Wikipedia talk:Attack sites/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Attack sites. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

It's time for the Wheel of Reality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:CREEP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anonymity

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

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

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

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

Another problem clause

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

some concerns.....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Replies to Purple's points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous precedent, ArbCom, etc.

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

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

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

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

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

Safety

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

Spam2

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

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

The best way to deal with attack sites

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Oppositon in a nutshell....

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

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

It's unnecessary.

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

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

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

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

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

Removing Legal threats and Defamation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

boy oh boy!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

background to the above.....

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

merit of a link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

for everyone's consideration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

girl oh girl!

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

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

One question which should go away

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Was this misuse?

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

KNcyu38 posted this.... [12]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We need to really get precise here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Split within the PIR" subsection of Daniel Brandt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wrapping it up

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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