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

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

Archives Archive 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm puzzled. If having your identity and contact details made public could lead to harm in the real world, how can not reading it protect you? That's like saying that if the Daily Mail publishes Maxine Carr's new identity and location, her best protection would be not to buy a copy of the Daily Mail. She doesn't need to worry that other people now know who and where she is — as long as she doesn't read that paper! I don't intend to be sarcastic; I'm genuinely puzzled. If the problem were just that some website was publishing jokes about certain Wikipedians, with the intention of annoying them and getting a reaction, I could see the point. If the trolling consists just of insults, and not attempts to "out" somebody, and if the only harm the trolls could do was the harm of annoying you, then not allowing yourself to get annoyed (which for most people probably means not reading it) would be a protection from their "attacks". But good heavens! If someone sets up a website with full names and photos of me, my husband, my children, addresses of workplace, schools, and home, home phone number, employer's phone number, etc. linking all this to my username and my edits here, how on earth could anyone think that telling me not to visit that website would be a better protection for my family than immediately removing links to the site, and blocking people who posted them? Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't there been cases of users and especially administrators being severely harassed in real life, with threats against their families, and phonecalls or letters to their employers, as a result of their real life identities becoming known? And isn't it possible that some lunatic stalker, engaged in a dispute with a user, or blocked by an admin, might just happen to see a link to a stalking website posted on Wikipedia, which he might not have known otherwise? It's obvious that removing links doesn't give full protection, since the sites will still exist. But it certainly gives better protection than simply having the victim refraining from visiting the site. ElinorD (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually not linking doesnt give any real protection at all as said sites still exist and are easily accessible using a search engine. If people engage in criminal activity that is a matter for the police. if sites arent engaging in illegal acts are they a threat anyway? And surely the issue would be to address these sites themselves not these sites as they appear on wikipedia. Anyway wikipedia is not designed for children. Why do we need a nanny wikipedia to protect us from epople who harent doing anything illegal. Even google dont ban sites critical of them [1], SqueakBox 22:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by saying that not linking doesn't give any "real protection". If you mean it doesn't give full protection, I agree; if you mean it doesn't give any protection, I disagree. Locking your front door when you go out doesn't give full protection against burglars, but I bet you still do it. I'm sure you wouldn't argue that it doesn't give "any real protection", so there's no point. If it's true that Wikipedian editors have been stalked in real life as a result of their identities being discovered and publicised against their wishes, then giving some protection (similar to locking a door or having a burglar alarm — helpful even if not 100% effective) should be something that we all want. ElinorD (talk) 13:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That simply isnt true [2], SqueakBox 23:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you did try to promote it yourself [3] Frise 23:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Replies to Purple's points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I just listed all the sites that have to do with external links, from ArbCom...they aren't an accurate picture of what is an attack site. --Kz^{Talk• Contribs} 02:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A problem I see is that the proposed policy doesn't distinguish ordinary Wikipedians from the more problematic variety, who may not distinguish between "negative information, possibly reliably sourced" and a personal attack against them or their pet interests. Such Wikipedians tend to zealously guard certain articles, particularly when they are largely self-written WP:Vanity bios, and any item of pointed criticism may be interpreted as a personal attack by such individuals. Likewise, the policy avoids addressing the use of Wikipedia as an attack site against any semi-private individuals, corporations, public institutions, or religions. I was just in a conversation yesterday with Mantanmoreland, wherein he acknowledged this sort of thing is a real problem:[4], though we disagreed on the manner of resolution. I believe the proposed policy as written is myopic, insular and would serve no effective purpose in “protecting” any Wikipedians from criticism that may exist elsewhere. Existing WP:NPA policy adequately proscribes the use of offsite links to libel or actual slander against ordinary Wikipedians, while this policy would effectively silence informed debate of any pointed items of criticism that may exist against certain individuals posting here… before such items may be exposed in the mainstream media, to our collective embarrassment. Academy Leader 02:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's unnecessary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

background to the above.....

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

merit of a link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

While I agree with Purples that the sockpuppet issue is a ringer, I will just point to these sections of WP:SOCK.[5] and [6] Risker 03:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're forgetting the "avoiding scrutiny" section. [7] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

for everyone's consideration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note that when I went back and reverted the damage I mostly left alone excised raw references to the site, mostly because I didn't think anyone was being hurt that much by the excisions (and because it was bloody obvious that censorship was being performed). The only other dubious case concerned User:Redwolf24/Linuxbeak and SlimVirgin, which has been subjected to a couple of revisionist reversions by SlimVirgin (See these diffs: [8],[9]). I feel these are unethical, but since I don't know the whole history of the affair I'm not in a position to contest her version of it. So I've let it be since her last change. Mangoe 04:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Far more serious are the attempts to supress the evidence that the Unspeakable Site is being misrepresented. The only evidence that could possibly be germane (as opposed to the "I don't see why" opinionations, which aren't facts) is actual material from the site, and presentation of that material patently requires linking to the site for citation. Yet editors are being harassed with threats of being blocked if they present this material properly, as in these edits: [10],[11]. Those threats are way out of line. I haven't fixed the damage wrought to my earlier response here because I have better things to do with my time than put myself through an appeal against an unwarranted block, but I would be fully within my rights to revert the damage.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

KNcyu38 posted this.... [12]

A couple of edits later, Crum removed it [13]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, I don't agree. SlimVirgin was acting in accordance with an ArbCom decision. One may argue that she didn't warn user:Mantanmoreland who linked to that page in an RfA a while ago [14]. But I don't want to be a dick about it. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SqueakBox, suppose you made some enemies on Wikipedia, innocently or not. Suppose you didn't want your address and phone number made public, especially because you had received threats against your wife through the Wikipedia email link, and because she was very nervous and upset about it. Suppose someone who had tracked you down posted your name, address, and phonenumber on a Wikipedia page. Suppose SlimVirgin saw it and immediately deleted it and selectively restored the page. If I started arguing that this was censorship, and that the page version should be restored so that we could all see the deleted edit, and we could all make a judgment about whether or not that deleted edit really did contain personal information, and whether or not it really was harassment, I'm sure you would disagree with my position. I don't actually think it's necessary to delete insults from page histories. But I do think that personal information over and above that which is voluntarily supplied by the editor should be deleted. And I don't really see how it's okay to post the address of a website that would give that information, if it's not okay to post that information. It would be like saying to a potential stalker in real life, "Well, it would be against the law for me to tell you where she lives, but if you go out into the hall and find the desk there, the second drawer from the left has a little brown book with her address on the third page." I think that's why only admins are able to see deleted edits. They are people who are trusted by the community. I certainly wouldn't mind SlimVirgin knowing my full name and address, but I wouldn't like it announced to all and sundry — which is what a link to an "out"ing site would do. ElinorD (talk) 15:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See Wikipedia:Attack sites#Exemption:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[15], [16], [17], [18] for example. It seems some editors are now watching my contributions, so I could I suspect generate more diffs of this nature, if you needed, by simply enforcing policy. - Denny ^(talk) 19:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Initiative already tried and failed.

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

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

A recent attempt to add WR to the blacklist was rejected by two meta admins [20][21] [22]. I would suggest people favoring the addition of non-spam sites make their case on meta for altering the blacklist's purpose. As it stands, we can't mandate the addition of non-spam sites to the blacklist on en-wiki any more than we can change the speed limit in my neighborhood. This proposal's influence simply does not extend there. Frise 23:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agree

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

Disagree

• *Dan T.* 03:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Frise 03:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• .V.: I don't believe that content on one part of a site should be used to judge the rest of the site.
• Academy Leader 04:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Mangoe 04:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Risker 04:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Certainly not based on the definition given in this proposal.[reply]
• — MichaelLinnear 04:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• WAS 4.250 11:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 12:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC) There's a difference between "site" and "content", as noted by Kirill Lokshin above [23], and some such sites are even notable enough to have Wikipedia articles (#Flawed_assumptions). Polling is evil, but there are much worse things.[reply]
• SqueakBox 15:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• That is far too broad and automatic a parctice. The individual circumatances of each such link or mentionm must iMo ber taken into account. DES ^(talk) 17:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure

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

Silly question

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

• • The "loaded question" happened to conform precisely with the way this non-policy is actually being enforced. It's telling that even the pit bulls of censorship themselves didn't see fit to directly agree with this statement when it's put this bluntly. *Dan T.* 12:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC) [Update: I see that Denny has now voted 'support'; I'm glad to see this honesty.) *Dan T.* 14:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)][reply]
  • I don't agree with Dtobias' wording, but with the spirit of his message. Granted, polling is evil, but there's much worse things. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 12:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Polls are undesirable. (Bin Laden is evil. Undercooked bacon is evil.)--Mantanmoreland 14:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Loaded question. How would the other side feel about a wording that said "Do you agree that it should be permissible to post the URL of a site that may lead to real life stalking of editors and their families, so that all of Wikipedia can visit the site and see the names, addresses, and photos of editors who are trying to remain anonymous so that they can have an informed discussion of whether or not the site really does contain information that could lead to harassment?" ElinorD (talk) 13:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Real Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...within the main Wikipedia article space?

• Only where absolutely necessary, which probably extends only to an article specifically about such a site (where the site itself is sufficiently notable for this), and possibly where necessary to cite the specific things said by a specific person on such a site when that is judged to be a notable issue in another article. Otherwise, such sites are not reliable sources and shouldn't be used as such, and certainly shouldn't be "spammed" into irrelevant places. *Dan T.* 14:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur with the above. Mangoe 15:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• If a legitimate source, absolutely. We shouldn't allow our own prejudices get in the way of comprehensiveness. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Judged on a case-by-case basis, SqueakBox 14:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Judged on a case-by-case basis. Where it can be used as a source, it should be allowed, except for specific subpages with attack content. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 14:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Judged on a case by case basis, but avoided if reasoanble alternatives are available. Where such a site is notable, links to it and mentions of it ar inevitable in proper articles. (For example, if official Scientology sites started to out wikipedia editors we couldn't stop linking to them on relevant articels, adn might even wish to mention such actions). If the site is a WP:RS onm issues unrealted to the outing, prticualrly if the source material is on pages other than the apges where the outing takes place, links should not be prohibited. No link in articel space should ever be for the prime purpose of "promting" any outside site, person, or cause. Links and mentiosn should be there as a way to cite references, and when they are useful to the reader. Links to "attack sites" should carry an extra burden of proof that they are there to fulfil these functions. DES ^(talk) 17:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Judged on a case-by-case basis, WAS 4.250 19:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with WAS and others here: a blanket rule is not going to work. Each link has to be judged on a case-by-case basis. Bucketsofg 04:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• In most circumstances, I find it unlikely that there would be a need to link to such a site from the main article space, as from what I've seen, they tend to be blogs, personal websites, or discussion boards, none of which are generally considered reliable sources. The obvious exception would be sites notable enough to merit their own Wikipedia articles, as it would be relatively absurd not to link to a site in an article about that site, as Dan T. mentioned above. JavaTenor 09:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...within talk pages?

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

...within user pages and userspace?

• Probably not, when used on a user page to try to promote and encourage such sites, or even conversely to promote and encourage people to go to such sites and disrupt them; this isn't a productive use of Wikipedia. Maybe when cited as a reference in user essays, if relevant and non-abusive. *Dan T.* 14:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• If non-abusive - and by non-abusive, I mean the differences I laid out in a question above. To use an example, to write "I am a regular contributor to Wikipedia Review" with a link at your userpage is not abusive. To write "I think Wikipedian is a horrible person because of what he did" with a link to an abusive thread at WR, that's a different story. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Doubtful, user shopuld be first requested politely to remove link with explanantion, SqueakBox 14:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Parotting Badlydrawnjeff. Everything except for explicit harassment and personal attacks should be subject to politely asking to remove a link before any blocking warnings are handed out. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 14:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I think this is more or less the same as the talk space situation. The main difference is that the chance of such a link being relevant on user page is pretty low. Mangoe 15:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Judged on a case-by-case basis, WAS 4.250 19:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Case-by-case, per WAS et al. Bucketsofg 04:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Case-by-case, as per above. Here is an example of a link that I imagine few would argue with, for example, although it was not placed by the user in question. JavaTenor 05:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That was reverted, and the abuser was indefinitely blocked forty-one minutes later. That shows the difference between Wikipedia and the what Denny calls "attack sites", SqueakBox. When Wikipedia administrators see that kind of stuff, we block and revert. If there's a privacy violation, rather than just a serious insult, we delete from page histories. The problem with the kind of sites that Denny seems to be talking about is that when privacy violations are posted, they're not immediately removed — in fact, they're not removed at all — and the abusers aren't blocked. In the case of one website, people who try to remove privacy violations are blocked. SqueakBox, if that link is causing you distress, please let me know, and I'll be extremely happy to remove it from the history of your page, even though it does not, as far as I can see, contain any personal information about you and your family. But speaking as someone who has been severely stalked in real life, as a result of someone discovering her identity here, not from an external site, I have to say that there are no "insults" posted to Wikipedians that can compare with the kind of harassment that can result from a sexual predator getting hold of your identity, workplace details, and elderly parents' address. A, it was removed, though not deleted from the history, and B, it was not something that could lead to real life stalking, as far as I can tell. Musical Linguist 12:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• It is my view that the discussion above shows a clear lack of consensus behind the current version of the policy, or anything similar, and no likelihood that such consensus will emerge. i think that a rejected tag would be appropriate. A significantly different proposal might well gain consensus, and even a rejected tag need not end the debate, consensus can always change. DES ^(talk) 16:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should work on improving this. Marking it as "rejected" might just put an end to the discussion, and there's still a lot of discussion. I don't think it should be policy as it stands. But I think there's definitely something there that can be worked on. Let's discuss it for a little longer. ElinorD (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't see the rush. Crum375 16:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there is no consensus for adding the rejected tag.--MONGO 17:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reject would be premature, SqueakBox 17:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to rush to put any tag on it - the whole tagging fetish is not actually helpful, and tends to get us arguing about things that are several steps removed from improving Wikipedia. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Denny also described this as trolling when he replaced the tag [24]. I think we should definitely not have the reject tag yet. Even though I support rejecting the proposal doing so prematurely will not, IMO, help the cause of seeing this proposal rejected. Lets give it another few days? Or at least have a poll about when to close and what is the consensus (I dont think voting is evil), SqueakBox 16:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also discussed here[25]. Risker 19:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

They appear to contradict each other. — MichaelLinnear

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, but I didn't intend to get quite that metaphysical. By "discussion closed" I just meant that no one seemed to be commenting anymore on the topic under that heading [26]. Though we could say that the discussion there was violently terminated, or shifted in focus, by removal of the link, I don't think restoring the link would be a good idea in moving forward and "closing" the larger argument, in "winning the war," so to speak. (But I appreciate your thoughts on that!) Academy Leader 03:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

03:43, 12 April 2007 Kzrulzuall (talk · contribs) reverts Dtobias (talk · contribs): [27]

03:37, 12 April 2007 Dtobias (talk · contribs) reverts Crum375 (talk · contribs): [28]

03:10, 12 April 2007 Crum375 (talk · contribs) reverts Mangoe (talk · contribs): [29]

03:08, 12 April 2007 Mangoe (talk · contribs) reverts SlimVirgin (talk · contribs): [30]

03:07, 12 April 2007 SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) reverts Mangoe (talk · contribs): [31]

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

10:32, 11 April 2007 AldeBaer (talk · contribs) "removing link to attack site" posted 14:05, 10 April 2007 by Mangoe (talk · contribs): [33]

03:24, 11 April 2007 Crum375 (talk · contribs) "removed link to attack site" posted 03:04, 11 April 2007 by AldeBaer (talk · contribs): [34]

03:04, 11 April 2007 AldeBaer (talk · contribs) duplicates (still live) link to identical reference initially posted 14:05, 10 April 2007 by Mangoe (talk · contribs) (there was no edit warring at this point.): [35]

14:05, 10 April 2007 Mangoe (talk · contribs) initially posts linked reference: [36]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attack websites contain a substantial fraction of

1. Outing or other invasions of privacy or

2. Ad hominen criticisms on non-public figures or

3. Abusive language

In addition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Though discussion here is already rather unwieldy, it seems that voices we are mainly familiar with have been doing most of the talking. Would anyone be interested in formulating a substantiative query for an Wp:rfc#Request_comment_on_policy_and_conventions? This may bring in more third parties into this discussion. Also, was anyone aware of the debate (or lack of one) re: the rejection of various privacy proposals, two of which were explicitly designed to protect our vulnerable youth from the sort MONGO seems most worried about? [37]

The individual rejected proposals are:

Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy

Wikipedia:Youth protection

Wikipedia:Privacy

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

Crum375's thoughts on ArbCom and consensus:

ArbCom does not set policy, and I don't see anywhere in ArbCom's decision where they declared this proposal a policy, or even a guideline. They did conclude that the community "failed to achieve consensus" about it, and that further work is needed. I think we all agree and accept that no consensus was reached. Crum375 12:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[38]

And morality:

I think WP:BG&E was rejected because it is unnecessary and sounds like a trollish hoax anyway. The way I see it, WP's mission and mandate is to spread well sourced notable knowledge and present it in a neutral way. Most of us here believe that that mission alone is a moral common denominator. Going beyond this common mission starts down a slippery slope to imposing one's own brand of morality on others. Crum375 16:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[39][reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uh, let's be clear on something. The "fair degree of grief" to which you refer is the defeat of your RfA, which took place because you repeatedly pushed the agenda of a banned user. That banned user, via several dozen sockpuppets, has harassed Wiki users and administrators and vandalized project pages. That banned user runs an attack site on behalf of his employer, a site that you admire, but that hate site was secondary to your agenda-pushing -- which you demonstrated during your RfA by linking to that banned user's attack site even after being told not to do so. You said then and say now that you could have "handled it better," yet you are still arguing that banned user's cause. You were advised to "drop it"[40] but you still have not taken that wise advice.--Mantanmoreland 15:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

When a user repeatedly pushes the agenda of a banned user[41] , or parrots what he or she sees on the very attack sites we are discussing [42], the assumption of good faith does not apply. --Mantanmoreland 21:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A user who serves as a representative of an attack site, as you did via this edit [43], should not preach to others about WP:CIVIL and, in my humble opinion, not be editing Wikipedia at all.--Mantanmoreland 21:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fred has clarified his previous statement on the subject.[44] In any event, Mangoe's use of the term "good faith" is not the one described in WP:AGF.--Mantanmoreland 21:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mangoe, [45] WAS 4.250 20:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—AldeBaer 00:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I dont think any of us argue that anyone other than SlimVirgin has the right to link to a WR page that attacks her, and especially not in order to attack her. The problem is that there are many pages on WR that arent attack pages and may be useful to link to, as on the Jimbo Wales user talk page updating him on the HM situation with a link to a page that attacks nobody, SqueakBox 01:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo's email is on, so any links can be emailed to him.--MONGO 07:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, even if this is promoted, obvious exceptions, like communications involving Jimbo that he's clearly ok with, will be allowed in the usual manner. Just like, even if this isn't promoted, harassment will still be deleted on sight, just like it always has been. The question isn't whether either worst-case scenario will happen; we're flexible enough that it won't. The question... only has meaning because people don't understand that these tags are just tags. Personally, I think adding a guideline or policy tag would empower those who wish to harass Wikipedians in a small way, probably unnoticeable, and that's about it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't see myself linking to the Unspeakable Site myself, and I'd be hard pressed to suggest that there is much there that is linkable. I too have backed away from this page for a bit to re-evaluate my position. And after doing so, I still believe that this proposal in and of itself is severely flawed. For example:

• It does not address whether or not the same policy applies to users who edit under their own names or who provide personal details in their edits or on their user page.
  • In particular, there are many notable Wikipedians here, and some regularly used news sources have been very derogatory about some of them. The way this proposal is written, any links to those news sources would be considered an attack site. If Conrad Black edited here, we'd have to put every major newspaper in the English-speaking world on the spam list.
• The definition of an attack site is so broad that many regularly linked-to sites fall into the definition. In one case I found more than 1000 links to a site that fits the current criteria.
• At one point, the terminology changed from "attack site" to "hate site." Even at its worst, the Unspeakable Site is just a gossip page. Nasty gossip, yes...but it doesn't advocate causing actual physical harm to any group or person because they are Wikipedians or Admins or anything else. Unfortunately, most definitions of the terms "attack site" and "hate site" are pretty well interchangeable, even though I bet most of us would come to the same conclusions in classifying a random list of 20 of these links.
• Defamation has to come out of the definition because it is a specific legal term that requires the hypothetically defamed party to sue the alleged defamer - and win. (Slander, by the way, is spoken and does not include anything that can be found on the internet. That's libel.)
• There is no clarity on where links to sites that meet the current definition are "forbidden." Can they be used in articles? Article talk? Other project areas?
• Who gets to decide whether or not a site is an attack site? I can see some unsuspecting user linking to one of the less obvious sites that meet this description in a perfectly innocent way, and getting themselves permablocked because they ran across the wrong person. (And heaven forbid we create a list!)

At the end of the day, I believe there are sufficient protections already in the existing policies to manage harassment or abuse of any editor while here on Wikipedia. If I was having a debate with someone named on WR and linked to a thread containing derogatory statements about that editor, I would be harassing them and would deserve to be warned and have that link removed; if I kept doing it, I would deserve to get blocked. On the other hand, I have included a link to another site that meets this description in at least one article I have edited - and I discussed it with another editor on his talk page before proposing it on the talk page of the article, just to get a feel of whether or not it was going to be helpful. The link was widely considered relevant to the article, and I would be very disturbed if I had been blocked simply for doing normal, day-to-day review of reference sources that, unbeknownst to me, happen to have a page somewhere that takes some Wikipedian's name in vain. This is about proportional response. To be honest, some of these sites have undoubtedly received more visits in the past week or so than they have in the previous six months - strictly because of this page. The less attention paid to them, and the more proscribed our reactions to them, the healthier Wikipedia will be. --Risker 01:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to yesterday re HM but decided not to and then another HM subject who hadnt seen the latest at WR got the wrong end of the stick and so an admin did link to the page but really it would have been better for me to have done so, SqueakBox 02:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be obvious that if you start posting links to Brandts hivemind they would be reverted on sight.--MONGO 07:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope this was a link to WR as what I was telling Jimbo is that the HM site has been pulled. This HM page that included private info on folk like me was linked to on Daniel Brandt till I removed it as a 404 but there are certainly still other links to WW there and, as I say, the HM site was itself linked to before and nobody had removed it while live. The WR link introduced by another editor to help clarify the HM situation has not been removed from Jimbo's talk page, not by him (he has edited his talk page since) or anyone else, SqueakBox 16:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used to have a link to the Hivemind page on my user page, in a list of places that have made baseless personal attacks on me, along with Jeff Merkey's page. However, I took down the Brandt link when he started redirecting all accesses with a Wikipedia referer, and took down the Merkey link when that site underwent one of his frequent complete changes of content and no longer had the attack on me. I never bothered to re-link the Hivemind page after the redirect was removed, and now that it's 404 Not Found it's a moot point anyway. The original link, however, was part of my general philosophy to deal with personal attacks, not by trying to bury or suppress them, but by pointing at them in broad daylight and laughing heartily. *Dan T.* 16:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]