Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Archive 5

Regarding profanity

There has been a query regarding the inclusion of profanity in the list of absolutely prohibited actions (specifically, in line with racial or religious epithets). The use of profanity is contraindicated just below that section, but there are, to my mind, a couple of compelling reasons not to elevate it further. First and foremost among these, profanity is regional. As [[W{:AN/I|AN/I]] discovered not long ago, twat is a synonym for twit in some areas (uncivil, but not profanity), but means something very different elsewhere. Serpent's Choice 06:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. I also think it should be made clear that profanity qua profanity is not prohibited, but aiming it at someone else in a way designed to attack or insult them is. IronDuke 20:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I can say I am having a shitty day, that is not a personal attack, so I don't think it is so simple that we can just add a prohibition on all profanity. HowIBecameCivil 17:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The profanity part definitely needs work. i recently got warned that if i made anymore "personal attacks" as i had on a user's talk page recently, i would be blocked. the problem being that (IMHO) i didn't make any personal attacks. i stated that i thought it was "bullshit" that i had been accused of editing/deleting other users' contributions. i had added a comment to a talk page that a band was "fucking horrible" (which i quoted on the talk page) and i went on to explain that i did not feel the reponse was appropriate as i do not "fuck with" other user contributions. i agree that i didn't really need to use such colorful language, but oh well. so this is why i was accused of "personal attacks" the user told me that i was warned because i was being profane/vulgar towards other users. yes i was being profane and vulgar. unnecessarily so even, but it wasn't directed at him. i.e. i didn't say "fuck you", i simply stated my feelings that it was bullshit. and from what i've just read on this article, i did not make a personal attack, at least not according to what this article defines as a personal attack. so yeah, the vulgarity/profanity thing needs to be worked out. cuz i don't want to get accused of threatening people, because i sad i thought something was "fucking bullshit"68.255.173.144 09:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you ought to read WP:Civil. Communication is an important tool, and not everybody is as comfortable as some when swear words are used in casual conversation. It is best to use "polite" language when dealing with people you don't know well. Once you get to know some-one then you can use your preferred vernacular (even though some picky bastard well meaning editor is likely to give you a shitty timetalking to about appropriate language at some stage) if it is appropriate. The best policy is to limit the use of profanity to instances when you feel you have to make a point, and even then it is best to use decent arguments rather than an outburst of swearing. LessHeard vanU 21:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of userpage content and WP:ATTACK warning templates

Recently User:Yuser31415, under the pretense of WP:ATTACK removed a polemical rant from my userpage. This rant can be seen here, and concerns my frustration with IP editors. User:Yuser31415 also placed a level 4 personal attack template on my userpagediff and then 3RR warnings for reverting the removal of material on my userpage here and here. The only attempt at dispute resolution prior to this action can be seen here I feel that 1.) the rant did not constitute a personal attack and 2.) the usage of a "Personal Attack Warning" template is in appropriate in such instances. Furthermore, I feel that using WP:ATTACK as a de facto form of censorship on userpages is something that needs to be specifically addressed in the policy guidelines. - WeniWidiWiki 05:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Diff of edit I removed is here. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 07:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm primarily concerned about citing WP:ATTACK in such instances and not having any guidelines on when usage of the templates are appropriate in cases when it is not an ad hominem attack or is just abstract as in this instance - content is always up for discussion and review, but using vague policies to delete it on sight is problematic. - WeniWidiWiki 08:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like a serious case of WP:BITE to me. HowIBecameCivil 17:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

personal attack noticeboard?

What happened to the personal attack noticeboard? Is it gone?Anarcho-capitalism 21:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently so. I've had an issue for clarification on this page since last week with no replies, so I don't think many users watch this page. ANI is unwieldly. I think WP:PAIN should be reactivated. Now rather than acting with consensus on personal attack matters, an editor will get a few buddies on IRC to back his claim and there is zero mechanism for oversight. - WeniWidiWiki 21:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Is an editor who claims to be a professional held to professional standards here?

I have noticed that many users claim to be professionals in various fields on their user pages, which of course is a good attribute both for the editor and Wikipedia. I have also seen a few of them conducting themselves in unprofessional ways, and have wondered if they can be questioned about their behaviour based on their professional claims. Here is a hypothetical situation with two different editors and how I would choose to handle their behavoir:

• Editor A is a Wikipeian like me, no user page and very little talk. Editor A highly respects Pundit A, but recently said Pundit has been making a lot of false claims. When other editors add this information to Pundit A's Wikipedia article, Editor A reverts the page and argues in an immature manner saying things like "It's biased, It'S biased, It's biased, It's biased." In this case I wouild try to explain to Editor A why it is important for them to provide some evidence the information is biased.
• Editor B is a Wikipedian with a descriptive user page which claims that Editor B is a professor of logic at a respected university. Editor B chooses to argue in the exact same manner as Editor A above. Is it an attack to say something like: "Editor B, I would like to point out that your behavior is inappropriate for a professor, please explain to us why you think the information is biased."

Since Editor A makes no claims to be a professional, I would try to explain as politely as possible why making arguments like "It's biased, It'S biased, It's biased, It's biased" are not acceptable to Wikipedia standards. Editor B claims to be a professor and as such should realize "It's biased, It'S biased, It's biased, It's biased" is not very academic. Anynobody 22:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Credentials mean nothing here. At least in theory. HowIBecameCivil 14:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with HowIBecameCivil. The credentials give you no extra power. Their contributions are just as equal as any editor's, and must be from a reliable source. They could be of extra help however, because they could know of a reliable source for information that the general public might not know about or be readily accessable. --Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 18:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Reporting

Is there a way of reporting personal attack vandalism? if this is it, take a look at [1] that. Kiran90 02:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI is the only means to snitch report that I am aware of. - WeniWidiWiki 02:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It can be very hard to get an admin response to personal attack, not sure why. HowIBecameCivil 14:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Very hard to get a response... except when it comes to Essjay. No, I don't want to know why. Bah. Bi 15:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasm in discussion of Articles for Deletion: can this constitute a personal attack?

From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xtreme Hockey League, as an example, when users get frustrated with others, especially new users trying to promote non-notable and unattributed subjects:

• Xtreme delete as Wikipedia is not for hockey leagues made up in school one day, regardless of how "xtreme" they are. (and yes, I did steal the "xtreme delete" thing from JzG) --TBCΦtalk? 01:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Xtreme delete to the Max yo! per TBC's comments above. --Haemo 01:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Wow, sim hockey rocks.... xtreme dude. DMighton 01:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say sarcasm like this (which I've seen in many AfD discussions, often in more extreme forms, sometimes angry like "LUDICROUSLY STRONG DELETE") is bordering on the level of the personal attack. I suggest that on the WP:AFD and WP:ATTACK pages we mention something about sarcasm, especially as applied to AfD discussions like this.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• No, sarcasm isn't a personal attack, because it isn't personal (they're ridiculing the article, not the writer). Rather, if you spend more than a few minutes per day on AFD, people are invariably tempted to make witty or semi-witty remarks. In the worse cases, a civility reminder may be in order. Other than that, you can't feasibly stop people from being sarcastic by legislating against it (although people have tried...) >Radiant< 14:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if I should give a NPA warning for this one?

[2]

This editor (User:1523) has been in a content dispute with me and User:08albatross, and after arguing with the latter in Japanese (I don't know Japanese personally), he left this message.

Since this message has be included, I got someone to translate it and found me being denigrated due to my having Asperger Syndrome; he claimed autistics are psychotic, unable to use reason, and is generally "trash people" (together with 08albatross). I wonder if I should give a NPA warning, and which level should I start on?--Samuel Curtis^{Shinichian-Hirokian}-- _{TALK·CONTRIBS} 02:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Attack sites

I have added information regarding linking to attack sites. We have routinely removed harassment from these websites that is posted on Wikipedia. Prior arbcom cases have specified that we do not link to encyclopedia dramatica. Wikipedia review is at least as bad as that website is. Hivemind is another. Linking to thses websites at any time should not be tolerated.--MONGO 19:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This was rejected over at Wikipedia:Attack sites, and it doesn't get to be revived simply by changing the venue. Mangoe 19:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• (after EC) I have reverted this addition. It is clear form the discion of WP:BADSITES, and the rejection of that proposed policy that there is NOT consensus on this issue. Please do not try to reinsert this without obtaining such consensus (Note that ArbCom rulings do not make policy or consensus, not that the arb com rulings on this matter are anywhere near broad enough to support the additiuon you made, even if they did make policy.) DES ^(talk) 19:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia talk:Attack sites for the prior discussion. DES ^(talk) 19:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The rejection was about THAT becoming policy, not that it wouldn't be incorporated here. If I find any links to these websites, I will remove them. Others have been doing this already, so it needs to be part of this policy.--MONGO 19:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You and others need to stop doing it, because it has been rejected as policy. Mangoe 19:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

(after EC) Sorry that is just forum-shopping. If there was no consensus to have that as a policy there, you will at least need something beyond your bare assertion to make it one here. Any such link removal are currently unsupported by policy, and could and should be subject to the same process as any content dispute. Any blocks to support such removals are probably unjustified, depending on the precise circumstances. DES ^(talk) 19:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I have yet to remove any links, but if I find them, I will remove them. No one has to tolerate harassment imported here from other websites.--MONGO 19:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That assumes that any such link is in fact a form of harrasment. Some have been. Others are not. (The link in the recent signpost articel to teh home page of Wikipedia Watch was not by any reasonable stech harrasment, but it was removed citing this non-policy). That is precisely whay many objected to the proposed policy. DES ^(talk) 19:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Selectiveness of what is and what isn't a PA from these websites is what is going to lead to endless arguments...that why it is best to not link to them at all.--MONGO 19:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Selectivness about content leads to endless argumetns too. It would be much simpler just not to have an encyclopedia. A reasonable policy, helping to clarify under what circumstances such links are proper and when they are not, would help stem the arguments, but is made much harder to formulate by thosew who take the position that all such links must be eridicated at once. DES ^(talk) 19:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You do of course, understand we are talking about just a very few cites that make overt efforts or support efforts to "out" the real life identities of Wikipedia contributors...when we link to these websites, all we do is up their google cache, and add to their efforts to harass.--MONGO 19:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand that there are not many sites in your current balcklist. The proposed policy is writen with a very broad brush. I also understand that in at least some cases such links are valuabel -- I refer again to the recent signpost article -- and so i do not for a moment agree that all that such links do is push up the reciving site's google score. I do agree that such links should only be made where there is a clear and valid reason for doign so, and that many (probably most) such links will not have such reasons. Blocks are another matter, of course. DES ^(talk) 20:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

All these would be removed? Infodmz 19:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Then it should be no sweat...as we can see.--MONGO 19:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If someone removes them all it would be a test of the policy. Who is going to do that? Infodmz 19:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

We could also go remove all of these, given some of the content to be found on that site's message board. JavaTenor 20:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that we have no idea how many sites try to link a Wikipedia editor's name with their real name - and unless people are going to check every page of a website, one can never be sure. There are the obvious ones, but there are also many less obvious ones. Interestingly, I am aware of an official website of a musician who has publicly said he edits Wikipedia under a pseudonym. The fans on his message board have speculated on his pseudonym, referring to the pseudonyms of real WP editors. Only someone intimately aware of the contents of that entire website would know that it could be considered an "outing" site according to your definition, and the existing links to that site would be "strongly discouraged" and subject the inserting editor to possible blocks. I don't want to hear "No we would never do that" because given recent history there is absolutely no reason to believe that to be true. Risker 20:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that attack sites should be removed. There's a difference between how bad an attack site is. For instance, Wikipedia Review is supposed to remove all bad threads to a subforum called "The Tar Pit and Feather Barrel" and make them not visible to people without accounts so I don't think Wikipedia Review is always something to remove for attack sites (notability concerns are different). Whereas Encyclopedia Dramatica is almost entirely an attack site and hopefully is going to stay in the spam blacklist on here, Wikia, etc. for good. SakotGrimshine 20:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I dunno...from what I have seen of WR, their efforts to identify the real life identities of wikipedians is pretty deplorable...just because we link to one of their "good" postings (as if the opinions there by a lot of banned editors has any relevence here) then folks are just one or two clicks away from some post that harasses our contributors. Besides, ED at least pretends to be "funny"...that isn't the case for WR...sure as heck isn't for WW either.--MONGO 21:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Do we have to go through this whole thing again?

This failed consensus once. Why do we have to repeat the whole process again here? Mangoe 21:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Some people may only just have caught up with what is going on - I always assumed links to these type of sites were banned. I really don't understand why anyone would defend linking directly to a site that tries to out the real life identities of wikipedians. We can't control the whole internet but we can decide what we will or won't tolerate - any site that will host that sort of stuff should be blacklisted. Sophia 21:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Precisely.--MONGO 21:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the entire sites are not "attack sites" but there are specific areas which could be considered an "attack link". Much like the FreeRepublic example by User:JavaTenor. FreeRepublic has comments by users on their site that "attack" Wikipedians. Do we ban the entire site or just the specific links that contain these comments? That is the question, in my mind hombre de haha 21:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should...it is but a blog or discussion forum anyway...how their opinions have relevence to writing an encyclopedia is a mystery to me.--MONGO 21:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

And so is this, and what does this have to do with writing an encyclopedia? It seems obvious that discussion of writing this encyclopedia is potentially relevant. Mangoe 23:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Saying nasty things about someone is one thing but exposing real life idenities should make the site a no-no. This is not about suppressing criticism - we have the press for that and we do a pretty good job ourselves - this is about not contributing to the harassment of individuals. Sophia 22:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Interpreting what that is, on a blanket policy basis, is a problem. On a case by case basis it is fairly easy. The things I've seen on the FreeRepublic comments sections, I certainly would not want said about me; they are personal attacks. I also acknowledge MONGO's point that they probably aren't a reliable source on most things anyway- but that should also be dealt with case by case. When banning a specific site we may be throwing the baby out with the bath water. The banning of a site like ED is of less concern because as MONGO points out they are intended to be a "comedy" website. The links we are currently talking about (and more will come, I'm sure) are different in many ways.

In a nutshell, do these sites contain "attack links"? Yes. Do they contain useful content and information as well? Yes. Are they attack sites? I don't know. I think we should narrow our focus with these particular sites to specific links. hombre de haha 22:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

On Free Republic: links to that site are certainly relevant in an article discussing that site, for example. I haven't gone through the other links for suitability, however. JavaTenor 22:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it a website that "engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I've responded on your talk page. JavaTenor 23:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Why discussing this again? Because there are actual problems, not only restricted to WP but extending to the real life of people. And these problems don't stop just because there has been no consensus on WP. Actually, you cannot use the fact that there has been no consensus as a tool forbid future discussion of the issue. There was non consensus and hence the issue is not ended.

I don't see how these sites contribute anything useful to WP. WPreview is populated by banned users that got banned for a reason. If they were wrongly banned they should be reinstated here - if they were rightly banned they have no business in continuing their "contributions" from outside. In any case, WP should not support their actions.

Of course, not all sites are full of attacks but contain other information as well. But if part of the apple is poisoned I will stay away from the entire apple. It is the responsibility of these sites that they host, tolerate or even encourage attacks. Our accepting this encourages this behaviour. Maybe, if WP refused to include such attack links they would come to their senses (and if not it would be good riddance).

Some people have called this "censorship". I don't see how this can be. WP is no body with any civic authority that can actually prevent anyone from saying anything. WP cannot shut down these sites. They are out there in google land, if one really needs to read them. However, WP is responsible for what it includes or tolerates on its pages. WP is not a free speech platform but an encyclopedia and theoretically everything written on talk pages should be about how to imprive the encyclopedia, articles etc. Of course, there is a certain leeway for non-contributive postings BUT at least there should be nothing on there that disrupts the aim of WP. I cannot see how attacking other editors, giving away private details (no matter whether true or false) or level personal accusations (no matter whether true or false). Things like this disrupt the encyclopedia and therefore should not be tolerated.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok to include reference to MONGO Case as a link in "See Also?"

Rather than apparently codify ArbCom decisions as direct policy? —ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 22:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I oppose linking to the current page on that case on any policy pages as the page contains information not relevant to policy and could be construed as an attack on the editors banned by that rulking (who obviously cannot defend themselves), SqueakBox 23:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the current version of the page does cite and link to another ArbCom decision elsewhere:

...To cite the Arbitration Committee:

The remove personal attacks guideline (and the application thereof) is controversial. It has often been abused by malefactors, and may not have community consensus. It should, at most, be interpreted strictly and used sparingly.[1]

Anyway, there does seem to be some cognitive dissonance occuring between the two decisions. —ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 01:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Just had a look at the WP:RPA essay and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI decision, and am suprised those surrounding controversies were not referenced in the earlier BADSITES debates. Anyway, it looks to me that the overly broad and strict wording the ArbCom used in the MONGO decision allowed for these current debates in the first place. Seeing how the two rulings are inconsistent I personally do not support referencing the MONGO case in context of a general prohibition against linking to off-site attacks, which do not need the case reference to be effective anyway. —ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 02:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Enduring precedent, inconsistency between sections

Note the first line of WP:NPA#Removing text:

The community has not reached a consensus about whether personal attacks should be removed,...

Contrast with the current first line of WP:NPA#Linking to attacks

Links or references to off-site personal attacks against Wikipedians should be removed.

I dont see how links are substantively different from text, and it seems clear to me that the proposal regarding links also lacked consensus. After turning over the two sections, it seems to me the only part of WP:NPA#Linking to attacks that could be consistent with WP:NPA#Removing text and also reflective of current social reality (re: a consensus) is a single, modified sentence:

Links or references to off-site personal attacks against Wikipedians may be removed.

—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 03:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Using a website in the course of a personal attack

I think we should have consensus for this.

Obviously if a website happens to contain a personal attack on a Wikipedian, it may also contain useful criticism of Wikipedia, and each case should be judged on its merits. I'm sure that an editor who misused the leeway here would be subject to blocking for disruption, so it's not as if good Wikipedians would be likely to abuse it.

However it might be a good idea to point out, in our description of forms of personal attack, that if you introduce a link to a personal attack on an external website, you should be careful to avoid doing so in a manner that promotes or draws attention to the personal attack, because obviously doing so would be to compound or enable the personal attack. How about that? Does that seem about right? --Tony Sidaway 22:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it sounds like you are advocating a "context-sensitive" approach to the issue. A problem propelling the debate has been that others see the issue in more absolutist categorical imperative terms.—Academy Leader 23:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is nothing if not context-sensitive. Usually, linking to a site that contains an attack on a Wikipedian is a pretty blatant attempt to denigrate that person, but occasionally there may be a good reason to do it. So a dogmatic rule would be wrong, but it's a good idea to put all Wikipedians on notice that knowingly using an external website as a proxy to attack a Wikipedian, as we've seen several times now, is not tolerated. --Tony Sidaway 23:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would agree with that wholeheartedly... others seem to want the hard and fast rules though. —ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 23:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hard and fast rules don't exist anywhere. SchmuckyTheCat 01:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, in this case they seem to. Even citations used to show that not everything on these sites was an attack were erased on the basis of this supposed policy. Mangoe 02:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I imagine that if you were extremely worried about serious harm in real life as a result of your identity becoming known, you wouldn't want people clicking on something from where they could get to speculations about your real name and address in two further clicks. It doesn't seem logical to say that it's okay to allow people to find out my phone number in three clicks, but not in one. And it seems that linking to a page that has a link to an index that has a link to someone's supposed name and address isn't going to make the victim feel very comfortable. ElinorD (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that people arguing for this policy say that there is never a reason to link to an "attack" site. They want an absolute rule. Frise 00:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Just removing the word "sites" solves that problem. Linking to an attack is a problem and well-defined. Defining "attack site" has been problematic. SchmuckyTheCat 00:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason to change what the ArbCom said. I think they got it right. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It's neither the source of the policy nor does it add to the statement in the policy. It's a repeat. SchmuckyTheCat 01:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If it's right, then it's an illustration of the policy in practice. While the word "sites" may need a little qualification, I think the meaning is pretty plain. The encyclopedia dramatica case was a particularly egregious one, but most of the sites involved here are pretty plain in their self-designation for the purpose of attacks on Wikipedians, or (in the case of Encyclopedia Dramatica) their co-option for the purpose of a specific attack. I think we've got consensus here, we're just haggling about the words to use. --Tony Sidaway 02:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The current wording by SchmuckyTheCat looks good to me. Frise 02:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we established the first time around that this is not about wording. The controversial change establishes specifically that links to pages on a site can be erased if other pages on the same site are deemed by someone-- pretty much anyone-- to be attacks, regardless of what the linked material is. In practice this has been applied utterly legalistcally. And the whole matter has been discussed exhaustively before, and it looks as though we're going to do it all again here, and it's going to come down to the same impasse, only with more participants. Mangoe 02:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Frise and SchmuckyTheCat. The current wording is entirely correct, and I don't think anyone can disagree with it. Given that a subsequent ArbCom panel refused to endorse the "no links to attack sites" position of the MONGO panel, the use of any ArbCom decision is essentially contradicted by the opposite ruling. The word "sites" is far too broad. Risker 02:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree, unfortunately the current wording of "Linking to attacks" is entirely inconsistent with the wording of "Removal of text." Why is removing a link different from removing text?--—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 03:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"Any page anywhere that insults Wikipedians is reason to blacklist the entire site." There is no consensus for that and never has been. Don't link to attacks. What fine and simple statement. Why does that need more verbiage? SchmuckyTheCat 02:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with you there. This is why (if you look above) I propose the following:

it might be a good idea to point out, in our description of forms of personal attack, that if you introduce a link to a personal attack on an external website, you should be careful to avoid doing so in a manner that promotes or draws attention to the personal attack, because obviously doing so would be to compound or enable the personal attack.

I think it would really help if we could discuss this proposal instead of some other proposal that I haven't made. --Tony Sidaway 03:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It's nice but unnecessary. I don't think we need to overly prescribe behavior here.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 03:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the Wikipedia:Attack sites version has been abused even without gaining any consensus to be a policy in the first place. You may think that usually attack sites should not be linked to and only occasionally is a link acceptable. But there are people who think that all links should be removed, and they really do mean *all*, not "all except occasionally". They refuse to make any allowance for special circumstances, and even removed links that were used on the talk page of the proposed policy itself as examples of links that might be acceptable. Ken Arromdee 03:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Proudly, I state for the record that I am definitely one of those that can find no reason to link to several websites...anything that might be needed by arbcom or similar that has been posted on these websites can be emailed to them...they all have their emails activated.--MONGO 09:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

And they censored a link from this week's Wikipedia Signpost, too. *Dan T.* 04:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Resulting in the return of HM, not exactly protecting our admins, eh? SqueakBox 19:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

A quick note, so far I agree with the new wording [3].I feel that the last proposed policy failed because it was too specific, geared to removing specific sites, and that made it unworkable because it would include many more sites than the policy endorsers may believe. Sites do not cause hurt of personal feelings, comments do, and we must look at those comments before deciding to remove it as an attack. I'm hoping that makes sense because I am very tired. hombre de haha 07:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• I find myself generally agreeing with Tony Sidaway here. MONGO says that he can't ever see a reason to link to any of several sites. I can't see many reasons to link specifically to an attack, but I thought that, for example, the link to the main page of Wikipedia Watch in the recent Signpost article was perfectly appropriate, and its removal was improper. I wopuld be inclined to restore it myself if it wern't that I gather the owner of the site has been trying to use threats to get the link restored, and I don't wish to even appear to be yielding to such tactics. There can be, in specific situations, good reasons to refer to or even link to sites which include attacks. There are rarely if ever good reqasons to link to attacks (though even that should probably not be an absolute) and links to sits that host attacks should be done in such a way as not to encourage the attacks, if possible. DES ^(talk) 11:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Even the current wording [4] is a little absolute for my taste -- there may well be reason to refer to or even link to attacks in RfCs and the like, even if ArbCom takes it evcidence by email (a poor idea in general, IMO) but it is much better and I can live with it. DES ^(talk) 11:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I know what you mean DES, I am thinking that some emphasis on the context of providing the link should be included, and of course the intent of providing the link. This should be a common sense thing, so whether or not it is a worthy addition I don't know. Regards, hombre de haha 19:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The Arbcom said "Links to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking." Subject to good sense and judgment, that is the policy I intend to follow. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Note the conditional use of the word "may," in "may be removed." How does this get translated into policy as "should be removed?" —ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 18:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

How does "May" become "Should"? Well, it's currently April, and April showers bring May flowers... and the Mayflower brought pilgrims... and I'm not sure just where I'm going from there, or whether I actually have any point to make, so I'll just stop now. April fools bring May tricks... but what is The Matrix? *Dan T.* 18:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Depends where you are. No April showers here, SqueakBox 19:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"Welcome to the desert of the real."—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 18:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The Arbcom also said "The remove personal at"tacks guideline (and the application thereof) is controversial. It has often been abused by malefactors, and may not have community consensus. It should, at most, be interpreted strictly and used sparingly." Do you intend to follow that too? Ken Arromdee 14:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone removed one link, down to 196 now from 197 yesterday. Infodmz 15:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Should is far too prescriptive as we are volunteers and not paid employees, SqueakBox 19:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"Should" doesn't mean "must" in the sense that you'll be blocked if you don't. But nevertheless, I think "should" is correct. If a feeble old lady gets on the bus, you should give her your seat. You don't say that you're not paid! Regarding insults, I don't think there's a pressing need to remove them, but certainly feel that one may remove them. (I'd go further than that if it involves linking to a website that was created for the purpose of making fun of someone. I saw an example of a user linking to such a website shortly after I joined. It didn't "out" the user in question, as he uses his real name on Wikipedia. But it was very nasty, and I was glad that an administrator removed it.) However, when it comes to revealing someone's real name, contact details, etc., I think any decent person would remove such posts, and I think the word "should" is entirely appropriate in that case. ElinorD (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to get overly into semantics or syntax, but "may" is permissive without implying a moral imperative to remove links, beyond whatever their actual content might be. But thanks for joining us.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 20:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What is an attack site

If we are going to label a specific domain as an "attack site" what is the inclusion, and does it ban all links to said site? There are some examples that may not be considered an attack site presently, but the site does contain attacks on wikipedians. This is my problem with the word "attack site". Do we decide by consensus? Is using the ArbCom definition appropriate? Thanks, hombre de haha 20:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom definition of attack site appropriate. WP:RPA often abused, Zilla dubious about removing "insults," easily turned into removing valid critique. Some users even remove ROARRING! Attack sites separate issue, not so open to abuse. Remove links attack sites! Sorry Zilla no verbs. bishzilla _ROARR!! 21:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Bishzilla common sense as always (except that remove is a verb). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• ...any website in which the contributors compile evidence that is used to try and discover the real world identities of Wikipedia contributors is one definition.--MONGO 20:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Just use the ArbCom definition, El hombre. That's why it's there. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

My concern is sites that allow comments, such as a blog or maybe even a news organization, and comments in those areas. I've seen some personal attacks directed to editors there, but I wouldn't label the whole site or organization as an attack site. hombre de haha 21:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If you read the ArbCom definition, you'll see it's pretty clear and restricted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I would feel much more comfortable with a WP:Official list of attack sites definition that is community based rathert han it bering left in the hands of individual administrators to make that interpretation. That leaves me feeling deeply uncomfortable as this shouldnt be left for individuals to interpret, SqueakBox 21:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Nah, such a list would get constructed and interperted exactly the same way.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 21:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Why shouldn't it be left to editors to use their common sense? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I find the question "what is an attack site," and the ArbCom designation of the same, immaterial to the behavior of Wikipedians on Wikipedia. It's not something we need to determine, as we acknoledge that off-site behavior is not something we can regulate. While I am for outlawing direct links to anything that could be considered a personal attack on Wiki per NPA, I don't think outlawing all links and references to sites that may host such content is a good thing to set in policy.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 21:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

We're not talking about off-wiki behavior, but about on-wiki posting of links. We need some sort of broad definition of an attack site if we're going remove links to them, and the ArbCom has supplied one. If it gets to be problematic in future, we can revisit the issue and redefine if necessary. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The definition provided by MONGO is clear and unambiguous. It should only cover a few sites and is about stalking not supressing criticism. Once a site is prepared to host information like that it should be banned in its entirety. Sophia 21:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"[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,"

So the specific link will be removed, instead of links to anything site? Example: WHATEVERBLOGMAKEITUP.com has an entry about Wikipedia. In the comments section near the top, a reader posts personal information of an otherwise anonymous editor and the person who runs the blog will not remove the comment. Is the entire site an attack site, or should this specific blog entry be considered an attack link? I hope I am being clear in my thoughts. Thanks for indulging me on this. hombre de haha 21:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If the site refuses to remove the information then yes - the whole site should be banned. Sophia 21:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Blogs routinely fail WP:RS.--MONGO 21:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that there will be many sites to remove and sources/external links will be lost in doing that. About RS, I generally agree, but it is my understanding that removal would take place on user pages and user talk pages as well. hombre de haha

I do believe that Wikipedians have a right to privacy and should be able to edit here as harassment free as possible. There are definitely on a very select few websites that try to out the real life identities of wikipedians...or allow this as a routine part of their postings. I have repeatedly stated that if there is anything redeemable to be gathered from a post from these websites, then that information can always be emailed to whoever it may concern. Linking to websites that routinely engaged in harassment, legal threats, or attempt to out our contributors, and routinely support such efforts, are attack sites. If, in the case of some websites, where this is only a rare occurence, then I suggest that simply keeping the link to the specific attack off Wikipedia. This is a policy amendment about our contributors, and is not to be confused with policies regarding biographies, and even for those wikipedia editors who have bios here, then the B:P policies apply.--MONGO 22:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

On first reading, that appears to make sense to me. Thanks MONGO hombre de haha 22:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, other than your case, there does not seem to be any sort of effective precedent elsewhere for WP:PRIVACY protection, not even Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy. Hate to say it, but you're on your own if you start getting stalked as a result of your activities on WP.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 23:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

And since Wikipedia is in the real world forbidding these links offers no real protection. Mangoe 23:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the definition provided by Mongo above clear and workable too.

Wikipedia is in the real world and therefore we must tackle this real world problem. Not that we can prevent others from creating such sites and posting to them but we can at least not support them (and yes, any behaviour blocking a solution is in the end supporting these sites with all their content). Since these sites live as leeches from WP removing links also seems not entirely pointless. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus."

Could we maybe try to come up with a consensus wording for the new additions on this talk page (as is suggested in the {{policy}} template), rather than edit-warring it out on the main page of an accepted official policy? Thanks! JavaTenor 21:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed wording (1)

My first impulse is to shorten the passage that keeps being added and removed. It seems to say everything twice, presumably in the interest of giving the exact wording of the relevant ArbCom rulings. But surely the wiki way is linking, not quoting. I propose we say, once only, that off-site personal attacks should [sic, as analysed above] be removed, that you don't get 3RR'd for removing them, that repeatedly linking to attack sites may be grounds for blocking, and that "outing sites" are regarded as attack sites. Links to the exact wording of the relevant ArbCom rulings should be included. Something like this?

• Links or references to off-site personal attacks against Wikipedians should be removed. The removal of such material is not subject to the three-revert rule. Linking to attack sites is not permitted, and doing so repeatedly may result in a block (see this ArbCom ruling). "Outing sites" that engage in publishing the private identities of Wikipedia participants are regarded as attack sites and should never be linked to from Wikipedia pages (see this ArbCom ruling). Bishonen | talk 21:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Some criticisms:

• Reprints direct quote from an ArbCom decision as policy. Citing the decision I have no major problem with, reprinting it as policy however seems questionable.
• "Outing sites" (or content)... are currently not prohibited elsewhere on the policy page WP:NPA#What is considered a personal attack?. While I agree this is an issue and often undertaken in context of other harrassment, there does not seem to be effective precedent for it in current policy. See WP:PRIVACY. I think links to this could be made actionable under NPA, but "outing attempts" would have to be prohibited on WP first, i would think, before we prohibit links elsewhere, and then we run into problems with people editing using their own names or revealing details about themselves that leads to other people guessing about them or stalking them. It all becomes a slippery slope! —ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 22:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the wording by Bishonen is the best yet. It is succinct and unambiguous.--MONGO 21:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

My Itteration

Here is some text I edited:

Linking to attack sites

Links or references to off-site personal attacks against Wikipedians may be removed. To cite the Arbitration committee:

[l]inks to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking. [2]

This itteration leaves "attack sites" undefined so as to allow prohibitions against links to anything "in particular" that could be considered a direct violation of NPA on-site, and eliminates redundancy and is consistent with prior policy. Prohibiting links to other content on sites hosting such attacks seems to me not in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia as a free information resource.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 21:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Free information does not mean information distribution without responsibilty. We have articles on paedophiles but they don't contain links to sites. Any site that hosts this stuff is not to be trusted or encourages - simple. Sophia 21:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, per my wording anything that links to a specific instance of what would be an NPA violation on Wikipedia would be removed. The problem with defining open-membership sites entirely devoted to criticism/critique of Wikipedia as "attack sites," and restricting access to them because of the activities of certain individuals there, is that the designation will be used by other members of these sites to show how the administration here is not only intolerant but further removing themselves, by enforcement of this policy, from the outside world.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 22:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the article on the North American Man/Boy Love Association does link to its website, and also to an archive.org copy of it since the regular link is currently broken. *Dan T.* 01:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I checked the link. There are no dodgy photos and they do not advocate breaking the law but changing the law. If either of thise two situations changed then the site should be banned. That is where the attack sites cross the line - they publish private information to intimidate wikipedians. Calling someone a crap or corrupt admin is one thing. Publishing their home address/phone number with photos is quite another and external sites should be very clear as to how we will treat them if they do. Sophia 06:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Edits disappearing mysteriously

The database was briefly locked a few minutes ago, and some edits made before then seem to have disappeared, so please don't get in a tizzy about somebody deleting them--nobody did. Oddly, some were moved rather than removed, still without anybody touching them--I noticed Bishzilla's was.[5] People had better each check for their own words of wisdom if they're concerned, as restoring the original order is beyond my skill. Bishonen | talk 22:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

I figured something like that happened. Not a problem. hombre de haha 22:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Can 'Zilla not restore them, with her coding skills? ElinorD (talk) 22:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Fast-track Zilla Developer Status first, then restore! bishzilla _ROARR!! 22:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Attacks and attack sites

I've noticed that some people are trying to change "attack sites" to "attacks", which would completely change the whole meaning of the MONGO arbcom ruling. If a website engages in speculation about the identities of anonymous Wikipedian editors, their locations, etc., then, according to the arbcom ruling, that website is an attack site, and should not be linked to under any circumstances.

Leaving it as "attack" would suggest that if a website is devoted to "outing" people, and you link to the actual index page, rather than the individual pages saying who I am, who Bishonen and SlimVirgin and Sophia are, etc., that would be okay. It would certainly not be okay. Common sense and common decency indicate that if you want to protect people from harassment in the real world, you don't make it possible for a stalker to find out who they are in three clicks, and then innocently protest that you didn't make it possible to find out in one click.

Regarding consensus, my understanding is that we need consensus to elect the members of the arbitration committee (unless Jimbo directly appoints them), but we do not need consensus for their rulings. If the arbitration committee rules that ElinorD is limited to one revert per week on ice cream, it doesn't matter if the community agrees or not — I'm still only allowed one revert per week. The arbitration committee ruled that:

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

"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." (Link)

I've never been involved in an arbcom case, but have skimmed through some arbcom rulings and have sometimes disagreed with the committee. That's my right, but it's not my right to try to modify policy in such a way as to ensure that their rulings can't be enforced. ElinorD (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom doesn't create policy. The community doesn't look to Arbcom for policy, they look to the community. Arbcom doesn't consider their previous cases as precedent. Consensus can change, thus, no stare decisis. That's why we should not link to Arbcom cases as backup of the policy.

A site like LiveJournal has millions of users. If a single post to a LiveJournal has an attack on a Wikipedia user we should not block the entire site. That's ridiculous. Forget the site. Don't like to attacks. One simple sentence "Don't link to attacks." If an entire website is attacks, then it can't be linked to. That's a really short list. Users should be smart enough to figure that out. SchmuckyTheCat 22:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Use of "Attack" focuses on the "verb/behavior," rather than the "noun/concept" of "Attack Sites." Use of "attack" effectively prohibits against links to anything that would count as an NPA violation here from other sites, saving us the problem of attempting to legislate what such sites are in WP policy.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 22:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This comment would seem to be relevant to those who are attempting to cite ArbCom decisions as binding precedent. *Dan T.* 01:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• The ArbCom does not make or set policy, and WP:RFARB explictly says that prior decisions are not nesicarily binding precedent even in other arbcom cases. Also the MONGO case ruling has been pretty striongly qualified. "Don't link to attacks" is not unreasoanble (although i still maintain that doing so on an RFC evidence page or on an ANI discussion should be permetted, at least if the link is made by the victim of the attack) "Don't link to attack sites" is IMO compeltely unreasonable, at least as a general black & white prohibition. This is a matter that needs case-by-case evaluation. I repeat, does anyone have a principaled reason why the link in the recent signpost article should have been delted? It was highly relavent to the article and the page to which it linked had not attacks of any sort -- in fact I don't think it even linked directly to such attacks, although such attacks may be found elsewhere on that site. In short, I oppose any "do not link to attack sites" wording. DES ^(talk) 01:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't wait for the article in the next Signpost, which "should" (not "may") contain a reference to show that Brant's Hivemind site is up again as a result of this controversy.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 01:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

And your point is? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, do I really have to overstate it? Next week's Signpost is going to be a trainwreck over this issue. DB's indicated on an unmentionable site that a WP reporter has attempted to contact him for an interview regarding the issue, which he apparently refused, and instead put that site back up as a consequence of not reinserting a link to some other site of his within a limited time frame. How is this going to get reported on without making the references explicit?—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 01:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a new tagline for the Signpost: "We report; you censor." —ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 02:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The Free Newspaper that Anyone can Censor! *Dan T.* 02:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"Fair and balanced," but I think that one's taken already.[6]—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 02:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I would want to know if you would have the same response, if it was your photo, full name, city and place of work, listed on that site. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There already is media about me on other sites that contains that information. I personally would be more worried about stalkers approaching me from other contexts than from my editing on WP, not that anyone has been that interested.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 03:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: Though to be completely clear, there was an on-wiki troll in my old neighborhood who claimed he was walking around there and thinking of me and I thought, hmm, he can identify me through my GDFL photograph, best to back off.[7] i more of less in response to that decided to terminate my previous activities under my old account than continue to make a target of myself for this individual, not that i was worried that much. It just seemed like good practice. —ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 21:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with you that links to that particular site are inappropriate after the hive2 page was restored. JavaTenor 03:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have already posted my legal name and (until it was deleted over license issues) my picture here, and enough info thart anyone can find my address and telephone number in 5 minutes, and my place of work in 15 -- and at least one editor threatened to report me to the FBI over an on-wiki dispute. While I will support and defend those who wish to edit without makign their real identities public, I wouldn't think it a disaster if editors (or at elast admins) were required to provide legal names. In any case rights to privicy do not trump all other considerations. DES ^(talk) 16:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mongo above. Removing attacks on WP is uncontroversial and not the issue here. The problem is attack sites. Obviously we cannot remove these attacks at other websites, hence the need to deal with those by not linking to them. Links to attack sites are an endorsement of the content, which would be WP attacking some of its editors. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Existing links awaiting deletion

I believe after all this discussion it should be clear that any links to sites containing any attack material need to go. It may mean that some stuff interesting to some people may also not be linked to, but that's simply necessary and definitely worth it. I'd like "clearance" to go ahead and begin deleting all (or most) of these links.

Likewise, I'd like to direct everyone's attention to LiveJournal#Encyclopedia_Dramatica. That section features not a single reference, yet attempts to justify one particularly vicious attack site by claiming notability, and it makes indirect linking possible. I didn't want to delete it unilaterally, even though it's in fact uncontroversial, I believe.

—AldeBaer 03:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

On your first item, I don't know that it's necessary to delete a bunch of links from old ArbCom evidence, but interpretations may vary. On the second, terminate with extreme prejudice - that appears to be an endrun around the salting of the main ED article. JavaTenor 03:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your first item, there's no sign of any consensus on that point, no matter how much handwaving anybody might make. On the second, given that the section in question is full of unreferenced assertions, policy certainly encourages its deletion, though not out of any value judgment about "attack sites", but simply because of the overall policy of verifiability and referencing. *Dan T.* 03:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Aldebaer, you are cleared for take off per existing wording of this policy!—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 03:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I suspect some of you of trying to make a WP:POINT. *Dan T.* 03:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Not me, I only make points after disruption. And then I say, "See, wasn't that a bad idea?"—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 03:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I find it disturbing that some people find this funny... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I find it disturbing that some people take this seriously. *Dan T.* 03:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I am asking you the same question I asked before: Would you have the same response, if it was your photo, full name, city and place of work, listed on that site? 15:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to urge people to keep this discussion more civil, if at all possible. JavaTenor 03:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Given the circumstances, I'm trying as best I can. It is an absurd situation, however.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 03:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Getting back to the point: Since about half of these are in archives of some sort, it is legalistic to go after them. But you know, if I were looking at an arbcom archive or something similar, and I found that a link had been erased after the fact, I'd be powerfully motivated to find it and follow it. Mangoe 11:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I meant occurrences like this rather than ArbCom discussions. —AldeBaer 14:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any real problem with deleting these. They are not part of the encyclopedia and it's hard to justify the proliferation of these references. --Tony Sidaway 15:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The edit war here

We have consensus for saying that attacks are not to be linked to. We do not have any such consensus for attack sites, no matter how fervently or certainly people believe it should say that. Until the issue can be resolved, the word should stay out. Mangoe 14:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no "consensus" against "sites." What I do see is an Arbcom ruling that is crystal clear.--Mantanmoreland 14:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, I see a lack of consensus for sites, and substantial objection to its inclusion. You need consensus to advance policy, and adding the word is patently a forward change. There is no consensus that arbcom can unilaterally advance policy anyway. Mangoe 14:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. Policy is formed by consensus. If we agree that wikipedia policy is expressed by a particular form of words, then that is what should be in our policy document. If we don't agree, then the written form of words does not conform to Wikipedia policy and we must discuss until we find a form of words that we can agree expresses that policy. Policy is what actually gets done on Wikipedia, with consensus, and the written policy document is supposed to describe that.

If it should be the case that links to attack sites are regularly deleted from Wikipedia, then that is policy. If that is the case, we can agree to add a suitable description to the written policy. It it isn't the case then we should not. --Tony Sidaway 14:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You beg the question, since there is no such consensus. Mangoe 14:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. You see, in my experience references to attack sites do get deleted. I can't be everywhere and so I don't know for sure whether I've got this impression from selective exposure to a set of deletions, so I don't yet have an opinion on this matter, but because of that impression I'm leaning towards the view that we do have consensus that links to attack sites can be deleted. --Tony Sidaway 15:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What you have is a few editors who occasionally go on big sprees of deleting such links, but that's not the same thing as a general consensus in favor of it, especially when it frequently occurs that other editors try to revert such changes and often the first editor tries to shut them up by waving the ArbCom decision around like it's the Word of God. *Dan T.* 16:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll repeat: the real controversy isn't over deleting attacks or even deleting links to attack sites. The controversy is over blindly and unconditionally deleting all links to attack sites in a robotic manner that does not take special circumstances into account. A policy which says that links to attack sites should usually be deleted, but that there may be occasional exceptions and that human judgment should be used, would be much less controversial. But supporters of a ban generally don't want that policy; they want a more extreme policy with no room for exceptions, even minor ones. Ken Arromdee 17:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland, Arbcom does not create policy. And, there is disagreement even there. SchmuckyTheCat 15:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of agreement that "sites" needs to be included. Sophia 16:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Included in the policy - yes. Also I think this is becoming a kind of "chicken and egg" argument. Which came first, the policy/consensus or the arbcom decision? Either way, both are reflections of reality.--Mantanmoreland 16:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

But on a wiki, reality can change. Seriously, if policy is determined by consensus, and ArbCom decisions are based on policy, then consensus can shift, and hence the policy changes, and hence future ArbComs would be likely to rule differently. From what I've seen in the discussion pages about this policy, there is clearly a big gaping lack of consensus in favor of it applying to all links to so-called "attack sites" regardless of context. *Dan T.* 16:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that "sites" needs to be in this policy...that's four editors in the last hour who now feel this way...so which way is the consensus going again? Please understand, I can't see this amendment applying to but a very few of the most egregious sites that routinely allow it's contributors to post harassment and make efforts to identify the real life identities of Wikipedians. So we are talking about a few, maybe 5 websites...none of which meet RS in most cases anyway, and all of which, should they ever have anything posted which might be useful for arbcom consideration, can always have links to such posts emailed instead of posting them here.--MONGO 16:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

and at least one who thinks that sights must not be in the policy. Ther are other reasons to link to a site besides using it as an RS or in an arbcome proceeeding. 1) Links when an articel discusses that site itslef -- any site is an RS on its own contents; 2) links in RFCs; 3) Links in things like the signpost article, or articles about those people who start and run such sites. There may be other cases that son't come to mind right off. DES ^(talk) 16:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't have an article on ED or it's founder. We don't have an article on WW or WR. We do have an article on the founder of WW, but there is enough other sources that can be used to determine his notablity for an article, however, I have long felt that regardless of such notablity, I think the article on him needs to go away. Rfc's should be based on an editor's actions here, as should arbcom cases. In the MONGO arbcom case, links were used there from the now banned ED website to identify the efforts of the person who originally filed the case, but the same information could have easily been emailed to the members of arbcom.--MONGO 17:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The whole RS issue is a red herring, given that most of the links in question are on such things as talk pages where this policy doesn't apply. And the fact that we don't presently have articles on any of those sites doesn't mean that this will always be true; we had articles on some of them in the past and might again in the future depending on decisions as to their notability which shouldn't be altered in a POV manner based on your or anybody's feelings against those sites. And, in general, we favor openness in such things as ArbCom cases; having secret evidence by private e-mail, while it might be necessary in rare cases where sensitive private information is involved, it is generally to be avoided and makes no sense when it regards things that are already publicly viewable on the Internet. *Dan T.* 17:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

(after EC) As long as we have an article on the founder of WW, it would be relevant to mention his actions in creating WW, and to link to WW to illustrate what he created, and to source that aspect of the article. We might, at least in theory, have articles on the founders of ED or WR. There is policy that says that off-wiki attacks may be taken into account here, so RFCs and Arbcom cases can, in what I would hope are rare cases, need such links. Frankly i think we should have an article about ED, but I'm not going to fight that case now. But if ED were to become more clearly notable (or if WR or WW were to do so) then an article would be appropriate, and in such an article, a link to the main page of the site involved would be appropriate, provide that link was not directly to a page with attacks or privacy violations, and provided it wasn't formated in a way that said, in effect "follow this link to see attacks". Mind you, my position is that such links will be appropriate in very few cases, and that the presumption is against them, and any particular instance ought to be individually justified. It is merely the blanket black&white anti-link stance I oppose, and the threat of enforcement by ban. I also think that references, as opposed to links, to sites (not attacks) are more likely to be appropriate, and i don't see how inserting a reference would ever be a blockable offense, unless it was done in such a way as to draw attention to an attack or personal info, and with the pretty obvious intention of doing so. DES ^(talk) 17:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why we need to be fighting over this. Just quit trying to legislate what an "attack site" is and make "outing attempts" actionable under NPA. Everyone walks away happy.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 20:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Outing attempts are actionable under NPA and WP:BLOCK. I will block any user doing that, and I am sure many other admins will. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the only text on this page remotely concerning "outing attempts" or privacy before this mess started is this:

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

It doesn't explicitly mention "outing" per se, but it does seem sufficiently broad to cover such instances, without defining them as such. Likewise, the problem with defining any given concept in a rigid categorical sense is that such definitions can easily be undermined, as we've been seeing in this case, by posting items from "attack sites" that don't fit with the proscribed definition, the categorical prohibition against which leads to the appearance of self-censorship against sites hosting informal critiques of Wikipedia. My best advice, and I mean this in all sincerity, is to allow the case citation to "attack sites" but leave the term undefined in policy so as to allow admins and others to use their best discretion when coming across such links, rather than create a categorical imperative in policy to automatically remove such links wherever they may be found. —ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 20:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What is beginning to convince me here is that we evidently do have a tradition of removing references to attack sites here, and it's uncontroversial enough within the community for the tradition to have survived a long time and to be endorsed by the arbitration committee in at least one case. There may be the occasional gray area, but the community strongly endorsed, for instance, the deletion of the ED article, largely as a result of the campaign of vilification carried out on that website. It seems to me that as a community we don't tolerate links to websites that allow themselves to be used for this purpose. And I think I agree with that. --Tony Sidaway 20:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

We're a lot better off to have deleted that article for lack of reliable sources than "as a result of the campaign of vilification". The latter would be a case of acting out of pursuit of justice instead of treating the encyclopedia as a project bigger than any of us, and it would be precisely the kind of action that turns around and bites us in the ass. It's much better for us to be boring and just apply our usual notability standards than for us to delete an article because we've got some kind of internet rivalry with its subject. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Once you said the phrase "there may be the occasional gray area, but", you've shown that you're missing the point. There are people who do not accept the existence of grey areas, and believe that literally all such links must be removed, with no consideration for any special circumstances.

These people are already applying the nonexistent policy, selectively pointing to Arbcom rulings to justify themselves, etc., and they are the ones agitating for an attack sites rule here.

A policy as draconian as the one they want is by no means a community tradition. Perhaps a weaker policy is a community tradition, but this is not about a weaker policy, whatever your own personal intentions are. Ken Arromdee 20:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever seen a discussion where one accuses another of a personal attack? Then that person says, "I don't think that was a personal attack." It's because we cannot define a personal attack. It is a personal attack if the person receiving the comment feels attacked. "Attack sites" may similarly be left to interpretation and resulting disruption. "An attack site is in the eye of the beholder," to be incredibly cliche about it. Saying that, I don't know what the answer is to this problem or if it is even a big problem. Do you make a list of "official" attack sites (or links) not to be linked or do you leave it up to various administrators do decide?

Admin A blocks User:X for linking to an "attack site". Admin B finds this ridiculous and unblocks User:X because the link was simply an essay. Admin C reblocks User:X and admonishes Admin B for supporting an attack site, even though Admin B didn't feel that's what he did.

There is no reason to take this to monotonous detail, if a link is an attack, it is to be removed, and the user informed about why it was removed. I can assume good faith on the part of an administrator that blocks a person for inserting a perceived "attack site", but I certainly don't assume common sense and their correct judgment of the link.

I have a problem with the way this debate has taken place since it was conceived and the emotional invocations that it has caused. I am not emotionally involved in it, I just find a problem with banning links from entire sites based on an inpretation. Eliminating attack links makes much more sense to me. I have a feeling it will sort out in the end, perhaps long down the road, and the good of the encyclopedia will be put ahead of emotions. At this point I will sit back and watch as the outcome appears clear. hombre de haha 21:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The ED deletion is hardly evidence of a strong, longstanding community consensus in favor of complete, draconian removal of anything to do with "attack sites". For one thing, it took three AFD tries before a consensus was reached to delete it, and the consensus was far from unanimous; also, the reasoning behind many deletion supporters was the lack of reliable sources to demonstrate notability, not the fact that it was an attack site. In two prior AFDs, the rough consensus was against deletion; this shifted just enough to change the outcome the third time. It's hardly a clear indication of permanent, longstanding consensus against linking or mentioning even that site, let alone the entire category of "attack sites" in all circumstances. And the fact that there have been many other links to such sites, and the bulk removal of them is mostly a recent phenomenon, is another indication of lack of permanent consensus. The Daniel Brandt article has, at various times, had links to various such sites, though this has been ever-changing depending on the mood of editors. So has the Criticisms of Wikipedia page. *Dan T.* 21:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the key here is "There are people who do not accept the existence of grey areas, and believe that literally all such links must be removed, with no consideration for any special circumstances." It's a bit "so what?" There may be such people. This is not a good argument against having a written policy that accurately describes the policy of Wikipedia. At the moment, and for as long as you like going back into the past, that seems to have been that links to attack sites can be deleted. I'm unconvinced by representations to the contrary. Everybody knows why the policy is this way and there is no significant case where the interests of permitting attack sites to be linked has been considered to outweigh the interests of keeping a civil environment that is as unfriendly as possible to trolls. --Tony Sidaway 21:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of significant cases--but it's hard to give examples without getting the examples themselves deleted, as they were in the Wikipedia_talk_Attack sites discussion. In fact, this is both one of the examples, and one of the great catch-22s--you can't give examples to prove the policy is misguided because the examples themselves will be deleted under the misguided policy. Ken Arromdee 23:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ken, surely examples can be described without providing the actual URLs? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The man is spot on. Sophia 21:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Aww, what happened to "Wikipedia is nothing if not context-sensitive," Tony?—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 22:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is context-sensitive. A link to an attack site may be removed. Nothing in the policy obliges us to do it. --Tony Sidaway 22:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Change the policy wording to "may" rather than "should", and I'd entirely agree with you. In this discussion, I've been (consistently, I hope), a proponent of the notion that such links should generally be removed unless there's a strong reason for them to remain. The strong reasons, I'd argue, include instances where a site is deemed notable enough for its own Wikipedia page (see Free Republic), in which case it would be odd to retain a page about a site without providing a link to that site, and situations in which such a link is meaningful or relevant in a WP-space procedure (RFAR, RFA, RFC, etc.). Some have suggested that links which are ArbCom evidence should be mailed to the arbitratrors in question; my general belief is that "secret evidence" should be avoided when possible for the sake of transparency. It makes sense to keep private e-mail correspondence secret, but I'm not certain that publicly available posts on a messageboard merit the same secrecy. Furthermore, there are procedures other than RFAR in which such links might become important and in which there's no set group of individuals to receive the links as evidence via email. JavaTenor 22:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Even "may" isn't enough. Because if you put the policy in with "may" people will seize upon the policy to delete all such links unconditionally without regard to context. They only way to prevent that is to explicitly say "there may be unusual cases where such links are needed". Ken Arromdee 23:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Policy can't afford to have such an ambiguous interpretation of language. Policy needs to clear. NeoFreak 22:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Our editors are not that brainless. However, "Don't link to attacks" is about as unambiguous as it gets, adding "sites" becomes ambiguous as we have no working definition of attack site. SchmuckyTheCat 22:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Editors do get banned for transgressing guidelines. Do you propose placing an WP:IAR tag within the policy template? LessHeard vanU 22:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how adding "sites" makes it ambiguous. Don't link to sites that engage in the practice of trying to find out and publicise the names, contact details, and other private information of Wikipedia editors. I can't see anything unclear about that. I've never been that happy at the word "attack", since "attack" suggests an insult. But the serious problem here is not of calling someone a bitch, but of saying that her name is X and her address is Y. It's much more important to remove links to those sites than to sites that call some editor a bitch. Mind you, the sites that have lots of trolls gleefully calling administrators "cunts" and "whores" are generally also the kind of sites that engage in these appalling privacy violations. However, despite my lack of enthusiasm for the word "attack", I am satisfied that the links to the arbcom ruling that a site that engages in such privacy violations shall be regarded as an attack site will take care of any possible ambiguity, and there is absolutely no danger that such a policy could be applied to reputable news sources like The Times, because The Times simply does not engage in the practice of trying to find out the identities of our administrators. (Nor does it call them whores and cunts.) I know that at the WP:BADSITES talk page, people were constantly bringing up the Essjay case, arguing that this policy would mean we couldn't link to the New Yorker. That's not true at all. Essjay voluntarily provided his details at Wikia, and then voluntarily confirmed on his own talk page here that the Wikia details were correct. ElinorD (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I see it, the problem with using the "attack sites" definition provided by the MONGO case is that it is, simultaneously, overly broad in terms of definition and overly strict in terms of application. The wording the ArbCom used in that case is directly causing this conflict we are experiencing now. Towards a solution, I would prefer to focus on the agentive, active notion of "attack" as a verb, and prohibit actions identifiable as such, than continue to focus on "attack sites" as a noun, which is a static, stative concept and not something that can "behave" or "act," in itself. These sites may enable attacks, but they are not the attack itself which our policy should proscribe against, as I've been arguing. —ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 00:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a bit of a non sequitur; the multiplicity of revelations doesn't change that both the New Yorker and the Unspeakable Site revealed him, and that by this proposal both are subject to exclusion. But the larger issue is that external criticism of Wikipedia is not bound to respect the Wikipedial theory that it doesn't matter who edits or administers here; indeed, an attitude of disbelief, if not outright challenge, is to be expected. Calling this an "attack" is not necessarily really true (as opposed to Wikipedially true). But even so, a more neutral policy of forbidding links to such identifications (which seems to be a second thread in this) would block lots of other content if it were applied to entire sites.

That seems to be the weakest link in this: nobody seems to have a problem with forbidding links directly to this material. We have a good consensus as to exactly what material is forbidden. The entirety of the problem is whether this "poisons" the rest of the site on which it appears. And there is absolute disagreement on this point. Mangoe 01:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

But given that most, and perhaps all, of those who disagree are regulars posters to at least one of the attack sites in question, it's hard to take the opposition very seriously. As for your New Yorker argument, which Wikipedian has the New Yorker ever outed? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Slim, I'm not a regular contributor to any attack site. I just think that making specific bans against certain domains as "attack sites" is a bad idea, and not in Wikipedia's best interests. Such rules are misguided, and empower the "opponent" you hope to defeat; history is full of examples.

We're better off keeping the rules lightweight and flexible and continuing to exercise our good judgment when it comes to removing harassing or privacy-endangering material, for which we've never needed specific chapter-and-verse policy support. The current policy seems to work pretty well, and adding clauses to replace judgment with blanket rules is instruction creep.

There are some specific things that we can (and IMO should) do to protect Wikipedians from harassment (see here); maintaining a blacklist of WP:BADSITES isn't one of them. Inappropriate links have been, and will continue to be, removed. We shouldn't try to fix what ain't broke. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

And while we're at it, SV, aren't you (in essence) engaging in some "outing" here yourself? This is, after all, an attack upon our personal integrity. It's a fairly weak attack, given that at least one of us appear on the Unspeakable Site largely as a critic, and another didn't join there until this brouhaha brought it to his attention. Nor have any of them posted anything there that could be legitimately called an attack, nor outed anyone. And others, as far as anyone knows, are not in fact members of the unspeakable forum. There are of course similar conflicts of interest on the proponent side. We can take this "assume Bad Faith" approach, but I don't think it's going to put the proponents of this in a good light to do so. Mangoe 02:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you're not being outed in any way, shape, or form; I can only imagine the squealing if you really were, and if we started posting material about you that could get you killed in some countries. That is what has happened to others, but because it's not happening to you, you think it doesn't matter and happily post to the site that has done it.

Could you answer the question I asked above: you said the New Yorker would count as an attack site under the current definition. Which editors has the New Yorker outed? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I am certainly not a regular poster to the sites everyone seems so hung up about, nor am I even a regular reader of them. One thing that everyone seems to keep forgetting is that ArbComm itself refused to confirm this principle in a subsequent arbitration case[8]. And one must note that the arbitrators themselves have differentiated between "principles" and "remedies." Even in the MONGO decision, they had the opportunity to state that all links to "attack sites" were to be removed, but they chose not to do that. Let us not foist responsibility for this mess on ArbComm.

I do not see anyone, at all, saying that a direct link to a personal attack is anything other than a personal attack. And if people are genuinely fearful that they will suffer serious consequences from their name being linked to their edits here, they have much bigger problems than being outed on WR - because even without those sites a diligent tracker would be able to find them. (In the interest of WP:BEANS, I won't explain in detail, but it's easier to do with proliferate editors than occasional ones.)

A separate section about linking to personal attacks doesn't even need to be here; personal attacks are well described, and would pretty clearly include links to personal attacks on external sites. It is inappropriate to link to an ArbComm principle that has since been rejected by ArbComm itself. I cannot help but wonder why this entire discussion was ever started; nobody was demanding that links to personal attacks on external sites had to remain intact before this entire essay/proposed policy/proposed specific addition to policy came up. Risker 02:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Where is this stuff coming from? The New Yorker has not outed any Wikipedian; no responsible publication has or would. The ArbCom has not rejected the ruling; on the contrary, Fred Bauder affirmed it. It's becoming hard to assume good faith when you keep changing the basic facts. No one has answered the most basic question yet: please offer a scenario in which it would be necessary to link to an attack site on Wikipedia, as opposed to e-mailing the link or contents to the interested party? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Way to go, Slim! One editor here is not afraid to demonstrate an WP:NPA violation by providing us with a concrete example of "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views." We need more of that among the general editorship around here.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 05:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

(Quote SlimVirgin)"...posting material about you that could get you killed in some countries...". Unless it is certain that the individuals concerned live or intend to visit such countries this is a strawman argument. Some easily identifiable editors have information freely available on their userpage which may cause some difficulties, or worse, if they were to visit nations who take a dim view of such beliefs, orientation, or political affinity. LessHeard vanU 11:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Two ways of looking at it. Your argument, LessHeard, seems to be that it should be okay to post personal information unless it's certain that that will endanger people. I would say that it's not okay to do it unless it's certain that it will not endanger people. (And of course, we can never take that decision for other people.) If you're talking about people posting information about themselves, then, of course, that's their decision. But I hope you're not implying that it's okay for people to post personal information about other users (or link to such personal information) "unless it's certain" that it will cause them harm in the real world. ElinorD (talk) 13:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I was more commenting on the use of emotive language in SlimVirgin's quote than that of the policy discussion. I have followed what you have been saying regarding stalking and the inferred consequences thereof, should identities be revealed, and agree with your concerns. Extrapolating the risk of blown identities to the consequences of visiting or residing in certain nations is too miniscule a concern, especially in relation to those users whose identities are easily ascertained and who identify as belonging to groups which are not tolerated in some countries. In short, IMO in the En-Wiki World there is too little a risk of identity being disclosed and therefore being a matter of state sponsored oppression for it being a valid concern. It is simply a very poor argument in support of SlimVirgins position (which of itself is a rarity). LessHeard vanU 13:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Another trip to the Wheel of Reality

I've made an analysis of the 196 links reffed above. It breaks down as follows:

	Main	Talk
Article	none	24
Category	none	1
User	20	45
Project	89	17

This is still misleading as the vast majority of the references in project space are in archives of WP:AN (9 refs), WP:AN/I (22 refs), or WP:ArbReq (39 refs, all in a single case). Likewise, most of the talkspace references are in Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia or Talk:Daniel Brandt, or archives thereof.

What it comes down to is that at least half of these references, and probably more, are evidentiary. At most there seem to be 25 references to the website itself, as opposed to specific references to threads or posts. Some of these are clearly iffy, like this one. But the majority of references are in situations where someone coming across the erasure is going to have cause to wonder why the evidence is being suppressed. Mangoe 18:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Great. This means that people are not linking, or that people are removing links to it. Excellent. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Good work on this, Mangoe.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 21:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Attack sites section disputed

I have boldly added {{disputedtag}} to the "Linking to attack sites" section. The discussion on this page and on wikien-l seems to imply that consensus has not been reached. I hope that this can be resolved without a wheel war. --Chris (talk) 06:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. That section is clearly in dispute; here's hoping people won't edit war on a protected page. Frise 06:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I would hope not. (I have changed the section title here, so it doesn't duplicate the title of a section farther up the page, anf auto-edit-summary links will work. DES ^(talk) 07:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The tag needs to go. This is not a war amongst admins so using the admin bit to gain an advantage in a disagreement in unethical. The page was protected to stop ALL changes - not to weed out the non admins. Sophia 07:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I never made it a "war amongst admins." But the fact is that this section is disputed, as evidenced on this talk page. Also, consider that the protection template at the top says that the page is protected until disputes are solved; how are people going to know what is disputed?

I believe I am well within the protected page guidelines to add clerical tags that clarify the reason for page protection. Whether you agree with the section or not, you can't disagree that there is a dispute with that section. --Chris (talk) 07:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Chris isn't even involved in this disagreement, so you might want to reconsider your accusation that he was doing it just to gain an advantage. That page was protected specifically because of the edit warring related to the dispute. There's no question there's a dispute. Frise 07:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It says at the top of the page that it is protected to stop an edit war - that tag is obviously needed, but in the run up to this no editor felt the need to place a disputed tag on that section so adding one when some editors are forced out of the loop is not good practice and could be seen as a POV edit. It does not clarify the edit dispute - all the tag does is calls the whole section into question when we are reallly only discussing two words - "attack" and "site". It narks me enormously when admis act like "higher editors" in content disputes but will drop this as I can tell by the speed of replies to my post that this will be taken as a great opportunity to go "off topic". Sophia 08:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You are making some very broad accusations there. I'm not pretending to be a "higher editor," and I'm interested where you draw that conclusion from. --Chris (talk) 08:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologise unreservedly for any offence you may take from my comments. I expressed an an opinion about your actions which I am entitled to and think you should be aware of when engaging in edit wars. If no one else posts to support my view then I know my opinion is not shared and I will drop it. So far two of you have disagreed so I know that of those users currently awake I am in the minority - that's how a wiki works - or am I wrong on that one too? Sophia 08:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't take offense, but thank you for your courteous reply. When adding the tag I thought it might cause a small spark with some editors, and I didn't do it lightly. My intent isn't to support one side of the argument or the other, just to help clarify what is disputed so people reading the page have some idea before they come here to discuss. If it becomes clear that I should not have added this tag then I will certainly not hesitate to revert myself. Cheers! --Chris (talk) 08:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit clash) And thank you for your explanation - I always abide by consensus even when I personally think it is nuts. However I do feel very strongly about this issue as I have edited on contentious topics such as abortion and have teenage children who also use the internet (they know the dangers of revealing information but mistakes are made). My biggest fear is that I offend some wierdo who tracks me and then targets my kids. I have a good friend who's life has been made hell by these people so you could say my judgement is clouded as "hard cases make bad law" but this really does seem well defined and simple to me. You would be surprised how limited I would like to make this as I have no patience with people who get all upset because someone has used "nasty words" about them. Sophia 08:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Everyone here obviously has strong opinions about this policy page and its tags. The goal, I should think, is to get this page to a condition where no warning or protection tags are needed. If we can remain focused on the task of collaborating on a solution to the wording problems, then all the arguments about how the page should be tagged can be rendered moot. Serpent's Choice 08:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is protected. Editing protected articles without being sure of consensus is risky. Having said that, the edit is not unreasonable. --Tony Sidaway 19:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. The WP:BADSITES page had an edit war, over marking it as rejected or redirecting it to WP:NPA, and was protected to stop that edit war. It was protected in the redirect version, and in the last half hour, an administrator reverted to the marked-as-rejected version, over the redirect, just as I was pointing out that there were several people who support the redirect.[9] It makes the whole idea of page protections in edit wars completely pointless if administrators can just go in and change it to their preferred version, while ordinary editors are locked out, but perhaps he didn't realise that the page was protected. See the end of WT:BADSITES#Tagging_as_rejected. ElinorD (talk) 09:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

As I've said before, this edit was not "me changing the article to my preferred version," but just clarifying what the {{pp-dispute}} tag is referring to. I am not involved in this dispute and have no desire to be. --Chris (talk) 23:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed wording (2)

Part one

It seems that this situation is unlikely to be resolved by inserting either "attacks" or "attack sites" into this section in its current state. May I suggest a possible rewrite to address the substantive arguments of both sides? Serpent's Choice 07:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Linking to external attacks

Links or references to off-site personal attacks against Wikipedians should be removed. The removal of such material is not subject to the three-revert rule. Additionally, ArbCom and the community have determined that some websites "engage[d] in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants ... should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances"[10] even if the specific attacks are not linked directly. Repeated insertion of inappropriate links and references can result in a block.

No explicit list of attack sites is maintained, although in extreme cases sites have been added to the MediaWiki blacklist. Editors questioning whether a specific reference, link, or site might be subject to this policy should inquire at the administrator's noticeboard.

If we are worried about this being to broad I would advocate being explicit that it is sites that actively seek and publicise personal information about wikipedians who have chosen to remain anonymous that need all links removing. I agree that "attack" is broad and subjective - I would take no notice if I were discussed and insulted on a blog (sticks and stones...etc) but others would be outraged. It is almost impossible to create policy for hurt feelings but a site that does or threatens to "out" wikipedians (or gives enough personal information to make it easy for internet users to do the work themselves) should be dropped immediately to lower its Google rankings and hopefully send a strong message that we consider them stalking low-life. As to there being a list - I agree that this can become a rogues gallery but we do need to keep a log as we will get the "there's nothing there that I can see" conversations every 3 months when the stuff has been removed but is just waiting for the chance to be reposted (as we have seen over the last few days) Sophia 07:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I tried to word my proposal in such a way as to make this point without painting policy into a corner; I don't pretend that it is perfect, though, just a hopeful jumping-off point. Regarding the list/log issue, I don't think that the admin community, especially, will be sufficiently prone to "forgetting" what sites have been responsible for outing editors and faciliating stalking as to require an actual physical log be maintained. Serpent's Choice 08:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia (controversially, but that's another issue) inserts the "nofollow" attribute in its external links, so they shouldn't affect Google rankings of the linked sites one way or the other. *Dan T.* 13:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I like that wording, Serpent's Choice. --Tony Sidaway 19:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It works for me as well. Thanks for the effort in finding common ground. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It's good for me too, though I'd suggest removing "although in extreme cases sites have been added to the MediaWiki blacklist," because it's only when the sites are being spammed that they're added to this list, not whether they're extreme cases. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, suggest removal of the one comment as mentioned by SV, otherwise, the wording is fine.--MONGO 20:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Change "should" to "may" and I "may" be willing to let it go, not that I think I "should," of course.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 20:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

'Should' is what arbcom said. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

(ed conf) These should be removed, as per the text following that. As a compromise I would not be against this: Links or references to off-site personal attacks against Wikipedians are not acceptable. and then continue with the explanation on how to remove these.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Nah, you went and found a wording more draconian than the previous one. I'm ok with a citation to the relevant ArbCom decision, I'm not for transcribing this as dictated policy. Use of "may in this instance keeps the section consistent with the section on "Removing text." (Links are text!)—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 21:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I like it too, except that, like SlimVirgin, I'd remove the bit about the blacklist, and also, I would definitely not encourage editors to report sites that give personal information at the administrators' noticeboard, for reasons that I've already mentioned here. I think an editor who discovers that a link has been posted to a site that has name, address, and photo, etc. of an anonymous editor here should remove the link and then perhaps go to WP:RFO to request oversighting. If there's doubt about whether or not the link is appropriate, it should really be discussed by private email among responsible administrators, not brought to the noticeboard for community discussion. I really wouldn't like the thought of a link to a stalking site about me (or the name of the site, so that everyone can find it with a just a little more effort) posted to WP:AN so that for the next two hours people discuss it and look at it to see if it really has ElinorD's phone number! Thanks, Serpent's Choice. ElinorD (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

After a more careful reading, I have another objection. The proposed wording says "SOME websites "engage[d] in the practice of publishing private information" (emphasis mine). That would imply that some of these stalking websites ("Who is Bishonen?", "Who is Sophia?") may not be linked to, but leaves a loophole allowing people to link to other stalking websites ("Who is ElinorD?"). Actually, that's not at all what the arbcom said, and may not be what Serpent's Choice intended, but I think it would have to be made clearer. Leave out the "some", and that sentence is fine. ElinorD (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Linking to external attacks

Links, references to, or copies of off-site personal attacks against Wikipedians are not acceptable. The removal of such material is not subject to the three-revert rule. Additionally, ArbCom and the community have determined that some websites "engage[d] in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants ... should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances"[11] even if the specific attacks are not linked directly. Repeated insertion of inappropriate links and references can result in a block.

Editors questioning whether a specific reference, link, or site might be subject to this policy should inquire at the administrator's noticeboard.

• I don't find either of these acceptable. In fact i don't find any wording acceptable that either 1) ciites or references the arbcom decision (arbcom doesn't make policy); or 2) contains or implies a blanket prohibition on linking to particualr sites "under any circumstances"; or 3) threatens blocking to enforce removal of links. DES ^(talk) 23:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• • I have to agree with DES. Arbcom doesn't make policy; they made that decision with the understanding that it was policy, and now we're using that decision to make it policy. I think we can all agree that links made with the intent to harass should be removed, but a blanket prohibition with no regards to context is unwise. We've been using common sense until now, and I believe we should leave it that way. Frise 00:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

How about this version:

Linking to external attacks

Direct links, explicit references to, or copies of off-site personal attacks against Wikipedians are not acceptable. The removal of such material is not subject to the three-revert rule.

Editors questioning whether a specific reference or link might be subject to this policy should inquire at the administrator's noticeboard.

I could live with this, although it is more balck&white than i would prefer. DES ^(talk) 00:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That would be OK, though to meet the objections of some others above, it might be a good idea to also mention who to contact by private e-mail if one's questions or need for clarificiation involves the discussion of private information about Wikipedians that wouldn't be appropriate to do in the open. One might also amend it to refer to personal attacks against other Wikipedians; referring to personal attacks on yourself in order to laugh at them shouldn't be against the rules (personally, that's one thing I like to do with any attacks I get). *Dan T.* 00:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

(Edit - DES posted a proposal just before I posted this. My comments refer to the first two examples, not that of DES) I agree that neither of these examples are appropriate. In fact, I keep going back to the statements by several respected editors, including Fred Bauder, who indicated that existing policy already covered this issue. Let's look at an example of how someone could make a personal attack using external and internal links, without using any of the links that are so poorly thought of:

"Risker, you are an outstanding editor. Your edits are always enlightening. Many editors could learn from your style."

Anyone want to remove all references to the Oxford dictionary? Wiktionary? Wikipedia policy? Of course not. This is the danger of the proposal. It is open to interpretation - and someone could quite legitimately interpret it to mean that any site used in a personal attack should be forbidden from Wikipedia.

I propose this addition, which is to the point and addresses the issues without crossing the line to unintended consequences:

There is no bright-line rule about what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable: Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against disabled people) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse. Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme. Threats of legal action. Threats of violence, particularly death threats. Threats of vandalism to userpages or talk pages. Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time, which may be applied immediately by any administrator upon discovery. Admins applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Arbitration Committee of what they have done and why. Use of external or internal links that constitute any of the above examples forms of personal attacks.

My proposed addition is in bold. Risker 00:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• I could support User:Risker's sugestion above, although i would say "types" or "forms" rather than "examples". But that is a detail. DES ^(talk) 00:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point, DES. I've made that modification. Risker 00:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• It seems reasonable to me. *Dan T.* 00:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Not strong enough, and misses the main point of this debate: the disclosure of personal information of WP editors as a mean of harassment, or to solicit harassment by the fact that the information is disclosed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • • Agree with Jossi. ElinorD (talk) 07:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This could be fixed by saying: "Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to harassment, political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others, such as the disclosure of personal information about editors".... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"unwelcome disclosure of..." or "disclosure of personal information about editors without the consent of the affected editors" perhaps. Linking to a self-disclosure is not an attack. DES ^(talk) 01:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "personal information not previously disclosed by the Wikipedia editor who is the subject"? Risker 02:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That would do, although in a few rare cases i can see a new disclosure being made with consent. (For example "Blocked user X emailed me to say that he is really Person Y, and asked me to post this.") But I hope no one would be foolish enough to try to invoke such a rule in such a case anyway. DES ^(talk) 02:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that wouldn't do, because most of the getting hold of information has been because sometimes editors, especially new editors, supply information themselves, and then regret it. If someone has originally used their real name and said where they worked, and no longer does so because they've become aware of the dangers, it's unacceptable to link to a website that gives their real name and work phone number. ElinorD (talk) 07:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Then return to "Unwelcome disclosure" or "disclosure withotu the consent of the affected editor(s)" which says nothing about who disclsoed first, merly that the editor doesn't want it disclosed now. DES ^(talk) 07:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Whew! I've had a bit more time to read into the history of this issue, including all the referenced arbcom discussions, and a lot of the community chatter about the issue. Here is my understanding of what this debate is about: 1) There is general agreement that harrassment of Wikipedians by off-wiki sources is problematic from both a community-building and safety persepctive. 2) There is general consensus that WP:NPA should take a stand in that regard. 3) There is general consensus that "linking to personal attacks" is unacceptable. 4) There is strongly divided opinion about the ArbCom's ruling on sites "engage[d] in" this activity. 5) One reason for this division is the "under any circumstances" clause. 6) Another reason for this division is the mandated removal of text and links. 7) A third reason for this division is a lack of a clear definition of "attack sites" ... although I think, in general, that it is clear what we are talking about. Keeping those things in mind, I'm making another stab at the wording. DES, I'm particularly interested in hearing if this addresses your concerns, since some proposed wordings have favored substantially more minimalistic treatments.

Linking to external attacks

Direct links or references to off-site personal attacks against Wikipedians are personal attacks themselves and are not acceptable. The removal of such material is not subject to the three-revert rule.

Websites regularly "engage[d] in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants"[12] have been the subject of several Arbitration cases. The content of such websites as a whole may, after community discussion, be made subject to these restrictions. This determination is similar to a community ban against an editor, although no explicit list of these sites is maintained.

Editors questioning whether a specific reference or link might be subject to this policy should inquire at the administrator's noticeboard.

Thoughts? I recognize that this charts unexplored territory, but I hope it cuts a compromise between the two salient points: that ArbCom is not the source of policy (I still reference ArbCom, but as quotation not citation), but that certain sites strongly contrary to this project may need special handling for the benefit of Wikipedians. I leave unresolved whether WP:AN or WP:CN is the proper place to raise the discussion of whether to so consider a site. Serpent's Choice 02:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly prefer that the link to the arbcom decision be removed entirely from the text. I am not thrilled with any form of "site ban" but a ban that requires community discussion for each specific site is a lot less harmful IMO than the version proposed earlier. I would prefer the previous proposal, but could live with this. DES ^(talk) 02:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Assuming that Fred Bauder doesn't mind the unattributed quotation, the quotes and reference link could be dropped without impact. Otherwise, I'm sure other equally compelling wordings exist for the same factual content. Is there any objection to noting that this issues has "been the subject of several Arbitration cases" absent a link to one? I feel that acknowledgement is valuable as it underscores the weight the community (and WP:DR) has placed on the issue. Serpent's Choice 02:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a lot of discomfort with this proposal. First off, I really do believe that ArbComm should be left out of this entirely; they do not make policy, and there is discomfort on the part of some ArbComm members that their deliberations are being used for policy development (I haven't figured out how to link to an email, but it has been mentioned by a couple of them on wiki-en-l). Secondly, I don't think that this is the way to go about "banning" sites. Keep in mind that the meta admins have already turned down requests to add the most obvious sites to the blacklist. It is not possible to ban the sites without publishing a list of banned sites - otherwise, how will new editors know they are banned? And how would one discuss the banning without linking to the sites and drawing their reportedly NPA/harassing/outing posts to the attention of dozens, possibly hundreds of editors who never noticed them before? Indeed, that was the biggest effect of the original essay/proposed policy. Finally....having this in a separate section makes this appear as though it happens every day to scores of editors. It makes the situation an attractive nuisance, and practically dares people to go find these sites and see what all the fuss is about. I genuinely believe that keeping this as small and as unobtrusive as possible will do more to reduce the (entirely understandable) sense of exposure felt by the small number of Wikipedians who have been discussed off-wiki in this way. I rather doubt that they have enjoyed all the attention drawn to these sites in recent weeks. Risker 03:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to mull over a couple of these concerns before forumulating a response, although I would like to note that at least one such site (the one in the Mongo case, specifically) has been added to the MediaWiki blacklist (and is the reason my original proposed wording included the "in extreme cases..." verbiage). Serpent's Choice 03:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this most recent compromise proposal is that though it solves the Arbcom issue, it still implies that, as long as a site is decided to be on the list, links to that site must never be made with no allowance for special circumstances of any type whatsoever. (It says that attacks may not be linked to, and then it says that attack sites may be considered by the community to be attacks). That is the big problem in essentially all versions of the proposal; there are people who want to remove links 100% of the time, with *no* exceptions of any sort, rare or otherwise. They are floating the proposal as a means of getting this ridiculously literal interpretation made into official policy. We shouldn't help them.

It's also an attempt to use a phrase to mean something that it doesn't mean. Attack sites aren't attacks, and they don't become attacks by defining them as such. You could just as well say that the community can call a site which contains attacks a "copyright violation" and then links to the site can be removed under the rule that forbids linking to copyright violations. Ken Arromdee 04:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

A word means what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less. -- Humpty Dumpty, in Through the Looking Glass. *Dan T.* 04:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As far as the first sentence, I'd feel fine with:

Direct links or references to off-site personal attacks against Wikipedians ("can" or "may") be considered actionable in themselves. (We already know personal attacks are unacceptable.)

The rest of it I am unsure of. I would say, if the "Removing text" section has a case citation, I would not be opposed to having one here, but then there must be some effort to reconcile the two decisions. Otherwise, this section rather radically departs from the earlier one, which emphasizes context, judgment, and good sense, for an absolute prohibition.

I guess another problem with referencing "websites" per se, even in this way, is once the hint of a notion that "there are websites critical of/dedicated to attacking Wikipedians!?!" is "out" in policy as something prohibited against linking to, people are going to go looking for these websites... WP:BEANS. It seems an impossible situation to legislate no matter what you do with it. My condolences to everyone affected by this matter.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 05:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Part two

As I mentioned above, I explained here why I think it's a bad idea to have community discussion or reports at admin noticeboards to deal with the question as to whether each individual website should be subject to removal. If a website is set up to stalk an editor or editors, and gives personal information about them, the very last thing we want is a whole thread at AN/I where the website is initially named and linked to, and people of good will and people of bad will go to have a look at it, to see if it reallly has a photo, address, and phone number of User:X. When such links appear, they should be removed immediately, and, if necessary, a report should be emailed to some trusted administrators, or perhaps the arbitration committee. ElinorD (talk) 07:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Then return to Risker's version above, or mine further above, that drops the whole idea of a ban on entire sites. The only wayu that such a ban is accptable is if there is a full and open discussion to determine consensus on banning an entire site, IMO. DES ^(talk) 07:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

ElinorD, your edit summary adds to your post above that you feel it is "not okay to give personal details of editors who originally, incautiously supplied them, and then regretted it and removed them." I will point out that if an editor supplies personal information on-wiki, or linked to it on-wiki, there is no "right of retraction." To quote the Privacy Policy (link at the bottom of every single Wikipedia page): "If you contribute to the Wikimedia projects, you are publishing every word you post publicly. If you write something, assume that it will be retained forever. This includes articles, user pages and talk pages." The Foundation has made their position pretty clear - if you write it, you live with the consequences.

I'll also point out what I believe is a straw man argument here. You keep referring to addresses and phone numbers. Now, I'll grant I haven't dug all the way into the archives of the most frequently mentioned sites, but I haven't seen anyone's address or phone number posted at any of them - well, with the exception of Jimmy Wales, and it's the media contact one. Risker 08:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I've seen four sites that gave addresses and/or phone numbers of individual Wikipedians. They may not be the ones you're thinking of, and I'm certainly not going to give the URLs or even the names. Nor am I going to hint at them. And I know that there was one site (no longer in existence) set up by a sexual stalker, with not only the personal details of the administrator he was targeting, but also the phone number of her elderly parents, and that her mother, who was very ill at the time, became terrified of answering that phone in her own home. It's very worrying that some people seem to think it would be okay to link to the index page of that site. Regarding the Foundation's privacy policy, it is my understanding that administrators do delete and selectively restore the user pages of editors who regret putting too much personal information on them. If editors have removed such information, but have not requested deletion, they still have a right not to have the information used for the purpose of "outing" them. ElinorD (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Elinor, there is no one here that endorses the linking to or providing of any information like that! No one is arguing to link to an index page and therefore wikilawyer their way around a policy. An example is the WW page which presents information regarding real life BLP concerns, plagiarism concerns, and Wikipedia's responsibility of removing libel. There is a lot of information on that site, some interesting and some not, and ONE PAGE THAT HAS REAL NAMES OF EDITORS (currently). I do not know how this information was aquired, and who provided it of free will, but while others say they will not blame the victim, I will. Risking providing identifiable information about myself, I will say that it is a crime in my state to leave your keys in your car while it is running. Is this BLAME THE VICTIM? It could be interpreted that way, I consider it more of a "don't be stupid" approach. If the car is stolen, it is still a crime, but the person who left the keys in the car is not absolved of blame because they didn't know their car might be stolen.

Sophia stated somewhere (in this mess :D) that she was never a member of an online community before, and the username policy at that time encouraged the use of a real name or "long standing pen name", or whatever it said. This is terrible advice for a person that doesn't want information found out about them. Believe it or not, I found that out the hard way when I first starting participating in internet communities. Conceivably millions upon millions could be reading our interactions and getting information about us, if we don't want that, we simply shouldn't participate in these communities.

I really do feel horrible about the situation you are talking about. It is difficult to divorce ones self from emotions when making a decision on where they stand on one issue or another, and on issues personal and close to me, I find it impossible as well. What happened to your friend (or yourself, I have no idea) I take as an unfortunate and very hard learning experience and life unfortunately are filled with these. This person's experience could have turned out worse, but presumably this person (and hopefully others) have learned from it and are better for it. I don't take the stance that we can correct all of the world's ills, but I do wish we could. The policy, as it is being pushed, will not correct anything and only present more problems. We WILL remove attacks and we WILL remove private information from wikipedia when that person presents a concern about it, whether they freely revealed it at a previous time or not is irrelevant when the person wants it removed. Additionally, I thought this is why oversight existed--to remove such information. If that is your case or any editors case, I would recommend that you demand it to be deleted it from the history, and if they refuse, there should be a policy writing attempt at correcting such a situation.

I may appear blunt in my commentary but I assure you I do not mean to hurt or belittle anyone, I am simply not smart enough to be subtle. I have had similar experiences and I am willing to bet that anyone that is/was seriously involved in an internet community for any extended period of time has as well. An incident happened to me about 6 years ago on an internet community. I have learned from it and it hasn't happened since. hombre de haha 22:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that privacy policy... I couldn't understand why there wasn't a policy on-en.wiki to cover something everyone should basically be concerned about to one degree or another, with or without the hysteria regarding stalking or outing. Interesting that the Foundation sets this. One of those thing that is "hiding in plain sight" I guess. (The page should be the first of those link batches sent in those annoying welcome messages.)—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 08:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Most people will first come across WP:USERNAME which when I joined actually encouraged users to use their real name. So there are a lot of established users who may regret the information they gave following policy advice. Sophia 09:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It also said "Wikipedia editors have occasionally been subject to harassment outside of Wikipedia due to their contributions or vandal-fighting activities on Wikipedia." Frise 09:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I doubt if most got past the first line of advice "The best username is typically either your real name, or a longstanding Internet pen name". Sophia 09:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I certainly didn't read the whole thing when I was registering. I'm very glad now that I haven't given more personal information about myself, but I really can't blame those who did so, and I completely reject any idea that they're not deserving of whatever protection administrators and policy can give them simply because they did at one stage give some information that would enable someone to track them down. If there's something buried deeply in the history of my talk page edits saying what part of the UK I come from, that is no excuse for people piecing together information and posting it in a way that could "out" me. ElinorD (talk) 09:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Franly i think that in the vast majority of cases, the 'danger' of beign outed as a wikipedia editor is vastly exageratted. Yes, ther have been soem cases wher serious stalking or harrasment occured, but as far as i know this is very very rare. I personally have always edited under my legal name, adn i urge others to do so if they possibly can. I know thare are people who have good reasons not to do this, but I honestly think large the majority of editors are at no risk at all from revealing their names. -- However, anyoen who wants to remain annon should not be outed, whether there is any "real risk" or not. DES ^(talk) 09:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Telling someone that they should be cautious with their personal information online is kind of like telling someone not to poke themselves in the eye. It's the kind of thing that should be blatantly obvious. Anyway, the warnings are there, we can't MAKE people read them. Frise 09:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

When I joined I wondered whether I would be regarded with suspicion as I had chosen not to use my real name. If you have never been a part of an on-line community before (as I had not) you don't know the rules and can only go by policy advice. As an ex security manager I knew better but we also have minors as editors and admins who whould not necessarily realise that the advice sucked. Sophia 10:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just figured out why the direction this thread is going in annoys me so much - it's the classic "she was asking for it" line. Sophia 10:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You're suggesting that new users care enough about the username policy that they consider using their real name, but at the same time they AREN'T concerned enough about it to read the warning on the very next line. That's fairly weak, imo. I'm not blaming the victim here, but at the same time I'm not going to agree that there weren't warnings in place. Frise 10:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think WP:USERNAME is a part of the issue. I myself only found the page when looking for a policy to apply to a particular, ill-named, troll: User:OCDpatient. I think the elephant in the room, however, is the lack of an effective or popularly understood policy or guideline on user privacy, which would be consistent with the foundation's while not being solely constructed to limit the foundation's culpability in real life cases of stalking or other harassment. Wikipedia really is no more secure than MySpace in this regard, and there should be more attention given to online personal security matters in preventative terms. Punitive actions, unfortunately, can draw more attention to the initial harassment, as others have been saying.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 19:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

(Resetting indent) I've been looking at MediaWiki:Signupend. As it stands now, it says at the bottom:

• Your username will frequently appear publicly on the site; see the pros and cons of using your real name.

Interestingly, the link to "pros and cons" doesn't lead to a section discussing that issue: it leads to the general Username policy page. I've left a message about that here, asking an administrator to fix the link. But it's worth pointing that out, for those who think that Wikipedia has given ample warning, and that if people end up being stalked, it's their own fault.

Another valid point is that while the page currently has that warning, it was added by Demi on 8 December 2005,[13] and strengthened by Essjay on 26 May 2006.[14] So even if it were valid to argue that stalking victims don't have a right to having links to stalking sites removed, because they "brought it on themselves" by disregarding warnings in 2006, that cannot apply to some of the victims who registered before that warning was added. ElinorD (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You put "brought it on themselves" in quotes as if someone is actually saying that. Frise 14:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to argue that way, but I do think the personal security issues revolving around the mediawiki privacy policy [15] should be publicly ironed out and perhaps a derivative or interpretive policy, that is written in plainer English with appropriate admonitions for online security, should be adapted and widely promoted on en.wiki. It should be admitted that the first order of consideration when interacting with others on WP is definitely not assume good faith.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 17:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Playing something of a Devil's advocate here in an effort to better understand both sides ... Regarding Ken Arromdee's comment, "That is the big problem in essentially all versions of the proposal; there are people who want to remove links 100% of the time, with *no* exceptions of any sort, rare or otherwise. They are floating the proposal as a means of getting this ridiculously literal interpretation made into official policy." How much of the objections are lessened if some method is put in place to whitelist such links on a case-by-case basis if they are deemed essential? On the other side of the coin, what are legitimate purposes does the project lose if the handful of most seriously offending websites are "site banned"? Serpent's Choice 09:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC) Answered my own question, no need for that. Serpent's Choice 10:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed wording (3)

• Less ivory tower this time. No ArbCom references. Explicit acknowledgement that exceptions may exist. Statement of current de facto occurrance (as encouraged re policy development). And, as always, still open to suggestions. Serpent's Choice 10:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Linking to external attacks

Direct links or explicit references to off-site personal attacks against Wikipedians can themselves be considered actionable. The removal of such material is not subject to the three-revert rule.

Other links and references to websites that have engaged in or have regularly condoned personal attacks against Wikipedians are discouraged. Sites of this nature are not typically reliable sources, nor does material from these sites generally assist in the development of the encyclopedia. Except when these references serve a specific, constructive purpose, they are generally removed. Both the inclusion and removal of such material may be controversial; editors are encouraged to consider the positions and conclusions of others and remain civil.

Editors questioning whether a specific link or reference might be subject to this policy should inquire at the administrator's noticeboard.

That's more in line with what I was thinking. What is meant by "actionable" needs to be clarified, I think. Frise 10:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, something more like my previous suggestion: "Direct links or explicit references to off-site personal attacks against Wikipedians can be considered personal attacks themselves." Not really compelling prose, but it gets the message across, I suppose. Serpent's Choice 11:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think what all the proposed wordings miss out on is the intent. I would never advocate the linking of a site with the intent of harassing someone, but that raises the question of "Is there any other possible reason to link to one?" which we can't seem to agree on.Frise 11:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The most convincing of the arguments I have seen is based more around what might be an "attack site". The worst offenders probably have no legitimate linking purpose. But I know one of the concerns is that, if we don't have an actual blacklist, then labelling creep might eventually apply the "attack site" tag to somewhere that also contains viable content. Although it is a slippery slope claim, I don't think it is meritless. That's one reason why I avoided the phrase in this most recent effort. To that end, I'd also be open to moving word order to read "...websites that have regularly engaged in or condoned...". But right now, I'm far more interested in finding a proposal that everyone can talk about rather than make something very pretty that might still leave many editors unhappy. Lipsticks, pigs, and all that.... Serpent's Choice 11:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Change the words to "strongly discouraged" and I think we've got the makings of something. However I very much doubt that, irrespective of the wording of this document, policy will change in any way. Attack sites will normally be removed on sight and those who persistently refer to them without a good reason will end up in trouble. --Tony Sidaway 11:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we're making progress, but am I the only one who can see what a really, really bad idea it is to report the URL or the name of a stalking site at the admin noticeboard. If someone sets up a website http://www.I_know_all_about_ElinorD.com and posts a link to it here, I would expect every caring responsible person to remove the link instantly, and not to encourage a whole thread at the admin noticeboard where the entire community looks at all the pages and subpages of the site in order to discuss at length whether it really give personal information about me, and to make a "community decision" as to whether or not links to that site should be allowed. ElinorD (talk) 11:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Glad you raised that. I'm uneasy about it too. Instead of encouraging people to put the link anywhere on Wikipedia, we should ask them to exercise strong discretion on this: if in doubt, don't cite. This would operate in exactly the same way that we don't expect people to upload defamatory or copyright-infringing material. --Tony Sidaway 12:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, underscores aren't allowed in domain names, and if it's a noncommercial informational site a .org or .info domain would be more appropriate than a .com. *Dan T.* 12:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Point well raised, Tony. That last line was an artifact of my original suggestion, which was still a fundamental holdover from the blacklisting approach. I've just been copying it from proposal to proposal. Its time has come. Obviously, I'd like to hear from one or two more of the folks who had been supporting more literalist interpretations of the ArbCom commentary, just to make sure that my efforts to compromise on behalf of the position supported by DES et al haven't swung the pendulum too far. But otherwise, I hope we're getting closer to something that can actually go into the article. As the comments below indicate, this argument in all its forms has been running long enough that patience for its continuence is running out. But, again, just pulling the tags and protection will have us back here again in a month if nothing is put in place.... Serpent's Choice 13:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Linking to external attacks

Direct links or explicit references to off-site personal attacks against Wikipedians can be considered personal attacks themselves. The removal of such material is not subject to the three-revert rule.

Other links and references to websites that regularly engage in or condone personal attacks against Wikipedians are strongly discouraged. Sites of this nature are not typically reliable sources, nor does material from these sites generally assist in the development of the encyclopedia. Except when references to these sites serve a specific, constructive purpose, they are usually removed. When in doubt, do not link to or cite them.

The inclusion, removal, and discussion of external attacks can become controversial; editors are encouraged to consider the positions and conclusions of others and remain civil.

I'm a little wary because the "when in doubt" clause can be easily misused to support the literal 'remove links 100% of the time regardless of context" version: "I have some doubts, therefore, I can remove the link". But I can't think of a much better way to say it.

I would point out that most circumstances where one would wish to link to "attack sites" are talk pages or other non-article pages such as Wikipedia Signpost, so reliable sources really isn't an issue. Also, the reliable sources guideline is itself controversial and invoking it in a policy (or even a guideline) may not be a good idea. Ken Arromdee 03:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps change "reliable sources" to "appropriate references for articles"? I am open for a better way to word that last sentence. I agree that the "when in doubt..." wording is potentially inadequate. Serpent's Choice 02:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why would links to off-site personal attacks result in a considerably more harsh reaction than personal attacks made on-wiki? The section on "Responding to personal attacks" is quite circumspect and doesn't even talk about 3RR, it talks about proportional response to the specific attack. Again, I keep coming back to the idea that the bigger deal we make about linking to off-wiki material, the more curious people will be to find out what's really there. Existing policy, with the addition of specifying that using linked material to make a personal attack is included, covers every aspect of this issue without waving red flags in front of people. Personal attacks are personal attacks - period. Enshrining in policy that personal attacks using the material from a few sites is *worse* than a direct personal attack is counterproductive - and to the overwhelming majority of Wikipedians, just plain not true. Risker 14:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The editorializing about attack sites is a problem. Certainly someone felt that some comment on the Unspeakable Site was worth citing, or they wouldn't have linked to it. It seems to me that the whole reason for deleting these links isn't really being addressed any better than "arbcom said to delete them". And really, it isn't that arbcom said to delete them in general, but that certain people have taken to interpreting that a few specific sites, designated by name, are to be suppressed. Nobody would be able to find these references, it seems to me, without a url to work from. So this seems to be headed in the direction of establishing a blacklist of such sites, because otherwise there will be hearsay-based fights, since it could not be proven that a site does or does not contain attacks. OK then: who is going to determine which sites are on the list? Mangoe 18:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• I could support either of the two versions above in thsi section. I find that I agree with what Risker is sayign to soem extent, but when an on-wiki attack involves revealign personal information against the will of the person involved, it is typically dealt with swiftly and drastically. It isn't so much of-wiki atttacks as off-wiki priovicy violations that are at issue here, i think. That said, once such things are psoted off-wiki, the cat is out of the bag whatever we do on-wiki. DES ^(talk) 19:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I commend to you all Johnleemk's suggestion

On wikien-l on the thread on this:

I find this whole discussion ludicrous. It's *basic common sense* not to link to /webpages/ which contain personal attacks or any of the sort, unless absolutely necessary (e.g. evidence in ArbCom). Similarly, it's basic common sense to link to webpages which contain helpful information (but not personal attacks), even if these pages are hosted on sites which also host personal attacks.

This crusade against linking to any website which hosts personal attacks, regardless of the value of individual pages hosted on the site, is beyond ridiculous. Its only founding is in an ambiguous ArbCom decision (as demonstrated by the different opinions of arbitrators about how to interpret it), and it lacks any grounding whatsoever in common sense.

We shouldn't be banning links on a site-by-site basis; if we are to ban them at all, ban linking on a page-by-page basis.The most authoritative biography of say, [[Daniel Brandt]], may be found on a website which also hosts personal attacks on Wikipedia editors. What ought we to do? Cite the damn biography, and don't link to any of the personal attacks. It's not that hard to do.

I dunno, will you listen to a long time contributor and bureaucrat who probably has a better feel for the place than people who joined a month ago and have zero article space edits and all their Wikipedia contributions are to Wikipedia: space?

If you need a policy to tell you if a link is an attack, may I humbly suggest that you may not be clueful enough to edit Wikipedia.

May I just say that the fact that anyone could consider this worth thousands of words of missing the point shows that some people have way too much time on their hands - David Gerard 12:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Some good points, and an excellent comment from Johnleemk.

It is a shame that you chose to add ad hominem comments regarding some of the contributors, because they is likely to detract from the common sense of your arguments (and it is arguments that drive consensus). Please edit your comments above as suggested and you will have my unequivocal support (for whatever that is worth). LessHeard vanU 12:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree it's "ad hominem" (to spell it correctly) to imply, or even to directly to point out, that someone who's been here a month and made no edits outside Wikipedia: space is unlikely to have a useful opinion to the project of writing an encyclopedia - David Gerard 13:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That is an absurd statement, since it implies that all new accounts bring with them no value. A new account may be an long time anon, or one created for the purpose of discussing policy by an existing editor, or a compiler of encyclopedia who wants to contribute here, or (whisper it) a pretty damn smart and quick learner. It also implies that long term contributors are invariably right because they are long term contributors (I find a fair amount of long term contributors consistently make the same errors and never learn from their mistakes). As I said it is the quality of argument that counts and not who makes them. Therefore I agree with your points supporting bringing Johnleemk's comment to the discussion but feel you lose a lot of the thrust of the argument by pre-emptively dismissing a faction of any opposition on grounds that do not indicate WP:Good faith.

BTW, it is a typo and not a spelling mistake (see where "n" and "m" are in relation to each other on a keyboard). My spellchecker does not recognise "hominem", probably because I installed it only a month or two ago, so I missed it. LessHeard vanU 20:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Some of us have been saying this exact same thing for a month now, and it hasn't made any difference yet. Not likely to now, either. I think the most amusing thing about your statement is that it's the newer users who are arguing in favor of a common sense approach instead of a formal written policy, not the other way around. Frise 12:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • *shrug*. Some people value the formal policies more than others. That's why there are userboxes about process or its lack, and why we have policy pages to begin with, really. That's why my goal here has just been to help as best I can at getting a compromise wording in place that makes sense and puts this to rest. There are thousands of words being used, because that's how text-only, non-real-time communication works sometimes. But in the end, we'll be able to reach a point where the full-protection and in-dispute tag come off the policy page and all go back to doing articles or XFD or whatever else we all do to help build this encyclopedia. Its not like this is even the most involved or acerbic argument Wikipedia has ever endured. Serpent's Choice 12:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

He is way off the mark regarding the MONGO arbcom case...those that voted there made it clear that we don't link to attack "sites". With that said, arbcom does not create policy. However, without this being a part of, at the very least, this policy, we will end up having neverending discussions about what links from these very select few websites are "okay" or aren't "okay". That is the path to anarchy...it's better to just simply not link to websites that aide and abet the efforts to harass Wikipedia editors by collating the information that identifies their real life personas.--MONGO 07:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree and I'm actually surprised that this aspect has flared up again. I was about to begin deleting the link from non-ArbCom related pages (esp. userspace). What should be done about those? Can I still refer the ArbCom ruling? —AldeBaer 10:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You could say that having no strict, black-and-white policy on everything is a "path to anarchy", or you could say that having strict, black-and-white policies on everything is a "path to fascism"... or you could avoid inflammatory rhetoric and support making common-sense distinctions like reasonable people. *Dan T.* 11:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice...no cookies for you today.--MONGO 13:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone who thinks that policies should not be blindly applied, and that instead common sense should be used, is acting like a small child? I don't know, it seems the opposite to me. Children often see things in black-and-white terms that adults don't; anyone who says "we need to use common sense" is probably *not* at the stage where they need to be deprived of cookies. Ken Arromdee 15:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I was responding to his allusions about fascism and inflammations and the his appeal to common-sense and reasonablility while nevertheless being rather inflammatory himself.--MONGO 13:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

My "allusion to fascism" was merely a response to your allusion to anarchy. *Dan T.* 14:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats what I figured...as once again, your insinuation is Reductio ad Hitlerum.--MONGO 04:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Um.... did anybody else read Dtobias' post as saying that comparing one position to anarchy is parallel to comparing the other position to fascism - equally absurd, and equally to be avoided as inflammatory rhetoric? In other words, nothing was being insinuated except that comparing one position to anarchy isn't helpful.... that's what I got out of it, but maybe I was misreading. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

So his allusion to facism and his suggestion that something I have said is inflammatory or lacking common sense or lacking being reasonable is not noticed. All hyperbole aside, I think his comments here are no better than others I have asked him to cease from making.--MONGO 04:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I think he absolutely suggested that you said something inflammatory. I said that I picked up an implication that something you said "wasn't helpful". That it was "inflammatory" is more specific, but that's what I was talking about. Saying that you said something inflammatory is pretty different from suggesting you're a fascist, isn't it? It sure isn't Reductio ad Hitlerum, anyway; that's what I was responding to. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

To be fair... he didn't say it tactfully. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No kidding. Nothing I said was inflammatory. Simply put, as I have repeatedly stated, there is no good reason to link to websites that support the harassment of our contributors. It is a pretty simple concept.--MONGO 06:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, you don't seem to be very aware of the way you say things. "Anarchy" is inflammatory, and hyperbolic. My objection is more subtle: that the actual anarchy of Wikipedia, combined with this proposal, creates local fascism because it encourages autocratic WP:OWNing of talk and project pages. Mangoe 15:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Neither do you, you been cautioned numerous times. This is not WR, now is it? We're here trying to edit harassment free as much as possible. It is anarchy to expect people to be able to do so if we are going to be linking to websites that have made it part of their mission to attack our contributors. That anyone would not understand that that there is nothing useful to be gleemed from linking to these very few websites is baffling. So what! We don't even have articles about these websites...and for good reasons besides the fact that they aren't notable.--MONGO 18:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well MONGO, none of us is infallible when it comes to saying everything just right. There's ways of talking that make it more likely that people will agree with you, and there's ways of talking that make it less likely. There's ways of presenting an argument that make it more likely the argument will get resolved, and ways that make it more likely the argument will continue, or escalate.

I would say that comparing the position that a specific site-ban policy is a bad idea to "anarchy" is unhelpful at best, and unlikely to make the conversation go in a direction you'll feel good about. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so. Maybe you don't give a damn how you present yourself in a conversation, but you should, if you wish to get anything done. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well GTBacchus, I think I'll sit back and laugh this one off. I do think it creates anarchy to link to websites that make it part or all of their mission to post collated personal info about our editors. I have seen 13 people leave or be forced to assume new idenities because stuff posted at these websites was brought here by trolls for the sole purpose of harassment. Nevertheless, the fact that you have no argument left to defend against this common sense issue except to attack me, there isn't anything left for us to discuss. As far as Mr. Gerard's start of this section...I think now is a good time for me to push past article number start 300...I'm at 294, or something like that. I suppose the best thing for me is to not take the bait of such goading and inflammatory retorts and conversation starts. One would expect a lot more from our administrators and key representatives.--MONGO 06:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you choose to see things that way, MONGO. Maybe I'm just unable to be unbiased around you. I look at a page, and I see you saying something to escalate a negative situation, presumably because you just don't know that's the likely effect, and I don't know why I don't just walk away. I'll try to do more of that, and less of giving a shit what you say or do. You're a good Wikipedian, and you'll be remembered that way. Maybe someday you'll realize that I was always on your side. So long. -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into a grudge match about who is the greater sinner. But be that as it may, I simply don't agree with your characterizations of the matter. The use of the word "attack" is an ongoing problem here. I'm sure that you and more especially certain admins view yourselves as being attacked by WR. And in some sense, you are; but some "attacks" are justified. The allegations of corruption and abuse of power that they level at these people may or may not be true; but in the abstract, the kind of abuses they are charging are possible, and some of the tactics they use may well be necessary, if outside of what is permissible within Wikipedia. The pretense that it doesn't matter who edits or administers Wikipedia can only be sustained so far; and when it cannot be sustained, outing people and other "attacks" are going to happen. And under those circumstances, they probably ought to happen.

At any rate, I personally find WR useful as a constrating point of view on Wikipedia process. It doesn't mean I agree with them. Mangoe 19:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The word "attack" is a problem as it is so subjective. Why can't we just ban sites that reveal or encorage others to reveal the identities of anonymous wikipedians? Simple and clear. It is one thing to call someone a crap or corrupt admin - some deserve the condemnation, but it is quite another to reveal personal information. That is a form of blackmail - the " piss me off and I'll make your life hell" attitude. Sophia 21:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Spot on, Sophia. The problem all along has been the word "attack", as it suggests just rudeness and insults, and trying to ban links to any site that calls a Wikipedian a bitch is simply not going to work. Nor is being called a bitch such a big deal that we need a policy to cover it. Say anything you like about ElinorD, as long as you don't say what her full name is and where she lives. I personally wouldn't have any objection to links to websites that simply criticise individual Wikipedians being removed (or not) on a case-by-case basis. The problem with the "attack sites" terminology is that it makes absolutely no distinction between saying that AdminX is abusive and saying what AdminX's real name is. ElinorD (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's an extremely useful distinction. I'm not 100% certain that we wouldn't have to eventually re-evaluate a blanket ban on sites that also host outing information, but it's worlds better than trying to define "attack sites" as a meaningful concept. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed (un)change #4

Having spent the better part of the evening reviewing the history of this policy, it seems that the policy as it existed back on April 17, 2007[16] - just before all this edit warring - pretty well had it right. This version was the result of a re-write in January 2007, largely carried out by Serpent's Choice, with only minor revisions for three months. The point about external links not being permitted to be used as personal attacks was added in May 2006:

“ 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. ”

There was also a previous attempt about a year ago to considerably expand the section on off-wiki behaviour[17]; however, this did not reach consensus, and was every bit as contentious last time as it was this time.

My proposal is that we revert back to the version that was in existence on April 17, 2007, and call it a day. As many editors have pointed out, existing policy was perfectly capable of addressing this situation before all of this started on April 6, 2007, with the "Attack Sites" essay and its original author's action to delete links based on it. In the ensuing four weeks, the most frequently referred-to sites have no doubt seen a huge increase in traffic, as many Wikipedians have followed their inquiring minds to check out what all the fuss was about. Now they know - plenty of snarky gossip, a few ideas worthy of thought, and not very much that people couldn't have figured out on-Wiki if they were really curious. Risker 05:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Frankly, agreed. I'd frankly forgotten how much work went into assuring that the bases were covered during the January rewrite. Thank you for doing something we all should have, and looking at what had been said in the past. Reverting to the 17 April version also restores the "Off-wiki personal attacks" subsection to the "Consequences of personal attacks", which contains important text (that ArbCom can consider off-wiki behavior in regard to cases) that seems to have vanished since then. I would suggest a slight tweaking of the bullet point wording, though, just to clean up the language (agreement in number with the rest of the list), and clarify a bit: noting this applies to attacks against Wikipedians (some "personal attacks" are news, others are dealt with via WP:BLP), striking the "including the suggestion..." clause as redundant (and WP:BEANS), and adding text to handle indirect linking in what I hope is actually a mutually acceptable manner -- based on application rather than strictly on origin. Serpent's Choice 06:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Links or references to external sources fitting the commonly accepted threshold for a personal attack against a Wikipedia contributor, in a manner that incorporates the substance or purpose of that attack into Wikipedia. Links and references to websites that host or condone personal attacks against Wikipedians need not be to a specific attack when they are employed in such a manner.

I think this fits well. --Tony Sidaway 06:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice clean-up, Serpent's Choice. I think perhaps being a little more specific about what is meant by "in such a manner" might be helpful...perhaps "when they are employed in such a way to imply a personal attack" ? (Hmmm...maybe not much better...) Risker 06:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I had hoped that "in such a manner" would clearly refer to the previous "in a manner that incorporates ... into Wikipedia." Is there a way to word this better without being redundant or unwieldy? Would "in this manner" suffice? Serpent's Choice 06:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes...that works for me. Thanks. Risker 06:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Minor tweak to language: it should begin "Making links or references...." or some similar word (original version had "Posting"). Other than that, this is good. Mangoe 13:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Original did, yes, but I don't think it is necessary. The assorted "threats of..." are not listed as "making threats...", for example. This entry should not begin with a verb form either for consistent style, a mistake wasn't caught by the copyediting done during the previous rewrite. Serpent's Choice 14:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the best proposal yet; it gets to the substance of what sorts of uses and references to remote material are bad, rather than trying to impose some arbitrary ban that's independent of context and purpose. *Dan T.* 14:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The version on the 17th of April is fine. As a tangent, Tony's suggestion to add a second sentence ("Links and references to websites that host or condone personal attacks against Wikipedians need not be to a specific attack when they are employed in such a manner.") is a no-go, it leaves the door open for witch hunts. SchmuckyTheCat 14:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion, actually (just below my sig rather than above it, sorry) ... no need to blame Tony for my middle-of-the-night style efforts. But authorship aside, I'm not certain that I see how that phrase could lead to a witch hunt. Really, nothing is acceptable when used "in a manner that incorporates the substance or purpose of [a personal] attack into Wikipedia." What sort of scenario do you foresee as problematic here? Serpent's Choice 14:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

People cut and choose sentences out of context, by mistake or purpose. The contingent of editors that want blanket bans on their own personal blacklist will see this sentence stand-alone and justify purges of external links. The door should be closed to purges of external links based simply on the top-level domain. SchmuckyTheCat 15:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I know that there are other editors who consider this element to be a valuable addition, beyond those who are trying to justify "blanket bans". To be honest, I do not think that the principle of policy is well-served by attempting to remove (or add, for that matter) text due to the expectation that it will be taken out of context. I mean, through ellipses and selective quoting, I could say that WP:NPA says that "Violations ... may result in a block for an extended period of time, ... applied immediately by any administrator." It does say that, sort of, in a specific context. I view this the same way; as others have said here, editors who desire link removal are probably going to remove links regardless of what we put in this policy. If that is itself a problem (and I will remain steadfastly silent on the issue), then it is a matter for dispute resolution. But expectations of bad faith aside, I think this sentence serves a valid and valuable purpose. If some website (let's fictionalize a Wikihate.com for argument; it isn't real) is posting detailed personal information about Wikipedians as a matter of course, and someone makes a post that says, "Serpent's Choice, keep up the policy talk, and people are gonna start to Wikihate you...", then that is and should be a personal attack. If someone wants to discuss the website in an appropriate manner in Criticism of Wikipedia then that is not "in this manner." Is this still a concern you feel is valid? Likewise, the opinions of other contributors would be valued here -- nothing we do is likely to please everyone, but I'm willing to stick with this talk page as long as needed to get a working compromise and consensus. Serpent's Choice 15:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I can support the reversion to the version of 17 april. I can not and do not suport the addition of ("Links and references to websites that host or condone personal attacks against Wikipedians need not be to a specific attack when they are employed in such a manner.") or anythign like it. This is IMO far too likely to be used to support the kind of black&white "All links or refernces to site X must go" editing that soem have advocated here, but that iMO clearly does not have consensus support. DES ^(talk) 16:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that the principle of policy is well-served by attempting to remove (or add, for that matter) text due to the expectation that it will be taken out of context.

I do, because it's not just hypothetical. The equivalent *has* been interpreted just that way, even without being aproved as policy.

Seriously, there's a difference between just saying "people may end up blindly removing links because that's possible" and saying "people may end up blindly removing links; they've been doing it constantly already, and I'm sick and tired of it." The expectation that the rule will be abused is more reasonable given history of actual abuse. Ken Arromdee 16:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear! However, I don't see a way to police against that either, unless you want to put these pages on your watchlist and contest each and every removal someone makes. It all looks like WP:SNOW, in every direction, if you ask me.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 20:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Digg Controversy

Anyone following the controversy over Digg's removal of user-posted software code that unlocks copy-protected DVDs? Here's an LA Times story on it [18] —ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 23:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal by Sophia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal by DES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed a guideline on personal security practices

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

Revert plus tweaking by Serpent's Choice

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

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

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

2) Amend the final bullet point:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boldness

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can't be penalised for off-wiki attacks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revert war again.

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

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

recent changes

The following text has been added to the policy page recently: The ArbCom has ruled that "[a] website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances," [2] and that "[l]inks to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New approach: addressing removal rather than definitions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll ask some questions:

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

2) Do you feel that this proposal would justify removing the link on Jimbo's user talk page warning about Brandt? (I think it's [19] though I'm not completely sure that's the one).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time and again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Simplification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It was my fault to begin with. I chose an earlier version of that wording when I initially forked the content from WP:BADSITES here [20] (The original source was even more poorly phrased, that I recall, but I was trying to save the sense of that, not override it.)—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 07:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Went back and found an original version thru Denny Colt's contrib list here [21], His version that I edited was:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Objections to promoting?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit wars again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See User Talk:RITZ

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

If this does not involve personally identifiable information, I'm going to be bold and request you provide a diff [22] with the personal attack on it so the rest of us know what it is you are talking about. Otherwise, email an admin per WP:PARANOIA—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 21:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"Attack sites" debate has developed a new locus

Ok to post links to offsite discussions involving "attack sites," that are not themselves "attack sites," but reference one of the sites in question and otherwise hosts claims that could be interperted as "attacks" against prominent Wikipedians? [23] Please revert if inappropriate but provide fair warning before blocking me.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 18:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pre-empting WP:IAR with consensus : an appeal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What happened to the note about abusive edit summaries?

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

New user essay on the "BADSITES" issue

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

User:Dtobias/Why BADSITES is bad policy

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

Serpent's Choice's proposed simplification

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

You have suggested this wording:

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

I think I could accept:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removed Section

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

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

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

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

Crum's assertion

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

This is what ArbCom ruled on this issue:

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

— ArbCom Attack Site ruling

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hey Crum375,

Could you please elucidate how you went from this position [25] to your current one re: this policy?—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 02:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no clear consensus that it is, especially in common practice.[26]—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 03:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This section has not had consensus in the past. In fact, quite the opposite. A very similar proposal was made a year ago and was not accepted then[27]. It clearly does not have consensus now. Risker 04:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Yet another round of "attack site" nonsense

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

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

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

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

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

Removing section per the above.....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current status

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit warring

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Purples

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

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

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

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

An interesting accusation

moved from Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Gracenotes

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

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

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

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

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

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

"only coming now"? What nonsense! See [29] [30] [31] [32] And Dan, please desist from the straw man talk about BADSITES, and the highly uncivil "usual suspects" claims. The only people supporting BADSITES now are people like you, who are using it as a straw man with which to undermine opponents of a specific RFA. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The MONGO arbitration ruling was added to the policy page by DennyColt [33] and SlimVirgin (SlimV) [34] shortly after SlimV voiced her opposition in my RFA. Cla68 03:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hypothetical (but typical) argument about attack sites

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A response...

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

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

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

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

Unprotected

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attack sites again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fark

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

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

Question about outing editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removal of precedent rulings?

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

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

Reworded no attack site section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(edit conflict)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Footnotes.....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case Study: Mark Cuban's Blog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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