying. Point is, we can't formulate policy based on how idiots might misuse it to further their main goal of being idiots. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that's true. That's why I think the context of the reference is what is determinative. Someone putting a general link to their Wikipedia-critical blog on their user page is not making a personal attack. Someone saying "User:WXYZ is part of a conspiracy of dunces; see this link on wikipediacritique.org" is making a personal attack. We do have to deal with policy not just for what it says it does, but for what it really does. That's the only justification for having things like WP:BEANS. Mangoe 21:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Pre-empting WP:IAR with consensus : an appeal

I would like to suggest a hypothetical scenario. The absolutist argument gains consensus and a NPA policy of nonlinking to any site involved in off-wiki attackes is adopted (and adhered to, naturally). There is suddenly an instance where reference to a site (but not an attack page) is deemed crucial to the business of Wikipedia. The editor, fully aware of NPA policy regarding the matter, invokes WP:IAR and makes the link...

I would like to think that the majority of non-absolutist inclined editors wish only to include a proviso that would pre-empt the necessity of invoking Ignore All Rules where there is a demonstrably valid reason for linking to a site that would otherwise not be permitted. I certainly do. If there was a blanket ban and IAR was invoked there would likely be a great deal of discussion after the event whether it was appropriate use of the rule or not; but the link is already a matter of record. If it were conceded that WP:IAR may negate any blanket ban then hopefully it may be agreed that it is within the powers of policy decision to be able to agree (as far as is possible) what would be the likely conditions that IAR would apply and then strictly define a provisoin within policy for linking to such sites. If this can be agreed then the spectre of WP:IAR will not hang over the policy, and the central thrust of "no links, and any such found can be deleted without compromising WP:3RR. Persistant offenders will be blocked..." can be maintained.

I would like to think that most if not all non-absolutists can support a wording on the above basis. Is there the possibility that the absolutist proponents would be able to work to a consensus on it? LessHeard vanU 20:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to rewrite the guideline to take into account every conceivable very rare exception to it. I can't think of a situation where the link couldn't be e-mailed to people, or a screenshot of the post couldn't be posted if everyone absolutely had to see it for themselves without further effort, though what kind of scenario would necessitate that, I can't imagine, and no one has given an example. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

All that is necessary is to agree that NPA policy would allow a link to a site (but not a attack page) that, if the provision was not there, could be linked to under application of WP:IAR. The likely reasons would be of expediency, reasonable belief there was an imminent risk to WP (or one or more editors), or inability to use one of the other preferred methods, (and preferably a combination of at least two of the reasons especially in relation to the last instance) with it noted that more discreet methods of notifying interested parties is the default approved method. On that basis there should be no justification of invoking IAR outside of that remit.

As for attack pages there would be no such proviso. Anyone invoking IAR would need to find a reason so compelling that the likely scenario is currently beyond the ability of any party here to contemplate it. Therefore we do not need to consider it, and keep policy to a strict guide of "no links to attack pages at any time". LessHeard vanU 20:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a policy to be read and applied by reasonable people. There is no need to construct an algorithm an automaton can process, and there is danger in trying to: the more detailed the rules, the greater danger they will be slavishly followed, and exploited by rule-lawyers. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a policy that has been, and continous to be, argued over by reasonable people. I am trying to formulate a consideration that will allow a majority of reasonable people to form consensus or, at the very least, allow a deadlocked debate to move forward in the hope of finding consensus.

If a simple premise can be agreed upon, then there is a foundation on which to build a discussion, rather than an argument.LessHeard vanU 21:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the note about abusive edit summaries?

Anyone? Joie de Vivre 23:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

New user essay on the "BADSITES" issue

I've put together an essay expressing my views on this contentious issue here:

User:Dtobias/Why BADSITES is bad policy

*Dan T.* 23:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Serpent's Choice's proposed simplification

Serpent's Choice, I do appreciate that you've been trying to reduce an edit war, and to reach a compromise. I think that what we really need is a wording that balances strength with discretion. It has to be as strong and clear as possible, because people who remove links to websites that speculate the identity and location of editors need to have something clear to point to, as others may belligerently revert and start wikilawyering. It also should ideally be as discreet as possible because of the WP:BEANS problem, which GTBacchus has pointed out. Obviously, we can't publish lists of names of forbidden websites, because that would allow editors to link to new privacy-violating sites, and it would give undesirable people all the information they needed to enter into a search engine.

You have suggested this wording:

Links that serve as personal attacks against Wikipedia contributors, whether due to the content linked or to the context in which the link is referenced, are not acceptable.

I think I could accept:

Links that serve as personal attacks against Wikipedia contributors, especially by violating their privacy, whether due to the content linked or to the context in which the link is referenced, are not acceptable.

Of course that does make it known that such links exist, but perhaps in a reasonably discreet way — a way that may not particularly attract attention and make people think of looking for such websites. It would also help to add that such links can be removed without regard to 3RR, and that users who knowingly post such links may be blocked.

A problem for me all along has been that the word "attack" is too broad. It can be interpreted to include sites that just engage in constructive criticism with an occasional bit of nasty gossip, and it's not explicit enough to show that the real problems are sites where people try to "find out who someone is", where people post their speculations and research, and where administrators do nothing to remove these posts or block these stalkers. ElinorD (talk) 12:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. The strength (or lack thereof) of this statement was admittedly a concern I had about the simplification proposal. I have no meaningful objection to this addition. I might word the new clause "..., especially through violations of their privacy,..." but that's just quibbling over syntax, really (I think "serve ... through" sounds better than "serve ... by"). Serpent's Choice 13:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

"Serve . . through violations" is indeed more elegant than my proposed "Serve . . . by violating". My main concern, of course, is to find a wording that will give as much protection as possible to victims, but that won't prohibit links to sites that just criticise without attempting to "out" people. ElinorD (talk) 14:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I like this wording as well, ElinorD - it addresses my concerns about previous iterations of this proposal (unintended promotion of some of the sites in question, potentially over-broad application). JavaTenor 17:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I can support that wording. LessHeard vanU 18:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I like ElinorD's new wording as it avoids too broad an interpretation of the word "attack". It does need the "exempt from 3RR" statement to give it teeth though. Good ork Elinor. Sophia 18:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I am updating the proposal page to reflect the new clause, but not the 3RR immunity. While I agree that removal of links relating to personally identifying material (although perhaps not all links to personal attacks) should be immune to 3RR, I would also suggest that the place to make that change is at WP:3RR, where the list of exceptions is maintained. Where possible, policy pages should be self-sufficient. It is poor practice for there to be exceptions to 3RR that are not documented at the 3RR page. Serpent's Choice 02:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Again: there's no such thing as a compromise. To find a "compromise", you'd have to have something intermediate between "ban all links 100% of the time regardless of context" and "ban all such links except in rare circumstances when they may be necessary". There is nothing between those two positions, since you're not going to ban links under half the rare circumstances; therefore, there can be no compromise.

I'll ask the same question I asked before: does this proposal ban, or will it be interpreted to ban, links such as the ones referred to earlier? (The link Jimbo asked for? The Wikipedia Signpost link to Brandt's site? The links to attack sites in the page discussing the attack sites policy?) If the answer is "yes", then it's not a compromise. If the answer is "no", then fine, but you have no chance of getting the proposal accepted by ban proponents. Ken Arromdee 23:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Which link did Jimbo ask for? I think I missed that in the earlier discussion. *Dan T.* 23:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I realise you are trying to be helpful, but sometimes honesty can get in the way of progress. :~/ I think we are trying to agree a formula in the order of "100% ban on attack pages, on sites which which would be banned 99.99999% of the time anyway, but recognising that there may be the slightest possibility of a link to non-attack content on such sites." LessHeard vanU 23:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

But, you see, the policy has been abused in the past, without even officially existing. I'm simply asking if the proposal would define those abuses as legitimate. If it would, then the proposal is bad because it's too prone to abuse. If it won't, then fine. If the proposal makes it deliberately ambiguous, that will have the same effect in practice as defining the abuses as legitimate. Ken Arromdee 01:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Some Progress being made, but the attack site thing is causing trouble........

Take a look here [6] and you'll see another example of this poorly conceived guideline / policy causing trouble - I can see progress being made above, but it's almost impossible to get past the problem that we simply shouldn't tar every page on any site with the same brush... DT's essay is pretty good - not only does this bit of the policy not really work, conceptually or practically, but it seems to cause nothing but problems on the wiki - I really think it's time to let it go.... Purples 01:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The version I've just read is:

"Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time, which may be applied immediately by any administrator upon discovery. Admins applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Arbitration Committee of what they have done and why."

This makes me uneasy for several reasons. Primarily is the feeling that if such threats are serious, or anything more than something that can be shrugged off, then it is a matter for real-life law enforcement, not something to be dealt with by Wikipedia. But then that would require people to reveal who they are. This sounds too much like admins and Arbcom blocking some users to preserve the anonymity of other users. At the end of the day, Wikipedians themselves should preserve their anonymity, and not rely on admin or Arbcom blocks to help preserve their anonymity. It is similar to the password situation. People are expected to have a strong password, and the opinion seemed to be it was the user's own fault if they had a weak password and their account got compromised. Similarly, if someone really doesnt want others to be able to find out who they are, they should use sockpuppets to edit different areas of Wikipedia. Again, people are losing sight of the fact that it is not who makes the edits that matters, but the intrinsic quality of the edits. It's the content that matters, not the people adding the content. Don't become too attached to anonymous or pseudononymous accounts. It is the edits you make that matter, not preserving the anonymity of an account or the reputation of an account. It's a difficult balance to strike, but go too far in this direction and you promote a siege mentality. Carcharoth 01:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

well said - completely agree. Purples 02:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• This has now gone completely round the bend. We're removing reliable sources - thus harming the actual encyclopedia, which is what we're here for - to avoid hurting the feelings of various editors. That is utterly unacceptable and it must stop immediately. *** Crotalus *** 02:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed Section

... per mini consesus above - and particularly given that this is now causing more damage and concern than good.... Purples 02:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

... didn't last long! - Crum reverted - without a note or comment as yet.... Purples 02:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

..it's back out! - Crotalus has taken it out again (running commentary ends here... further discussion begins? ) - Purples 02:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This insertion has never really had community consensus, and is now actively harming the encyclopedia. It also severely misinterprets how Arbcom works (we don't do "binding precedents" on Wikipedia, and Arbcom does not have jurisdiction over article content). I have removed it per the discussion above and the reasons just listed. I hope that this will result in further discussion, not a revert war. *** Crotalus *** 02:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Crum's assertion

The section has been restored, with Crum claiming that this is official policy, and consensus must be sought for its removal. Regardless of the fact that in every instance i can find of this being discussed, it's been rejected, i think a consensus for its removal is emerging right here, right now above - please do engage Crum et al - this is important..... Purples 02:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This is what ArbCom ruled on this issue:

11) 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.

— ArbCom Attack Site ruling

This is also what admins routinely enforce. This is our policy, and has been so for a long time. Any change to it would require clear community-wide consensus. Crum375 02:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom's remit specifically states that they do not make content decisions. Nor are its decisions considered to be "binding precedent," as that is not how things work on Wikipedia. And you have it backwards: except for core Foundation issues, policy needs consensus to exist, not to get rid of. No consensus = no policy. *** Crotalus *** 02:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm not really sure that your interpretation of the above is the only one here in wiki-world - you wouldn't dispute i'm sure that this 'attack-site' policy has been discussed at length in various places, and has always met with controversy - and in the cases that i've seen has been roundly rejected. That doesn't seem to tally with 'this is our policy, and has been so for a long time.' does it?

Further - could you respond to the assertion above that this misrepresents the nature of ArbCom (no binding precedents etc. etc.)? - It seemed a strong point to me.

You see, the way it looks to me is that several editors supported a policy page (the original attack site page) which was rejected, but they believe in it pretty passionately (this is good!) - so are looking for ways to try and make it stick (this is less good!) - I'm not convinced by a 'this is definitely policy' argument which seems contradicted by the facts.

thanks - Purples 02:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Crum375,

Could you please elucidate how you went from this position [7] to your current one re: this policy?—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 02:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any discrepacy, it that's your point. In one case ArbCom says that community has not reached a consensus and encourage it to continue its debate, in the other they clearly and unequivocally state a ruling that happens to match exactly with current admin and community practice. And ArbCom endorsement is only one part of the equation - written policy, admin and community practice are all important components of Wikipedia policy. Crum375 03:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the salient point is that there is clearly not community consensus for the 'attack-site' portion of this policy - is this our point of disagreement, Crum? - Do you dispute this? - Purples 03:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what your point of disagreement is. The way Wikipedia works is that we have at any given time a set of policies that we work by. They can only be changed by consensus, and substantial or controversial changes require a broad consensus. A 'policy' on wikipedia is the combination of what's written, common practice by established editors and admins, and applicable ArbCom rulings. In this case, removing links to attack sites is such a policy, and can only be changed by a community wide consensus. Crum375 03:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, where I see the discrepancy is with your initial statement that "the ArbCom does not set policy" and your current position that seems to suggest that it does, as an element of common practice. You seem to be citing the ArbCom case as a ruling that governs or determines policy while being reflective of community practice, but I think the controversy over this proposed policy indicates that broader consensus had yet to be determined on the issue.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 03:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom does not set policy, and never has. And if you read carefully what I said here, ArbCom's rulings are a part of what makes a policy, along with accepted practice by established editors and admins, as well as written policies. There is no discrepancy at all, and in this particular case, ArbCom, written policy, as well as practice by established editors and admins are all consistent with the attack site link removal policy. Crum375 03:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that community consensus supports this policy - per much of the above and below, this aspect of the policy is causing more harm than good, and should be removed. I'm not sure if you're correct to assert that this is established policy - it doesn't seem so to me... Purples 03:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It is clearly current policy, as the ultimate test of wiki policies is what is done routinely by established editors and admins, and supported by ArbCom ruling. If you want to change it, you can try to gain community wide consensus for a revised version. Crum375 03:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no clear consensus that it is, especially in common practice.[8]—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 03:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, how did consensus exist before the policy was put into effect? Before this controversy, which was entirely set off by WP:BADSITES, you could argue that there was consensus based on whatever people did at the time. If BADSITES was a test case for developing a certifiable policy reflecting practice, I would say it soundly failed. The community outcry, in various places, over this proposed policy, does not seem to be letting up and does not seem to be swelling towards popular approval of this policy.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 03:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• My problem with the ArbCom ruling has always been its actual implementation. "Websites" do not make attacks; their contributors do. How many attacks need to be made to reach that threshhold? How serious or severe? What level of endorsement, if any, by the website's operators? Is the "attack sites" tag permanent? If not, how long does it last? If so, how would a site that cleaned up its act appeal the determination? For that matter, assuming that becoming an "attack site" requires more than an isolated incident, how is the determination made? And by whom? The idea behind the MONGO judgement is a good one. The black-and-white dichotomy of MONGO was probably necessary at the time to forestall arguments regarding ED by editors who had longstandings relationships with that site before the practice of outings and attacks began. But a broader implementation of MONGO as a general-purpose policy is problematic. It raises too many questions, questions that Wikipedia's policy structure is ill-prepared to handle. And it is clear that these questions are causing problems; people are removing links to sites that are not in any real sense "attack sites" as envisioned by MONGO. In short, there is a serious demarcation problem. Crum375, I am very interseted in your input in this matter. This demarcation problem is probably foremost among the reasons why I have been striving to get consensus for a compromise wording determines the (un)acceptability of links based on content and context, rather than by their destination. Could you consider a solution along those lines acceptable? If you cannot, but have other ideas as to how we could reconcile policy with the above problems, please, I would look forward to discussing them and seeing how they might be incorporated into something universally acceptable. Serpent's Choice 03:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It all boils down to common sense. If a site engages in outing or otherwise attacking or harassing wikipedians, and does not immediately remove such attacks upon request, an admin or editor with common sense will consider it to be an attack site, and remove all links to it. That's all there is to it. Crum375 04:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Any response to the claim that having the practice "stated" as such in policy points out the existence of "attack sites" to trolls and what have you blocked per NPA?—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 04:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually don't see that as a significant consideration. The removal of such links is primarily a courtesy towards the attacked editor and reduces the promotion of those sites. The trolls can google and find anything they want anyway, but attack victims should know that we respect their work here and protect them, and that we intend to create a pleasant environment for them. Having fellow editors post links to attack sites is harassment in itself, that we don't tolerate. Crum375 04:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Crum, do you feel that only sites attacking Wikipedians qua Wikipedians are attack sites? What about sites whose contributors attempt outing and other harrassment against people outside of the Wikipedia context, but whose targets are, by chance, also Wikipedians? I am concerned about the potential scope of this approach. Serpent's Choice 04:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, common sense, but the focus is certainly on wikipedians being attacked, harassed and/or outed. Crum375 04:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Notwithstanding whether or not a "common sense" determination is currently working (given the vitriol here and AN/I, I might argue otherwise), a standard of I know it when I see it could be defensible. But if that is the implementation the community feels is best practice, is anything gained from having the policy refer explicitly to "attack sites"? Would it suffice to say that: "Links that serve as personal attacks against Wikipedia contributors, especially through violations of contributors' privacy, whether due to the content linked or to the context in which the link is referenced, are not acceptable and are subject to removal."? Serpent's Choice 05:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think a policy should give us an outline or general guidance, but need not spell all the details. In this case, if all we said was 'links that serve as personal attacks' it may not be clear that we mean that linking to sites that engage in outing or harassing wikipedia editors constitutes an attack or harassment. So we need to explain that we are talking specifically about linking to attack websites, and let common sense to the rest. Crum375 12:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, you've convinced me Crum. Policy should be especially clear to anyone reading it on that issue. No one prone to making personal attacks should think that it could possibly be ok to ever link to one of these sites. (What was Slim saying about the possibility of agents of these sites deliberately stoking the issue to cause trouble over here?)—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 20:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm sure banned users will do that after they read that links to "attack sites" are prohibited per NPA. (Maybe this is already the source of the secret SOCK problem suspected among certain posters here.)—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 04:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, people who have laughed in the face of everything else Wikipedia could throw at them, are going to stop now. --MichaelLinnear 04:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I sure hope "attack site victims" feel better knowing consensus and "best practice" is telling trolls we have a zero-tolerance policy on linking to attack sites. It would certainly help me sleep better at night knowing every troll warned, blocked or banned per NPA were well-informed of this policy.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 04:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This section has not had consensus in the past. In fact, quite the opposite. A very similar proposal was made a year ago and was not accepted then[9]. It clearly does not have consensus now. Risker 04:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

And note that that page says "Although it is not policy and sometimes controversial, some Wikipedians may see removing links to personal attacks as an appropriate reaction." So, at least at that time, it wasn't considered policy that such links had to be removed; it was just something that some people did (but was controversial). *Dan T.* 05:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yet another round of "attack site" nonsense

This time the target is Teresa Nielsen Hayden, or rather, her blog. There are, or were, or may be numerous references to her blog as citations for various matters related to science fiction publishing. User:Will Beback, with whom she appears to have some strong differences of opinion, has gone on a program of erasing the references to her blog on the basis of the non-policy "attack sites", referring directly to the now all too familiar arbcom case. This washed up in AN/I here. Here we have a case where the "why would anyone want to link to it" rhetorical question has a definite answer: because TNH is unquestionably an important source, and in one article is the primary source. I haven't checked all the cases to see whether the references are utterly necessary. Frankly, I'm getting tired of having to do so much patrolling. But of the few cases I checked, the references are standard web cites in ordinary articles. They simply are not part of personal attacks, and frankly, the whole thing smells of retribution on for a comment in TNH's blog in which she links to Encyclopedia Dramatica's "revelation" of Will Beback's identity.

Meanwhile, it seems to have become the ritual in AfD [I think this was meant as RfA, see below --Malyctenar 09:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)] to ask the nominee about their position on WP:ATTACK.

It's time for the "attack site" pseudopolicy to be finally and permanently put to bed. It has been shopped across at least three different venues, and has yet to achieve consensus in any of them. In RfAs it has thus far failed to prevail against any nominee. RIght now this is just one big wad of disruption. Mangoe 02:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Further aggravating this incident is the fact that Beback made his deletion immediately after I asked him to please stop Wikistalking me. He has previously threatened me with the possibility of him gutting the entries on science fiction editors in bulk. TNH & PNH work with my husband at Tor Books. So this seems to me a clear-cut case of retaliation against me for telling him to get lost and against her for hurting his feelings. Any definition of "attack site" that conceivably includes Making Light needs to be disposed of. Pleasantville 11:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Overview of the (dubious) origin and justification of this rule is in the essay User:Dtobias/Why BADSITES is bad policy#How did we end up with a "bad-sites ban" anyway? I find it very useful for the rules discussion. --Malyctenar 13:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing section per the above.....

... i don't want to kick off an edit war, but i'm going to remove the section for the last time per the discussion above (and in fact all over the wiki in various places!) - at the very least i feel it's clear that there isn't currently community consensus for the section to be there..... Purples 03:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You've made 65 edits to articles, so either you have other accounts (if so, please tell us what they are), or else you're a very inexperienced editor who's not in a position to know what admins do regarding these sites. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

And you'll make sure that's "what admins do" by imposing a litmus test on all RfA discussions in order to torpedo the nomination of anybody with a politically-incorrect view on this. *Dan T.* 03:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh please don't start all this again, Slim - I'd prefer not to talk about myself, but stick to the issues (interested parties have a look at my talk page) - It's my opinion that there's clear consensus on this page at the moment to remove the section - I certainly hold that poisiton, but perhaps a stronger consensus needs to evolve over time here? - I don't believe it's a good idea to leave the section in! - Purples 03:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I remember now what your other accounts are, and I see you're still using them. Why don't you post here with one of the others? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I don't think that this is a productive line of discussion to be following. --MichaelLinnear 03:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry is a serious allegation. I trust evidence will be forthcoming? *** Crotalus *** 03:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Purples has consistently discussed this issue with this account; to use another account in this discussion would be against the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:SOCK. Are you encouraging Purples to carry out an action that could potentially get him banned, SlimVirgin? Risker 03:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

No, not at all. I was asking why he chooses this special account, Purples, when he wants to stir up trouble. So far as I can tell, his other accounts don't do this kind of thing, though I've not checked all their contribs yet. Purples, WP:SOCK says:

Multiple accounts should not be used as a way of avoiding the scrutiny of your fellow editors by ensuring you leave no audit trail. Using sock puppet accounts to split your contributions history means that other editors can't detect patterns in your contributions. While it may be legitimate to do this from time to time (for example, by creating a special account to make edits that might serve to identify you in real life or to avoid harassment), it is a violation of this policy to create multiple accounts in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in tracking your contributions.

If you're going to cause trouble around the policies, people are going to develop a legitimate interest in tracking your contributions, so proceed with caution, please. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, SlimVirgin. However, as Purples has edited this controversial topic throughout using this account, for him to change to another account midstream would go against this section of WP:SOCK:

Some editors use different accounts in talk pages to avoid conflicts about a particular area of interest turning into conflicts based upon user identity and personal attacks elsewhere, or to avoid harassment outside of Wikipedia. A person participating in a discussion of an article about abortion, for example, might not want to allow other participants an opportunity to extend that discussion or engage them in unrelated or philosophically motivated debate outside the context of that article...If you want to edit a "hot" or controversial subject you may use a sock puppet so long as you do not use any other account to edit the same subject or make it appear that multiple people support the same action.

Given that, it is probably better for Purples to continue to edit this topic under this account. Risker 04:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, how do you know he has edited this page with only this account? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

We assumed good faith. --MichaelLinnear 04:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's always a shame when that turns out to be wrong. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Slim - i've got to say that i feel pretty bullied - you deride my input as causing trouble, you muddy the waters with veiled accusations, and you fail to respond to the points that i'm making, prefering to comment on the contributor, ironic, no? Just for the record, of course i'm not editing this page as anyone else. Please lets just talk about the issues.... Purples 04:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

One of the issues on this page is who from outside Wikipedia is stirring up this issue deliberately, and has been ever since the BADSITES proposal. So your other accounts are an issue, Purples, like it or not. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

One of the major people "stirring up this issue" seems to be you, Slim. *Dan T.* 04:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any other account relevant to any of this discussion - perhaps we should take all 'who the devil is this nasty Purples character' conversation to another venue - it certainly isn't helping here, is it? - my talk page is open, or any other ideas? - Purples 04:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Slim, by any chance are you opposing the use of this person's sockpuppet here because he disagrees with you? I ask because I vaguely remembered you supporting the use of sockpuppets when Brandt was unblocked. [10]-I agree with your reasoning in that case, btw. "We can't ask people to risk being hounded in real life because they have a criticism, and yet we want to know what people think." In this situation, they may not be hounded "in real life" but they will be hounded at RfA.  :-) daveh4h 05:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's any comparison, Dave. In the other case, I was supporting the right of people to express their disappointment on the noticeboard about the unblocking of someone who had been outing people; they were using other accounts because they didn't want to be outed themselves. Here, we're talking about the use of a sockpuppet to edit policy. I definitely don't support the latter. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Me neither, but I'm curious. Is there a suspected sockpuppeter? (The Sith work in twos, you know.)—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 20:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, when an editor seems to have one focus and not much else in terms of contribution, Occam's razor is relevent in determining what their purpose is. Though there are editors here who have other things to do on both sides of this debate, there are also a lot of WR and ED partisans as well. If I see new links pop up, I'll either refactor them or remove them outright. Maybe this doesn't need to be spelled out in policy, but since a few have already complained when I removed a pack of lies posted recently that as linked from WR, it seems I'll have to answer the crybabies when I (rightfully) do what I can to protect myself and others from harassment. Using sockpuppets and changing your usernames is pretty easy to detect...one need not be a rocket scientist to see the obvious.--MONGO 06:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think the practical effect of what you are saying is practice is what it is, and would continue despite whatever was written or not written here. (To say nothing about commenting on contributors, however.)—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 06:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

There probably was no comparison then SlimVirgin, and I apologise for bringing it up. Academy Leader, User:Purples has admitted or is suspected to be using a sock account. If that is incorrect someone please remove it or strike it for me. Take care, daveh4h 23:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Current status

As of now, it appears that opinion is about equally split between keeping the section and removing it. That's almost a textbook definition of no consensus. Since policy (except core Foundation issues) must have community consensus behind it, it is not appropriate to keep reinserting it when that consensus is lacking. I was through this same issue before at WT:MOSNUM, where one or two truculent editors were claiming that an old guideline with no current consensus couldn't be changed or removed unless there was consensus to get rid of it. After a discussion on WP:VP/P, that interpretation was rejected by most of the Wikipedia community. *** Crotalus *** 03:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Add me as another to say it should be removed. It's ridiculously bad policy, and we can see firsthand how it ends up being used in censorship and personal conflicts by editors who put their own egos ahead of what's best for the project. DreamGuy 12:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee does not make policy, although it decisions may be incorporated into policy by the community. With respect to the MONGO decision the essence of the decision is that you shouldn't engage in hurtful behavior toward another user. Whether our decision is incorporated into Wikipedia:No personal attacks or not that principle remains valid and enforceable. It is the principle which lies behind Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Fred Bauder 12:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, which has nothing to do with the topic at hand. This is about other sites, where they aren't Wikipedia users. The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee does not make rules for other websites and should not participate or endorse, even inadvertantly, in censorship or retailiation against other sites. I don't know what you think your response here was supposed to mean, but it seems very misplaced... unless you seriously are arguing now that ArbCom makes rules for other sites now too. DreamGuy 13:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Ohhhh, I see... by MONGO decision you mean the ArbCom case where you made your spectacularly bad ruling. Boy, you guys on ArbCom have a perfectly bizarre idea of how the world should work... but then, yeah, I remember you, Fred, trying to invent policy all by your lonesome out of nowhere to punish editors who didn't break any guidelines other than not doing things the way you wanted, despite the fact that everyone else on ArbCom at the time closed the case as pointless. No personal attacks rules are for Wikipedia, not for other sites. Period. You can try to claim otherwise, but when push comes to shove you'll have to give in. Your entire stated strategy here is what dictatorships try to use, an it never works for them in the logn run either. DreamGuy 13:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

What are you rambling about now? No one said we were trying to regulate what others say on other wesbites. The issue is that we not going to import their personal attacks and efforts to out the reallife identities of our editors.--MONGO 18:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy, I agree with MONGO - I find it difficult to follow your argument here. Who is trying to regulate other sites? Fred Bauder said "the essence of the decision is that you shouldn't engage in hurtful behavior toward another user". Are you disagreeing with that priciple? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• I strongly agree that a blanket ban on all references or links to so-called "atack" site, without consideration of individual circumstances, does not have consensus, is not current policy, and should be removed wherever anyone ahs tried to write it into a polcy or guideline page, Oh and I oppose any such policy. DES ^(talk) 22:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

I have protected this policy due to edit warring for 30 hours. Come to a consensus here then reflect it on the page, but don't fight back and forth on the policy itself. If the problem continues after the protection has expired I may find blocking less damaging than protecting this page longer. ^(H) 03:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

And, naturally, it's protected on The Wrong Version!  :-) *Dan T.* 03:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, it is always the wrong version. It was version it was on when I noticed the rather bad edit war. ^(H) 03:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

At least it is the version that still has the "disputed" tag on it. Risker 03:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It's the exciting game of Edit War Musical Chairs... try to have your version be the one that's in the seat when the music stops! *Dan T.* 05:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Where is the consensus support for the "attack sites" section?

I don't get it. How are people arguing that this section is a good idea? If you're trying to gauge consensus according to the number of people or arguments being given on either side, then it's clear that there is no such accord. If you're looking at the content of the arguments themselves (as I hope we are), then I've seen no attempted answer to the most serious disadvantage of the section in question. SlimVirgin, MONGO, SOPHIA, ElinorD, Tom harrison, Mantanmoreland - please, please, please address the point I've raised a dozen times.

Why is it a good idea to use this policy to ADVERTISE THE EXISTENCE OF OUTING SITES? If you don't want people to see outing attempts, then why are you enshrining into policy a note informing readers that such sites exist? A certain percentage of people will look for them based on that. Why are you supporting this? You're undermining what you're trying to do. Please explain, or stop! -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see the bottom of this section. ElinorD (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I missed that. Thanks for the link; I'm reading it now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

-GTBacchus, this issue continues to keep cropping up in all kinds of places, including the wiki-en-l mailing list (where there is a current thread), and in RfAs for several candidates lately. It is becoming more and more clear that there is no consensus for the codification of a practice of removing all links to so-called attack sites, amongst users in general or admins in particular. What there is an apparent consensus for is case-by-case removal of links that serve as personal attacks, and addressing those personal attacks in the same manner as any other personal attacks. Risker 22:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Policy isn't determined by comments to the mailing list...it is determined here. I have yet to see one solid argument why we should link to ED, WR or Brandt's hivemind sites. They fail WP:RS miserably. If anything from those sites is needed here for say an arbcom decision, they can get it via email. In response to GTBaccus, the fact that whenever someone now removes or alters a link to one of these sites they get attacked for doing so is precisely why we need this written into policy. I shouldn't have to answer to trolls and miscreants whenever I remove an attacking link from one of these capricious websites.--MONGO 22:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, thanks for replying. It sounds like you're describing a real problem, but I don't the solution is to make this policy more explicit. Why don't you point out some examples of what you're describing, and we can talk about what the solution might be. I'm certainly ready, willing and able to help you deal with personal attacks. In fact, if you ever need administrative assistance and notice that I'm online, I hope you won't hesitate to ask. Dealing with personal attacks involves a variety of techniques; some involve discreet use of administrative tools, and others involve de-escalating a contentious user. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, MONGO, policy is reflective of practice, not the other way around. If practice is inconsistent across a broad spectrum of users, attempts to codify one preferred model of it over others are going to blow-up like this. People are going to complain re: removing links to blogs and whatnot whether there are words permitting or encouraging so in policy or not, because it will look like censorship to them. Whatever disruption occurs incidental to removing a link on common sense is minor next to the huge Hindenburg disaster setting it into policy is for everyone on WP.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 22:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Odd, this is what I have been practicing...complaints might happen in the future, but no reason they should when we are doing what is best to protect our editors from harassment posted on other websites. This is not a BLP issue...it's an issue of NPA accorded to our editors. When someone posts a link to WR, it is in a thread and even if that exact link isn't an "attack", the rest of the thread oftentimes is. It continues to baffle me that anyone thinks it is necessary to link to WR...filled with opinions made, to a large degree, by banned editors from this website.--MONGO 22:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, everyone is, if not for you, at least ok with you practicing that. The problem is codifying any given solution in a way that compounds upon the initial issue and leads to far more problems than it solves. I don't think anyone is arguing for the "necessity" of these links being here, what people are arguing about is the "necessity" of codifying a certain practice regarding them in policy that anyone can read, including banned editors from this website.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 23:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, since the focus at the moment is TNH's blog, and since it is just as "guilty" as WR, and since it is being used as a citation source all over article space, what everyone predicted has come true: that the policy is being used against sites that don't exist simply to criticize Wikipedia, and it is having a negative impact on the chief mission of the project. In fact, it seems to me that the erasures are really an attack upon TNH (indirectly) as a vehicle for attacking some of her colleagues, and in particular a colleague who is also a Wikipedia editor. So in essence, this is being used to make personal attacks. But then, it always was, because it was always about attacking the integrity of those "attack sites" (and therefore, the posters on those sites). The only difference is that it would appear that policy allows that sort of personal attack.

TNH is of course under no obligation to comport herself according to the dictates of the Wiki policy makers. Indeed, she is only "obligated" to follow her own moral dictates, especially when they conflict with the rules here. It is unreasonable to expect her to do anything else. Mangoe 23:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I have thought a lot about this and think Elinor makes the stronger point - if we can pin this down to privacy issues (and just real life identity ones at that), make a clear policy statement about this narrow type of attack, then any problems can be dealt with swiftly and quietly. I wish there had been something like this last year when I got caught up in one of these situations. I spent several hours traling round after a couple of users who thought I was "suppressing" valid information and kept reverting my removal of it and then posting it elsewhere as well. If I could have pointed them to an "Outing sites" type section of this policy it would have saved a lot of posts and further publicity of this information. Wikilawyering over interpretation of vague cover-all clauses makes mountains out of mole hills and publicizes the information to a much wider audience. Let's drop the "attack sites" language, insert something about "outing sites" (which are easy to define) and give editors what protection we can. Sophia 13:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, we can nail that down easily-- but it isn't what this is about. This has never been about personal attacks, but about otherwise innocent links, including some article citations. There's no dispute that a link used in an attack can be erased, but that's because the attack itself can be erased. However, we've had one instance where the link was erased and the attack left in place, and three others where the links erased were manifestly not part of any attacks. So this is really about stigmatizing a set of sites. But the principle has now escaped twice from the (unwritten) list, and even then the inclusion of various sites on this list is a matter of controversy.

I continue to be unhappy with the attempt to put this under "personal attacks", because other than the tendentious word "attack" there hasn't been a connection between the actual removed links and actual personal attacks since this controversy started in April, save the one case in Merkey's RfC in which the actual attack was allowed to remain. This needs to be moved back to WP:BADSITES and discussed there. Mangoe 15:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Purples

MONGO and especially Slim, if what I say has any credibility with you, please don't suspect Purples of nefarious motives in using a particular account to edit this issue. To be honest, I don't exactly know what his reasoning is for doing that, I haven't asked. But I do know the person, and think him a user with a strong integrity and honesty. For myself, I'm comfortable taking it on trust that they're good motives. I haven't been asked to post this, but I feel impelled to. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 00:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC).

Bish, if you're vouching for this person, that's good enough for me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Slim. Bishonen | talk 00:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC).

I wasn't pointing fingers at anyone in particular, just making a comment about how easy socks and new accounts are to identify, tis all.--MONGO 04:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

An interesting accusation

moved from Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Gracenotes

"BADSITES was a proposal started by a sockpuppet in order to cause trouble." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to put to fine a point on it, but this is a novel allegation with absolutely no proof tendered. I have seen no evidence that User:DennyColt is a true sockpuppet. His first edit was a simple typo fix at the end of January (diff) and he didn't start Wikipedia:Attack sites until 6 April (first version). His last edit was on 13 April; it's not too much to suppose that he found the furor over his essay/proposal intolerable and simply quit. In between he did all sorts of other edits.

Perhaps I missed an earlier statement, but this is the first time I've heard a claim that DennyColt was a sockpuppet. Well, those nasty people suspected him of being a front for The Cabal, but that's hardly surprising under the circumstances. All things considered, I don't believe any such claims. But surely those who make them as flat statements need to put forward certain proof, lest the accusers been seen to be making personal attacks on, well, DennyColt for starters. Mangoe 00:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm equally baffled, as I had never heard of that before. Musical Linguist wrote above: "It is now fairly certain that it was created by a sockpuppet/troll who intended, by an exaggerated wording and an aggressive implementation, to make everyone who supported the MONGO ArbCom ruling look bad." So does that mean Denny "posed" as being against BADSITE links? However, this doesn't really belong here, but it has been mentioned here twice by different people. —AldeBaer 00:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Man, see what misplaced trust will do for you? We've all been so mislead. Here I was thinking DC was on a fast trak to adminship before he suddenly disappeared.—AL ^FOCUS! 00:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It's funny that these accusations of sockpuppetry "to make the BADSITES policy look bad" are only coming now... while DennyColt was actually active, and for a while afterward, I saw nothing but wholehearted support for his approach from the "usual suspects" who are supporting a BADSITES policy now. This sudden accusation of him being a troll trying to make them look bad looks like spin control after their failure to get such a policy to stick. Not to say that it's not necessarily true, but if it is, this troll sure was successful! *Dan T.* 00:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"only coming now"? What nonsense! See [11] [12] [13] [14] And Dan, please desist from the straw man talk about BADSITES, and the highly uncivil "usual suspects" claims. The only people supporting BADSITES now are people like you, who are using it as a straw man with which to undermine opponents of a specific RFA. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey now, let's at least assume good faith of those who are posting here currently, if not those who are conveniently not here to defend themselves. —AL ^FOCUS! 00:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest moving this discussion to the NPA talk page or other appropriate area if it is to be further discussed? The crat will have enough to sort through. daveh4h 01:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm ok with that if you want to do it.—AL ^FOCUS! 01:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Well, our dear departed DennyColt was obviously a sockpuppet, nobody starts out that adept at the Wiki-game, and as Grace Note pointed out, a newcomer definitely would not be writing controversial policy. I recall Denny was also very evasive when someone asked him about any "previous accounts" he had. As for him being a troll and the whole BADSITES brouhaha being nothing but a strategic move, I give you his last edit, maybe he was tring to tell us something? I just wonder who he actually is... --MichaelLinnear 02:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

While it wouldn't surprise me if DennyColt was a sockpuppet (heaven only knows what turned up during the Checkuser that was openly carried out), it is interesting that BADSITES only came into existence after WR started a thread about DC, speculating on how long it would take for him to become an admin. Certainly they weren't the only ones who wondered. I rather doubt his objective was to highlight this hypothetical practice of deleting all links; after all, it wasn't actually being done until he did it. It was only by chance that it came to the attention of many of the people who have been following this issue since the beginning. The troll warning on his talk page was, I believe, put there as a response to the RFC started against him by another editor. Risker 03:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Geez...isn't it enough that efforts to figure out WHO someone is can't be kept on WR...now we have to try and "figure it out" here too? Who cares...get a life.--MONGO 04:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Here, Mongo and I decidedly agree. If there is a case that someone has been improperly using sockpuppets (here or elsewhere on Wikipedia), there are forums for that to be resolved. Absent that, this line of inquiry, especially given the location — on the talk page of Wikipedia:No personal attacks — seems unlikely to bring this complex issue to resolution. We should all strive to judge the varying and sundry opinions in the "attack sites"/"attack pages"/Simplification/etc. debate on their merits. Serpent's Choice 04:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The "cabal members" seem to have decided he was one of the WR-ites; the WR-ites figured he was one of the "cabal members". It seems elementary to conclude that both suppositions were wrong and that DennyColt acted on his own for reasons that are and are likely to remain obscure. I have to assume that the checkuser didn't produce anything conclusive, since its results were never brought forth as the basis for action.

I do not accept claims of sockpuppetry that aren't backed up by evidence of identification; as far as I'm concerned, they are personal attacks, and it bothers the heck out of me that the people who are all hot and bothered about links that don't even lead to attacks feel free to drop this sort of attack directly into the text of talk pages. This pseudo-policy seems to have done nothing more than create another vehicle for contentiousness and harassment. Mangoe 15:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

My own substantial experience with Denny led me to conclude that he was a well intentioned good faith user (I dont agree with Musical linguist that he was a WR plant at all) but I can fully understand the sock accusations as he had the kind of knowledge of wikipedia that takes huge experience to gain and the idea that he made his first ever wikipedia edit on January 28th and by April knew so much is simply not credible. Regardless of agf we need to use our common sense and that dictates that you cant get that much knowledge of wikipedia that quickly, so even at the time (by April) it was obvious he was somebody's sock, I reckon we'll never know whose though, SqueakBox 16:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

DennyColt was an active participant in my RFA, which, coincidentally, touched on some of the same issues being discussed here. So, if he was a sockpuppet, I'd be interested in knowing more details. The ball is in your court, Slim. Cla68 01:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting reading, the history of that RfA. It shows that the "Site That Cannot Speak Its Name" edit warring got started before DennyColt created the first version of "Attack sites"; and indeed, his last edit in the RfA came about a day before he started the policy and his war on WR. It's interesting to look at the early development of "attack sites", as it started as an essay, and then morphed into a policy statement before being forced by others onto the normal policy proposal path.

The impression I get is that DennyColt, after getting into some routinestuff, somehow came upon the RfA process and was there introduced to the "attack sites" dogma. He then, thinking that he knew what he was doing, decided that a formalpolicy statement was needed. Be that as it may, I see now that the MONGO Litmus Test for RfAs goes back further than I realized. It's still not particularly germane, as no admin powers are needed to make the erasures. Mangoe 03:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The MONGO arbitration ruling was added to the policy page by DennyColt [15] and SlimVirgin (SlimV) [16] shortly after SlimV voiced her opposition in my RFA. Cla68 03:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hypothetical (but typical) argument about attack sites

This issue is fairly clear:...Can we link to encyclopedia dramatica? No. Why? Well, because the MONGO arbcom ruling said so. Well, why did they say so? Because the website attempts to post real life information about our contributors and also harasses them in ways that are in some circumstances beyond repulsive. Yeah, but they claim to be a "parody website" Well, yes that is true. Then why can't people "take a joke"? Because some people don't think is "funny" to be called a pedophile or far worse. Okay, gee, I guess I understand...but can we link to Wikipedia Review? No. But golly, I saw on WR this uh, information that MONGO runs a 9/11 anti-conspiracy theory CABAL! It was originally posted here on Wikipedia, and some of the commentators there agreed that it is true...that might be real important for others to know about...one editor responded something about MONGO and others involved must be...well heres the link 1 Really, why is that important? uh, well, 'cause it might be, and best yet, they don't claim to be a parody website like ED! Precisely. huh...I missed your point I guess you did.--MONGO 05:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

And, to the extent this example provides, I don't think there is really much debate. The concern is primarily about how we say that in policy-speak. The biggest reason I have been advocating moving away from the explicit "attack sites" verbiage can be expressed in a similar hypothetical example:

• Can we link to michellemalkin.com? Yes. But she's offensive! But she's an important figure in American political commentary. Besides, Wikipedia isn't censored. But she posted detailed personal information about college students who disagreed with her. We even talk about that in her article! Yes, but that isn't what NPA means when it talks about attack sites. She's not attacking Wikipedians. But those students could be editors. But that's not the same thing. Isn't it? <This also works for Stormfront, Free Republic, and a lot of other places.>
• Can we link to Making Light? Yes. Erm, actually, I take that back. No, not anymore. What did I just miss? There were some personal attacks by posters there, and the site operator made a link to one of them at an even worse location. So ... that's it? The stuff that was okay before gets removed? That's what they said at ArbCom. "Game over." But, how does that affect whether unrelated links, especially pre-existing ones, might contribute to the encyclopedia? Sorry, this is about protecting our own. <This also applies to Kelly Martin's offsite work, and, unfortunately, probably a whole lot more places that will come out of the woodwork eventually.>

Would it not be better to set a "context or content" condition for exclusion in policy, while maintaining the practice that ED/WR/WW links are implicitly assumed to have inappropriate context? Serpent's Choice 05:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

My argument has nothing to do with websites that criticize Wikipedia. Nor am I a fan of going around and stripping old links unless they are definitely in threads that do nothing but attack our editors. I made a definition of "attack sites"...something to the tune of: ...collaborative efforts to identify the real life identities of your editors which could put them in harms way (or something like that)...are these other websites doing this? Are they saying MONGO=Elvis Presley and he lives at <address>...his phone number is: <here>? Because, that is what ED, WR and WW do...they try to expose through a collaborative or even independent effort, the real life identities of our editors. Heck, on ED, (and I even contacted the guy that falsely inplicated) they linked some blog to me and it's not mine...they inadvertantly are attacking someone that has never done a thing to them. Someone please explain to me how these extremely few websites have one iota of useful info that we need to link to? I have yet to see one example where the need justifies the harm.--MONGO 06:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Those two examples of mine were not intended to illustrate your behavior, MONGO. While I think we sometimes reach different conclusions about what we should say here, I have no objection to the actions you've taken (that I know of, at least ... I'm not going to parse your contribs!). But those examples I've provided aren't entirely hypothetical. They are arguments that have been made or actions that have been taken by people attempting in apparent good faith to implement the policy as worded. I think the definition you just provided (is this new, or did I miss this being posted somewhere in the sea of comments upthread??) might lead to a solution. I'll link to a possiblity momentarily; thank you for the response. Serpent's Choice 06:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think you were discussing my behavior nor was I defending me. Again, if a website is actively engaged in ...collaborative efforts to identify the real life identities of your editors which could put them in harms way then that is the issue.--MONGO 06:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Rather a straw man argument, or at least a biased presentation, MONGO, IMO. How about: Can we link to Wikipedia Review? No. But they post critiques of wikipedia policy, and some editors here say they agree But they have in the past postes people's personal information. There's noting like that on the page I want to link to, it doesn't even mention anything like that. Still no. "Why not? They aren't a reliable source. I want to quote their arguments in policy pages, not use them as a source for an article. Err.. well.. sorry, some people jsut don't like WR, no matter what. I see, than can I link to TNH's blog? No. Why not? She has psoted strong criticism of some wikipeida editors. So what, lots of people post strong criticism every day right here But hers was too striong, it wouldn't be allowed here. Besides, it off-wiki. But she's a reliable source. She's a published editor, with a major firm, discussing her editorial decisions, which is relevant to articles about those books. Er.. well, still no.
  • that is the kind of conversation that an enshrined policy could--no, WILL--lead to. See User:Dtobias/Why BADSITES is bad policy. I think that soem concede too much here -- I never have seen a good reson why the signpost link was removed, or why in a simialr situation in future a link would be inappropriate. Blanket site bans are simply wrong. DES ^(talk) 06:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, the potential harm outweighs the benefits of the opinions to be derived from what appears to be a lot of banned or blocked editors with an axe to grind. We are talking about a bloggish website, no? I vehemently disagree that blanket site bans are simply wrong...nonsense...we already don't link to ED for less reason than we shouldn't link to WR...at least ED claims to be a parody site.--MONGO 06:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The potential harm outweighs the benefits... of a potential policy on the potential harm outweighing the benefits of the opinions of banned or blocked editors with axes to grind. Endless recursion.—AL ^FOCUS! 06:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Does a compromise exist in an "unstated agreement" that no one links to WR, WW, or ED, but the "attack sites" language is removed so that sites like Teresa Nielsen Hayden's blog and Kelly Martin's blog do not get removed? The removal of these kind of sites is my problem with the wording. daveh4h 06:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It isn't necessary to name any websites at all...simply put and again all we need to state in this policy is that websites that engage in efforts to identify the real life identities of Wikipedians and post such information which could put them in harms way should not be linked to. That is the litmus test for what we shouldn't link to as far as I am concerned. Other wesbites that don't do this will simply need to follow other policies...WP:RS, etc.--MONGO 06:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

To me that would not include Teresa Nielsen Hayden's blog, as I don't think a collaborative effort was made to "out" an editor, (my understanding is that info on another site was posted to a blog comment) but as I keep finding out people read into things differently. What would you say, MONGO? Can you think of a way that wording may be abused? daveh4h 07:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, could we just say that it is a bad idea to do that in any case and not spell out "links to websites" so that those whose personal info may be on those sites will not be further compromised through WP?—AL ^FOCUS! 07:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

For me, it is about the websites themselves. Websites that don't adhere to this principle shouldn't be linked to. In answer to daveh4h, I find blogs to be rather useless as far as an encyclopedic effort goes...I got tired of watching news since they tend to say, gee, Jezabell said <blah> on her blog, so lets attack her for saying that. If someone was outted inadvertantly, then that is very different than if it is done deliberately.--MONGO 07:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Your proposal violates both WP:NPOV and WP:RS. It is not our place, as an encyclopedia, to dictate what policies are enforced on external websites used as references. If you think that certain sources are not reliable for whatever reason, then say so, and a discussion can proceed on that basis. Talking about "attack sites" simply muddies the issue unnecessarily. Frankly, I find the sheer arrogance of these proposals to be breathtaking. *** Crotalus *** 07:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Technically, TNH's website did contain personal info, but the links to the blog were not used in the context of a personal attack, nor did they lead to the entry with the attack (I don't think). I am therefore uneasy about labeling it or sites like it an attack website. It only gained wide spread attention once the links started to be removed. It is my understanding that of the links removed, none went to the blog entry with the obscure reader comment somewhere on the page. This is my only concern, that sites will potentially be fitted into the "attack sites" category for whatever reason. I thank MONGO for answering pretty much every question he has been asked here.

Re: MONGO - On blogs being useless, I generally agree, but links to blogs are sometimes good sources and even if they are not, they routinely appear in userspace, policy discussion, etc. I personally do not discount all information on a blog just because it is a blog.

(edit conflict) RE: Crotalus - You make good points. However, we already know what we disagree on, now seems like a good time to find common ground. Like many here I am just very anxious to get this resolved. daveh4h 07:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicts,to MONGO) Could we just forget about the fact of the existence of these sites except as awareness of their existence may affect any Wikipedians with their personal information actually exposed there? Isn't the security of those Wikipedians far more important than whether WP has an absolute policy that could be used to block someone over? The beans are pouring out our noses here, MONGO!—AL ^FOCUS! 07:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need to mention what sites are "blacklisted" at all, nor do I think any admin should be rushing to the block button everytime someone posts one of these links.--MONGO 15:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The crux of the BEANS argument, as I see it, is this. If somebody doesn't know that there exist "outing sites", then they should be able to read this policy and continue to not know that such sites exist. Any explicit mention of "websites that host outing efforts" is an advertisement for such sites. Can't we phrase it in a way that doesn't serve to inform the curious about sites that we don't want them to put in their noses? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• This revision to the simplification proposal attempts to split the difference based on the above conversation. It avoids the explicit "attack sites" verbiage. It attempts to address the material that practice deals with the most harshly, in a manner that is (I think) unlikely to encourage cross-purposes. As to whether it succeeds ... I hope to hear from both advocates and opponents of the currently-protected version to make that determination. (Do note: this is templated off the 17 April NPA, so the external stuff isn't in the same places it is at the moment.) Serpent's Choice 07:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• I personally feel a strong need not to prescribe "ifs" and "whens". That should be sorted out "on the fly" as it has been. It seems we've all tried our hand at writing this specific area, so here is my contribution: "Links used within the context of a personal attack to defame or personally identify anonymous users are not tolerated." - Then the 3rr business, blocking if necessary, etc. I don't like admitting in a policy page that there links on the internet that out editors, but this is difficult to circumvent because not linking to this material, labeling what this material is, and if one page on a site spoils all the others, is the core issue. Stressing the context of the link must be essential to whatever wording gains consensus, as recent history has taught us. daveh4h 08:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• I do actually prefer my previous suggestion to the one currently on the proposal. "Links that serve as personal attacks against Wikipedia contributors, especially through violations of contributors' privacy, whether due to the content linked or to the context in which the link is referenced, are not acceptable." But I'm trying to float a few possible suggestions to explore what might be most generally acceptable. Serpent's Choice 08:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• This one is better, I think. It is more grammatically correct and keeps things simpler. To be honest, my hope for finding a compromise position has significantly faded as time has gone on; there is good reason to perceive that a core group would rather have a big "disputed" tag in the middle of a policy page rather than make any compromise or concede that there are problems with this section, despite the multiple actual problematic deletions that have occurred based on that section. As to the 3RR and blocking issue, that should either apply to the entire policy or not at all - and I understand there is no consensus on that. Risker 12:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• I prefer this version as well. I simply can see no good reason to erase links whose intent is not to make an attack. Mangoe 15:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

A response...

I really do see Serpent as presenting a very good option - and I think we may be getting closer to understanding each other, you see (MONGO) - i don't think many editors disagree with many of your link removals, I think we just feel that you don't need this explicit policy to have the authority to do this. The sites Will Beback was removing as attack sites certainly didn't qualify, but i believe there was a thread (maybe two, I haven't checked) on them discussing who he was. If you apply common sense there, it's pretty clear that those sites (Making Light et al) aren't attack sites, so shouldn't be removed, but on the other hand they kind of technically fit the criteria suggested here = paradox = problem. The problem lies with the prescriptive criteria in my opinion.

To give a genuine personal example, when you and other editors were a bit annoyed at me, a thread started on AN/I with people asking could he be this guy? or that guy? - understandable at the time, but surely falling afoul of these criteria, no? - best, Purples 06:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• The only thing that should be specifically prohibited is circumventing WP:NPA by linking directly to off-site attacks. Under no circumstances is it acceptable for reliable sources to be removed from articles because they offend the sensibilities of our editors. That is a gross violation of WP:NPOV, among other policies. First and foremost, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the project is more important than any of our individual feelings or beliefs. *** Crotalus *** 07:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Again, hear hear - exactly. I suppose the illustration for this would be (yet another) hypothetical example of the NY Times / other reliable source publishing an article speculating about any of our identities here - a situation that we all will have to accept is eventually quite likely with the continued growth of wikipedia..... - have you seen Serpent's compromis, Crotalus? - it's pretty good... Purples 10:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected

... now that the policy is unprotected - I would think it would be a good idea if anyone thinking of making any change at all perhaps gave 10mins or so notice here first? - might help avoid another edit spat (didn't really qualify as a war in my book!..) - I would still support the removal of 'that' bit........ Purples 11:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouild support a complete replacement with one of the rewite versions, I wopuld particularly favor this version. DES ^(talk) 12:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I completely oppose your suggested version. It makes zero mention of not linking to websites that make overt efforts to "out" the real life identities of our editors.--MONGO 16:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The proposal addresses outing twice. Among the list of comments that are never acceptable: "...This includes revealing or threatening to reveal personally identifiable information of Wikipedia editors." And, specifically regarding external links: "Links that serve as personal attacks against Wikipedia contributors, especially through violations of contributors' privacy, whether due to the content linked or to the context in which the link is referenced, are not acceptable." What I, and most of the editors demonstrating support for this phrasing are saying (I think, anyway), is that in the cases where a website has demonstrated, as you put, a collective effort to reveal personal information, that links to that site are at best highly unlikely to exist outside of the context of a personal attack. This is not an effort to withdraw the force of policy from those situations; it is an attempt to 1) mitigate the curiosity factor of uninvolved users searching for the kind of "websites" we call out as categorically problematic and 2) to prevent this sort of thing from recurring. Do you feel it is impossible for us to take this stance without explicitly admitting that there are websites engaging in this practice? Serpent's Choice 16:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

(EC)I don't care if we "explicitly admit" that some sites host efforts to expose the personal information of wikipedians and others. What I do care about, and what was clear in the ANI thread about TNH is that perfectly valid links, to a reliable source, were being removed, because of "attacks" (which seem to me rather dubious as attacks, but never mind) that were wholly unconnected both in location and subject and purpose from the links involved, and this was done citing NPA. This is exactly what I have been saying would happen. MONGO has said he can't see a reason to link to any "attack site" ever. Do you, MONGO maintain that there was no valid reason to link to the TNH site? or do you say that it should not have been called an "attack site". If not, why not. Or are you ready to change your view that there is never a valid reason to link to any part of any site that hosts "outing attacks" anywhere on it? DES ^(talk) 16:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I know nothing of the TNH site...is it a website that makes it a major part of its mission to harass our editors?--MONGO 17:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Nah. Its a generally respectable site about science fiction publication. The contributors got into a discussion about "What do you get when you Google yourself?" Some of the old ED drama came up, compounded with a personal dispute there that had unfortunate timing. They've redacted the thread, we've replaced the links. That's the executive summary that skips all the AN/I soap opera. Serpent's Choice 20:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

But the point is, an editor was removin links to it wholesale, citing this policy, using terms very much like thsoe you use about WR. Please read the ANI thread to see what I mean. DES ^(talk) 23:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to make a guess here...I think if you change the wording to what you guys are suggesting, it will be reverted back to the current edition. I might be wrong, but I will say that I won't revert you. I think a lot of people who are in dispute on this issue have simply decided to not argue here about this anymore, and will instead simply edit the policy. I highly doubt that many will be trying to figure out what websites we are talking about.--MONGO 16:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Very well i'll give it a try, and we'll see. DES ^(talk) 16:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Specifically I am going to replace with this version in a few minutes, if no one posts objecting further. DES ^(talk) 16:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not wait a bit longer and see what others think. As I said, I think edits will end up being changed back to the existing "disputed" version. I intend to continue to dispute efforts to water down this important issue.--MONGO 16:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, please understand that I, at least, have no desire to "water down" the issue of linking to outing sites. I want to refrain from informing people about their existence. You are suggesting that we make damn sure that everyone who reads NPA is apprised that there are outing sites on the Internet, waiting to be searched for. That's a bad idea. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer we kept the section on linking to attack sites. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Tom, I do respect your position; however, we have just seen what happens when a user interprets this section to mean "a site that, in one thread, has a link to another site that reveals what appears to be personal information about an editor." What wound up happening was that hundreds of people followed that link to find out what the editor was on about. It had the opposite effect of the intention. The worst part was that the offending thread was not linked, anywhere, to a Wikipedia page, until the issue was brought up at AN/I.

I have absolutely no problem with treating links to personal attacks in exactly the same way as a direct personal attack - reverting, warning, and, in egregious cases, blocking. Frankly, I don't think there is a single person who has posted in this thread who opposes this idea. It is, however, pretty clear that there is no universally held concept of what constitutes an attack site. Ever since this BADSITES/attack sites issue came to the forefront, the only consistent thing that has happened is that when someone starts deleting links in accordance with this disputed section, lots of people check out what the fuss is about. Frankly, this whole discussion has done more to violate the privacy of the editors discussed on those sites than simply removing direct attacks using links ever would have. Risker 17:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

We might be able to fix that issue with some wording changes, to make it clear that this section of the policy is meant to apply to a relatively limited number of sites who see such "outing" of Wikipedia editors as a major or primary focus. I like Serpent's Choice's latest version, which includes these two sentences: "Links that serve as personal attacks against Wikipedia contributors, whether due to the content linked or to the context in which the link is referenced, are not acceptable. Especially when pertaining to habitual or collaborative efforts to violate Wikipedia contributors' privacy, these links may be removed." That would seem to cover the sites which are generally considered to be beyond the pale, while making it clear that the policy doesn't authorize removing links to Kelly Martin's blog, etc. JavaTenor 18:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Another possibility (at some point, one of these will click for everyone, or so I hope):

"Links that serve as personal attacks against Wikipedia contributors, whether due to the content linked or to the context in which the link is referenced, are not acceptable. In exceptional circumstances, such as an established or coordinated effort to violate contributors' privacy, links are strongly discouraged even if not directly to offending material."

This is probably a stronger stance than my previous suggestions, although I think it places the burden for removal higher than the current one seems to read. The situation must be "exceptional" (ED/WR? Sure. Isolated one-off attack? Not exceptional.) and the indirect links are "strongly discouraged" rather than "unacceptable" — hopefully offering justification to avoid mass purges of existing material when useful and unrelated to hypothetical future events (or in the case of a Utopian redemption of someplace like WW). Also, it provides an example of something meeting these conditions (which we know is a real-world example) without saying it is ... a reader whose universe of knowledge was solely this policy could very well think we had simply made that up as a worst-case scenario. YMMV. Thoughts? Serpent's Choice 20:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a little strong for me -- I think there ar cases where links even to WW or WR might be legit -- but i could go along with a slightly modified version. How about this:

"Links that serve as personal attacks against Wikipedia contributors, whether due to the content linked or to the context in which the link is referenced, are not acceptable. In exceptional circumstances, such as an established or coordinated effort to violate contributors' privacy, links are strongly discouraged even if not directly to offending material. However, links which are in fact serving as citations of reliable sources and which do not directly link to attacks, nor are used so as to be attacks by implication, should not be removed just because of content elsewhere on the site being linked to."

This should deal with the case of the TNH blog, but won't apply to WR, WW, or the like unless they somehow pass the test for being reliable sources, which seems a remote contingincy. I'm afrad that Serpent's Choice's language without the "however..." would be read to justify the TNH link removals -- it was claimed on ANI that because the threads that referenced personal info were contributed to by more than one person, there was a "coordinated effort", and no doubt anyone arguing for link removals will argue that any situation that might involve personal info is "extraordinary". Since several people have said that WW, WR etc will never be RSs, this provision will have no effect on links to those sites. DES ^(talk) 20:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not object to improvements in the wording, but I think the answer is to be reasonable when applying this policy. We can't cover every possible contingency, and so there will always be edge cases. We know that people will disagree, and there are other mechanisms to deal with that. We need not (and cannot anyway) write the policy to obviate the need for good judgment. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Attack sites again

As has been amply demonstrated these past few days, the whole idea of "attack sites" is controversial, prone to confusion and not adding anything worthwhile to Wikipedia policy. Why not omit this whole idea from ths policy and replace it with a simple "link to off-Wikipedia attacks on Wikipedia editors are not allowed anywhere"? That keeps the essence of what we all would like to keep in the policy (no personal attacks) without dragging in irrelevant sideissues. --Martin Wisse 17:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You might be interested in taking a look at Serpent's Choice's proposed version, which may address some of your concerns. JavaTenor 17:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales is an wikipedia editor. Are WP:RS links to sources that "attack" (does that mean criticize? what exactly?) him banned? Does this policy only apply to "protecting" wikipedia editors editing under pseuonyms? How does one personally attack a pseudonym? So the real issue here is "outing" editors. I suggest that editors who are worried about being outed on external sites, be they reliable or not, stop posting personal claims (often false to deceive in editing disputes, ala Essjay and others who post misleading religious afiliations, educational backgrounds, etc to appear to be neutral on hot topics) on their user pages. That way reliable sources and "attack sites" will have no way to out you. As in the Essjay case, these userpage boasts are not red herrings to throw off stalkers, they're used to deceive in editing battles. Don't want to be outed? Don't give anyone any personal information at all, misleading or not. Piperdown 19:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, personal attacks aren't tolerated in society, let alone Wikipedia. Therefore, there shouldn't be any excuses to link sites specifically written to give personal attacks to a user. As for the wording, just be concise. (since Wikilawyering is frown upon by many.)--Kylohk 22:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"personal attacks aren't tolerated in society" - but they are quoted in wikipedia articles, even biographies, if those "attacks" come from reliable sources. Also, what does wikipedia do if a wikipedian (I assume this means an active editor, as editors who "voluntarily retire" or get banned are fair game for personal attacks after Conan the Wikipedian has conquered his enemies and heard the lamentations of their women) is also the subject of a biography, wherein he/she is "personally attacked" by a linked site? Is that an attack site? If that's the case, I can think of several BLP subjects I'd like to contact and tell them to sign up for wikipedia accounts so their BLP's can have personal attacks removed. This isn't wikilawyering - this kind of thing leads to real lawyering. Kind of like Wikipedia's policy of letting anyone in the world write <public figure here> is <slander> and have it stand on a site that dominates google search results for days or months. This is serious stuff, kids. This is also why subjects of BLP's aren't going to give a damn that pseudonym editors on wikipedia think they have a right to privacy while editing articles about them that dominate google searches. There are going to be more "attack" sites on the net if attack sites are sites that "out" wikipedia editors. As wikipedia grows in fame for better or worse, there will be more Essjays and they will probably be a lot worse. Essjay didn't have any enemies at major media outlets. I feel sorry for any current wikipedians who do.Piperdown 04:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It is only dedicated attack sites that admins remove links to as a rule, and that's what was being referred to by the ArbCom: sites that practise outing and defamation, not a site that happens to do that once, but that does other things most of the time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

By remove, do you mean simply deleting the link, but it still shows in the article history, or do you mean oversighting, making the edit disappear completely? Cla68 03:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

but is there any merit in the line of thinking which says that removing clear cut attack links would be supported without this explicit clause, and that further, there's already ample evidence that this clause is immediately abused (even if in good faith) - causing harm to the encyclopedia? - maybe this isn't a "what's right and what's wrong" discussion as much as a "what causes the least damage?" - Purples 01:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I have missed something. When did WillBeBack resign his adminship? And where in the disputed section of the policy does it say only admins may delete links to what they consider to be dedicated attack sites? Risker 01:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No, Will Beback is still an administrator, and it didn't say that anywhere. --MichaelLinnear 01:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Fark

There is a thread on the front page of Fark in which several people have sought out and uncovered the identity of a Wikipedia editor. They have posted his real name, links to his place of employment, and pictures taken from his school webspace. How should this be handled, and who's going to do it? Frise 08:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are you posting this here? Tell a modmin and they will delete it. Kotepho 09:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Question about outing editors

Given all the discussion of attack sites lately, I am more aware than ever of the extreme prohibition regarding the outing of editors. Here's what I don't understand, however: doesn't this prohibition come into occasional conflict with WP:COI? If an editor is suspected of maintaining an article on himself or herself as a vanity page, how does one approach the problem without "outing" the editor (and whatever socks may be involved)? Thanks in advance for clarifications.--G-Dett 13:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

That has often been a problem, and indeed one editor suspected of indirect vanity publishing (s/he was allegedly doing it on behalf of a close relative) took other editors to the ArbCom when they outed him/her on a talk page.

The best thing to do if you suspect COI is to have a word with the editor in question by e-mail (unless it's really obvious that it's the subject of an article, say, and they're making little or no attempt to hide it), and if that doesn't work, speak to other admins or arbitrators about it by e-mail. If someone isn't outing themselves, we're meant to try, as far as possible, not to do it for them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

We're to try, as far as possible, not to out anyone who isn't outing themselves? Does this mean it's entirely up to violators of WP:COI to police themselves? --G-Dett 20:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well not quite - I think Slim means that the right thing to do is to first notify admins and arbitrators via email and try to deal with it that way - that would hopefully resolve most cases. I would agree, but add that if this doesn't work, then you should raise the matter on-wiki - and certainly not be criticised or punished for it... Purples 23:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I see people coming very close to outing editors on the COI noticeboard. I think you can present evidence on that noticeboard of a COI without actually coming out and saying who you think the editor in question really is. Like saying, "I think 'User:_____________' has a very close relationship to the subject of that article because..." and then present your evidence. COI used to be one of the criteria for nominating an article for deletion, but that appears to have been removed from the policy now. Cla68 23:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This might be a good example to build consensus on - I would say it's clearly acceptable to link to an external page to support an appropriately made point at the COI noticeboard - would anyone really say that every such link must always be removed, should it mention names? - probably not...! - Purples 00:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of precedent rulings?

Why where the links and wording to ArbCom rulings related to off-wiki attacks removed from that section? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

See section below --Martin Wisse 15:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Reworded no attack site section

The essence of "no attack section" here is simply "links to personal attacks on Wikipedians are not tolerated just like personal attacks on Wikipedia are not tolerated"; I've reworded the section to reflect this and hopefully cut out the politics this way. Feel free to shout at me (politely) if this is wrong. --Martin Wisse 15:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a nice try, but I think it isn't going to stick. Mangoe 16:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I can support this version. DES ^(talk) 16:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

My edit summary was cut off. I think this is OK, but I added Sophia's proposal, which was posted earlier on this talk page, to assuage the many concerns that have been raised and to incorporate current practice.--Mantanmoreland 16:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

To address the concerns of some who have argued that this policy could be used against the New Yorker in the Essjay controversy, etc., I've added a sentence that this policy does not apply to bona fide news organizations.--Mantanmoreland 16:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no, I cannot support either Martin Wisse's or Mantanmoreland's edits. First off, why would there be different treatment for these sorts of attacks than any others? This "not subject to the 3RR" is nonsense - if the attack is that egregious, the user should be blocked. More particularly, Mantanmoreland has completely misstated the Foundation's position on privacy and the use of pseudonyms. Nobody has the "right to remain anonymous" here - in fact, the editor of every single edit is identified, either by username or IP. None of us is anonymous, whether or not we use pseudonyms. The privacy policy simply suggests that pseudonyms are somewhat less easy to trace than IP addresses, not that they are going to do anything to guarantee anyone's privacy. The Foundation doesn't release the information it has except under specific circumstances. But remember that anything an editor posts to Wikipedia is (from the Foundation perspective) the responsibility of the editor as publisher. Risker 16:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I put back Martin's version, because that is the Lowest Common Denominator of where consensus is. Everyone agrees linking to off-site attacks is prohibited. Not everyone - and clearly not even a majority - can agree on adding attack sites. I've (currently) no opinion on the anonymity issue. SchmuckyTheCat 17:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I can live with it, although the 3RR stuff really doesn't make a lot of sense - an attack is an attack and should be treated exactly the same way wherever it comes from. The link to the Privacy Policy is on the bottom of every single Wikipedia page, and anyone using "privacy" as a reason for this addition to the policy would (I believe) find insight in reading it. Risker 17:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I agree with Risker and stand corrected on the privacy thing. I just took Sophia's proposal word for word, as it had received substantial support. I was trying to reach a compromise. There is absolutely no consensus for removing the attack sites section. --Mantanmoreland 17:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Mantanmoreland, I think perhaps my post was a little tersely worded. The privacy thing came up earlier in the discussion, but it's entirely possible you weren't involved then so wouldn't have been aware of that conversation. It is amazing how many electrons have been tied up on this issue ;-) Risker 17:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland, what do you think of the "attack sites" language in Serpent's Choice's proposed version? For reference, the sentences I'm referring to are: "Links that serve as personal attacks against Wikipedia contributors, whether due to the content linked or to the context in which the link is referenced, are not acceptable. Especially when pertaining to habitual or collaborative efforts to violate Wikipedia contributors' privacy, these links may be removed." It strikes me that "habitual or collaborative efforts" covers the sites most agree should fall under the "attack sites" definition. Basically, one should never link to an attack/outing page on any site, and one should never link to a site where such content is a major focus (as per SlimVirgin, this probably applies to a relatively limited number of sites). JavaTenor 17:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a reasonable attempt to define an "attack site," but the wording is a bit vague. "Habitual and collaborative efforts" is good, for starters, but may not be sufficient. The problem comes when you attempt to "define" such sites, which is why "Badsites" was such a bad idea (in retrospect) and why I would prefer to not have a definition and leave it to the good judgment of administrators on a case-by-case basis.--Mantanmoreland 18:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It's weird that there seems to have been a role-reversal in the two sides lately. Originally (a month or two ago), the battle lines seemed to be that the "anti-link-ban" side was arguing for deciding things on a case-by-case basis with discretion and good sense, while the "pro-link-ban" people were going all-out with fire and brimstone to insist on a draconian, zero-tolerance approach without any opportunity for "wiggle room". Now, it seems, the latter group is now calling for case-by-case good judgment and common sense, and the former group has turned to wanting a tightly-worded definition to prevent potentially harmful excesses in "discretion" in future cases. Weird, huh? *Dan T.* 19:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If you assume good faith, which is unclear from your post, that should be welcome, not "weird." This is not a political debate. Hopefully editors are not rigid, have an open mind and can change their minds as a debate goes on. That is why you find that people of all viewpoints hold their nose when "Badsites" is mentioned. --Mantanmoreland 20:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I still think that we are better off not mentioning it at all, but it seems that the predominant urge is to write something. Mangoe 19:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well said, Dan. I went from "judge everything on its own merits" position into what was in effect a very narrow definition of what could be allowed (i.e. that which would be overturned by use of WP:IAR in the event of a total ban). I think if the editors still trying to progress this concept realise that we have gone passed each other, without noticing, in an effort to accommodate the others concerns then there is the very real possibility that consensus is not an unattainable goal. Might be worth a sub-heading of itself? LessHeard vanU 21:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a bad idea to post a definition of attack sites other than the ArbCom's, which I've added in a footnote. If I were to attempt a definition, I'd say something like:

For the purposes of this policy, an "attack site" is a website that regularly publishes, or a large portion of which includes, any of the following: the purported personal details of Wikipedians, unless those users have themselves explicitly revealed the information; personal attacks; defamation; personal threats; or posts that constitute, report the results of, threaten, or incite harassment, stalking, cyberstalking, invasion of privacy, or violence."

That about covers it. The key point is there has to be a degree of regularity about it. A blog that on one occasion names a Wikipedian has done a not-very-nice thing, but that doesn't make it an attack site. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree...good summary...perhaps the footnote to the MONGO arbcom case is better than having links in the body of the policy text.--MONGO 20:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and it is so specific as to make my "exception for bona fide news media" exemption unnecessary.--Mantanmoreland 20:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It's getting much better now... I particularly like the use of the Arbcom ruling as a footnoted reference, where it's clearly informational regarding the history and background of the issue rather than being claimed to be part of the policy itself. *Dan T.* 21:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

What if a website gives evidence of a conflict of interest taking place with an editor on Wikipedia? Looking through the COI noticeboard, I see people heavily using off-site evidence to try to prove their case that an editor has a conflict of interest. I can see how someone could use the "defamation" clause in the above definition to try to ban such evidence from being presented in Wikipedia forums on the grounds that it comes from an "attack" site. Cla68 23:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't imagine a situation where evidence that was only on an attack site would be taken seriously, but in any event, links can be e-mailed to interested parties. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess it depends on your interpretation of what an attack site is. To me, a site that presents verifiable evidence of a COI issue on Wikipedia isn't attacking, but highlighting an issue that needs to be corrected. If the community consensus or the Wikimedia board policy is that these types of issues should be discussed by email instead of openly in one of the forums, like the COI forum, then that's how it should be done. The Gracenotes RFA donnybrook, however, appears to me to indicate that there isn't such a consensus. CLA 00:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a definition up above. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Why, oh why, do you want to advertise the existence of outing sites? Can't we find a way to phrase the policy that doesn't inform readers that such sites exist, when this will inevitably lead to those sites being seen by more people? SlimVirgin, MONGO, can you please address this? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, any chance of an answer on this point? As far as I can tell, you have not responded to this important argument, that explicitly mentioning "attack sites" in our policy constitutes an advertisement for them. I don't know whether you disagree, don't care, or what, but you keep re-inserting the BEANS-y language. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this earlier. I don't agree that it constitutes an advertisement. Following that line of reasoning, we should never mention the word "vandalism," in case it gives someone the idea. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not quite the same logic, no, but I'm glad you've finally replied. Allow me to explain. We can word this policy more, or less, explicitly. We can write this policy in a way that informs every reader that there exist specific sites investing energy in the revelation of personal info about Wikipedians. Or, we could write the policy in a way that's just as effective, but doesn't alert readers to the existence of sites they might not have known about.

If we mention that there exist "outing sites", then a certain percentage of readers will have their curiosity piqued, and go look for such sites. A certain percentage of those people will be people you don't want seeing Wikipedians' personal info, but you'll have sent them directly to it. Let's avoid that situation.

Arbitrators have agreed that the offending links can be removed without writing an explicit mention into policy. Let's do that, because it's smarter and safer. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I like the summary, too. —AldeBaer 01:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

One note per the contention above: links can be e-mailed to interested parties. Not all wikipedians use email. If this is going to create cases where editors must have email to be an effective member of the community, this really is WP:CREEP. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The Footnotes.....

I understand the reasoning behind footnoting the arbcom quote - and if that particular quote is there, then I understand the need for the second footnote. But they look lousy together! - It's a little embarrassing to have a quote, then what amounts to a retraction of that quote in my eyes, on a policy page, no? - Perhaps we should just refer to previous judgments in prose? - Or given the fact that we clearly state elsewhere that Arbcom doesn't make policy, perhaps the whole idea is flawed? hmmmmm... sorry for the lack of answers for now - best, Purples 00:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree with you, Purples. It looks absurd. But it's a six-of-one, half-dozen of the other situation. I'd be fine if both of them went.

Still not convinced the title of that section is right - NPA isn't the right policy to talk about "sites" in my mind, it should stick to "attacks" - but with a somewhat more accurate title, I could live with this being a separate subsection rather than a statement higher up in the policy.

As to the 3RR bit, it seems to me that it should either apply to the entire policy or not at all. Given that removing personal attacks otherwise is still seen as contentious, I'm really hesitant to say that this particular type of attack needs that level of defensive action. Frankly, if it is an egregious attack, there should be no problem finding an administrator who is willing to block. Risker 00:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to keep the footnote(s), it makes more sense to combine them into one. Mangoe 00:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That would make sense, label the references "Relevant Arbitration Committee positions"? Risker 00:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me - Slim? - Purples 02:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Case Study: Mark Cuban's Blog

Last year, Mark Cuban posted an article on his blog discussing the identity of a psuedonym wikipedia editor. That blog listed on his BLP under external links. Is Mark Cuban's blog an "attack site"? Beyond that, are BLP subject's personal blogs not only qualified for "External Links", as they appear to be from that policy, but also then fodder for WP:RS material? There are numerous BLP subjects who have their own blogs, and some are used as RS in their articles. Are their blog articles personally written by them but discussing wikipedians, be they active, former, or annually make requested cameos, removable as sourced references under any wikipedia policy? These are interesting questions that beyond the recent hubbub over the SF author's spat with an anonymous wikipedian. There are some first person blogs by BLP subjects that contain some very controversial material. Cuban's is one of the milder ones. Piperdown 02:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

See above for a definition of attack site. And yes, BLP's blogs are allowed as sources in their articles, subject to the limitations outlined on V and BLP — mainly that they're not to be used as third-party sources on anyone else. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, especially since you have refused to answer for days why you called me a sockpuppet in an edit summary, and blanked the questions about it on your talk page (This isn't a personal attack, it's a fact in response to one); a note of gratitude for a 4 minute response. So....

(a) a BLP subject can have their blog cited on their own articles, but a link is verboten if specifically discusses a wikipedian pseudonym. (b) But if it discusses a person who also happens to be an editor on wikipedia, but isn't a pseudonym, that's OK? (c) What exactly gives a "wikipedian" attack immunity? Use of a pseudonym? Who came up with that distinction? (d) How about major media outlets? It's OK to link to a RS's outing Essjay because now he doesn't post here under that same psuedonym anymore? His account is there. Essjay is a wikipedian, right? No? Why is the account not blocked? Does whether it is blocked determine open season for attack? (e) If one were to post a threat to the US President on wikipedia, that post will be supoened by the Secret Service. Is that wikipedian protected from someone linking to a reliable source "outing" them? Would that wikipedian lose this protection from "attacks" when their account would be revoked by wikipedia? So banned wikipedias are attackable? (f) Is wikipedia going to stop people from googling wikipedia usernames next? That last one is rhetorical. Piperdown 02:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

So No, it's in no way an attack site. - though a link to such material could still be removed as a personal attack. Herein lies the issue once more - why not just substitute 'page' for 'site' and all is well..... Purples 02:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think most editors here would not consider it an attack site, based on the reaction to the removal of TNH's blog. Very few people here considered TNH's blog an attack site, as it does not regularly engage in attacking/outing Wikipedians. The problem as I see it is wording this policy section adequately enough so that people do not have to wonder "is _____ an attack site". I'm partial to saying attack links, but I also understand SlimVirgin's concern that with one of the sites in question, some attacks are a few clicks away. I'm personally happy enough without linking to that particular site, but trying to get that site banned with a set of criteria and trying to leave room for sites like TNH's blog is proving difficult. Hopefully we are getting close to solving that. This is the question that keeps coming up (sometimes causing disruption) and what many contemplated when this was started. daveh4h 02:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Everything is only a few clicks away on the Internet. That's why the policy should be not to link to attack pages, not sites. And Piperdown, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for further answers to your questions from the editor that you're addressing your comments to. CLA 03:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I count four at least four sites linked to by Wikipedia that have published outrageous lies about me personally (some of it directly related to real or fantasized contributions to WIkipedia). It would never occur to me to go through Wikipedia deleting them.

As long as Wikipedia publishes links to REAL attack sites -- the Freepers, Aryan Nations (motto on index page: "Violence solves everything"), etc. -- any argument in favor of an across-the-board policy to delete links to sites that out or attack Wikipedia admins is self-serving nonsense. --Pleasantville 11:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

These websites...are they colluding in efforts to identify you, your place of work or residence. I see you are a public figure and have disclosed your real name and other information, however, the vast majority of our editors aren't and prefer to keep their personal information private, as is their right. Some websites, however, don't care about this, and deliberately try to gather evidence about "us" and compile it. At least 14 admins and other editors have either left Wikipedia or moved onto a different username to try and protect their identities, after they were harassed by these websites.--MONGO 12:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's be specific. How would those who advocate a ban on attack sites handle these two cases:

1) The Wikipedia entry on Little Green Footballs. I claim I experienced harassment serious enough to conact law enforcement about, including death threat and that this behavior was orchestrated via that site. LGF is wellknown for this kind of behavior. Hypothetically speaking, what would you suggest be done?

2) The links from the Wikipedia entry on Jack Idema. Caosblog, Super Patriots, Rogue Radio, and Stupor Patriots are all attack sites; the first three are pro-Idema; the last of them anti. I have complained about harassment involving posting a photoshopped image of my 9 year-old son on Caosblog and Rogue Radio to law enforcement in three jurisdictions and to the FBI. They continue to harass me and to claim that I had some substantial influence over Idema's wikipedia entry (which I didn't), and claim to have outed Wikipedia editorUser:Alcarillo as Idema's arch enemy Joseph A. Cafasso. This is incorrect.

Nonetheless, Caosblog has posted this claim. This harassment has been accompanied by threats of legal action, including a letter austensily from Idema's attorney, though I think it was actually composed by Jack Idema, a violent felon, while in jail in Afghanistan. A number of other people also are regularly attacked by the Idema sites, including pretty much any journalist who has ever had a bad word to say about him. Also, Caosblog attempted to out a blogger who wrote about Idema, and did in fact out Joseph A. Cafasso, author of the anti-Idema site. That Cafasso is a very bad man is of no particular relevance. His pain at being outed is no different.

Sure, I am to some extent a public figure and allow much information about myself to be known. The attack sites compensate for this by just making stuff up.

Again, hypothetically speaking, what would you do? And what remains of the Wikipedia entry if you remove links and references to the very sites that claim to have information about the situation?

(Pretend we're turning the page upside down to reveal the answer key.) Because the sites in question actually ARE attack sites, the result of chopping up Wikipedia to conform to the attack sites policy would be that all hell would break loose, resulting in MORE harassment and escallation, spread over a wider field of targets. That's how real attack sites behave. I may experience further harassment simply for using these sites as hypothetical examples in this discussion.

My personal recommendation to those cringing in fear that their personal info might be discovered is to forsake pseudonymity maintained for the purpose of concealing your identity. On what moral basis can pseudonymous people, for example, enforce Conflict of Interest rules? (None, in my opinion.)

Take the bags off your heads. Life is much simpler that way. --Pleasantville 14:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

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 [17]. 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.[18]--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: [19] 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)

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)

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)

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, [20]. 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)

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)