Wikipedia talk:Attack sites

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut: WT:BADSITES

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

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

Contents 1 Protection from outside vs. protection from inside 2 Good Faith, and styles of argument 3 Clarified, its an attack site. Remove it everywhere!! 4 Possible problematic link 5 Much Ado About Nothing 6 How Hanlon's Razor isn't going to help us 7 Details of the proposal 8 An example 9 Does anyone honestly think that this idea could gain consensus? 10 Partisans 11 Consensus 12 Barrett v. Rosenthal 13 What we could do...... 14 purples' proposed alternative for the page 15 "Take it to AN/I if the link you've removed is restored" ??? 16 Status of this thing 17 Forked some content to WP:NPA 18 Conflict breaks out yet again 19 Tagging as rejected 20 Policy 21 New forum 22 Just as a note of reference 23 Delete this page 24 Rejection revisited 25 Please review new proposal

Archives Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

[edit] Protection from outside vs. protection from inside

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fred has clarified his previous statement on the subject.[1] In any event, Mangoe's use of the term "good faith" is not the one described in WP:AGF.--Mantanmoreland 21:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Faith, and styles of argument

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Clarified, its an attack site. Remove it everywhere!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some of the pages on, say, the Wikipedia Review are not attack pages (and to go further, not all posts in attack pages actually contain "attacks"). Of course, linking to such a page might lead people to read the post, and linking to a non-attack page might lead people to a page that has "attacks". I suppose that the idea is to create a walled garden? Not too fond of those in most contexts. Gracenotes^T § 03:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure anyone defends linking to pages that attack or try to out wikipedians in order to attack? and if they do they get blocked and everyoner is cool with it, but there are otehr issues than just that being debated here, IMO, SqueakBox 03:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Just when I thought we had a clarification.... I don't see anyone arguing that "attacks" can be linked directly and especially for the purpose of introducing that "attack" to Wikipedia. Since these already prohibited, though, by policies that are already well-defined, there's no reason to keep coming back to this. The purpose of this proposal must be to block links to other pages on these sites, pages that are not unambiguously attacks.

And that leads me, personally, to the signal difficulty in this. I don't edit the kind of articles where POV pushing is the general order of the day-- such as anything about Lyndon LaRouche. I consider this sort of article an object example of the notion someone expressed of "quantum truth"; the POV pushing is so rampant and so strong that the text, viewed historically, consists of the superimposition of two (or more) radically opposed versions. My mistrust of these articles is almost absolute.

And yet the larger pattern of conflict here seems to involve these articles quite a lot. How do I know this? Well, because I'm looking to the Unspeakable Site for a directory to the conflict. And consistently I come upon the same pattern: there is none sinless, no, not one. In the last case I checked out, for instance, an administrator blocked a user indefinitely on one of these articles and then proceeded to systematically edit the article against the blocked editor. This ties neatly into the abject refusal to acknowledge that the principal beneficiaries of the proposal are the very administrators who are pressing for its adoption most aggressively. I've brought this up over and over again, to be stonewalled each time. I do not deny that "assume good faith" is a valuable precept, but it is sorely tested when it is constantly having to be invoked in order to defend behavior that looks questionable. Using WP:AGF to defend acts which the greater world would assess as being ethically questionable is an abuse of the principle.

This whole discussion, proposal and all, seems to be mooted. Right now it appears to me that at least one of the parties, if not more, will continue to delete links to the Unspeakable Site, or any other that they deem unacceptable because of its attacks, even if this proposal is rejected. I'm half inclined to return to editing notable trivia and abandon every attempt to impose some sort of systematic quality control on the thing, because the resistance to it is simply too entrenched. Meanwhile, I see very little sign that any kind of consensus is forming. Mangoe 04:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Mangoe, I can see why you might come to the conclusions you have, but I tend to a different interpetation. It's kind of in keeping with Hanlon's razor, the one about not assuming malice. I think a lot of the support for promoting this page is coming from people who genuinely want to protect Wikipedia from attacks. I think they want explicit policy sanction for removing links to certain sites because they don't want to open the door to these attacks, or to give harassers any room at all to Wikilawyer. They want the comfort of a nice unambiguous rule that says, "no linking to sites where outing is going on, period."

I think the prevailing attitude is that a rule against doing something wrong is a good thing. I don't happen to agree with that part, and I think that making special rules against specific "enemies" empowers those enemies and sets the stage for worse conflict than ignoring them would, but I think I'm in the minority with that view.

I don't imagine that the supporters of this page are in cahoots to suppress or censor criticism of Wikipedia. Criticism of Wikipedia made here at Wikipedia, or in any forum where outing and harassing aren't tolerated, is perfectly welcome, and happens every day. The problem is linking to criticism at sites that also host outing and privacy-violating material.

The above is very presumptuous, and I'm happy to be corrected regarding all the words I just put into people's mouths. Mostly I was replying to Mangoe's suggestion that it's so hard to AGF, which is just what the other "side" says, too. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible problematic link

I noticed that this edit, (for reference: the user making this edit is an administrator) adds a link which many in this discussion feel to be inappropriate. What, if anything, is the appropriate remedy in this circumstance? This may provide a useful test-case for this guideline/policy proposal. JavaTenor 22:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me to be the perfect example of the sort of link to "bad sites" that ought to be made; the Wikipedia community ought to be aware of what Mr. Brandt is up to and how he explains it. *Dan T.* 23:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly the page doesnt attack anybody, wikipedian or otherwise and nor has anybody removed the link, SqueakBox 00:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion. It might help the conversation here remain more civil if we confined ourselves to pointing out existing instances of links that might fall under the purview of this guideline and discussing their relative usefulness, rather than adding new links to this discussion (which has proven contentious). Special:linksearch is a useful tool here, although it obviously won't catch instances where the link has already been deleted, in response to this proposal or for other reasons. JavaTenor 00:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Much Ado About Nothing

If links to sites don't meet WP:RS, remove them. Be them on Talk or article pages. Since sites that have been deemed "attack" (depends on ones POV, doesn't it?) are most likely not RS, remove them. "Attack Sites" regulation becomes superceded and WP:{censored]. And good luck with people not googling the shrillest to find out on their own if there is merit to claims of sock puppetry, conflicts of interest, and deception. Even kids these days can trace IP addresses and add 2+2.Piperdown 02:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How Hanlon's Razor isn't going to help us

Some day someone is going to come along, someone who makes the mistake of editing an article in one of the "quantum truth" controversialist topics, say about [[Feminists Against Abortion]], and get burned by running into a zealous administrator who blocks him for some transgression in the article and then goes back and edits it themselves. So this fellow (who for the sake of argument I'll name David Brunt) gets mad, and starts looking around, and decides that the thing to do is to start a blog, exposing absues of power on Wikipedia. And (just as one sees on the Unspeakable Site) he has no trouble at all finding lots of suspicious-looking activity, so the blog proceeds quite nicely. And in no time at all it gets deemed an "attack site", because after all it is "attacking" admins and their allies on Wikipedia.

So: comes the day when another editor (let's call him Mangosteen) is getting frustrated trying to edit some relatively constroversial corner of some topic he's interested in. And he gets hit by some tag team, gets frustrated, and starts looking around and finds (let's say) Wikipedia:Expert rebellion. And he discovers that there are a lot of people talking about deficiencies in Wikipedia processes, and he gets talking with other editors, and eventually winds up at WB's blog. And he thinks that some of WB's suggestions are good, so he repeats them in Wikipedia talk, dutifully citing it. Then out of the blue (as far as he is concerned) up pops Billylamb, who erases the whole passage with rv [[WP:BADSITES]]. Not surprisingly, Mangosteen is a bit peeved about this, and after reverting that reversion, starts looking into this a bit more. And it seems to him that this Billylamb character's editing is odd, and he drops an e-mail to DB, who (having had some practice at this now) digs up enough info to suggest that there is in fact a strong connection between Billylamb and an administrator-- by coincidence, perhaps, the very adminstrator who blocked GB back at the beginning of this scenario. And in the meantime that same administrator has dropped a warning on Mangosteen's user page telling him that he'll be blocked if he reverts the talk page again. Mangosteen starts rattling cages and finds that this administrator does this a lot, and he looks further into DB's blog and finds a whole bunch of posts about this administrator. None of them gives a name, but there is definitely an attempt to sketch out what this person's motives might be. And he finds other evidence of dubious behavior, and he comes upon one post in particular which references, oh, let's say a Salon article which talks about attempts to WP:OWN articles by partisan groups. And Mangosteen sends the author of this article a "hey, I think I have another case here" e-mail. So this reporter looks into it further, and having better investigative resources, not only manages to pin a name on the administrator, but uncovers that she is head of a local Planned Parenthood group. This gets published on-line, and DB links to it in his blog, since after all it is highly germane to his campaign, and he also outlines his role in the incident. So now, by the standards of the [[WP:BADSITES]] proposal, his blog is absolutely an "attack site". Nonetheless someone decides it's time for an article about [[David Brunt]], because he's hit the media. This turns into another battle over sources, because editors of the article are going to want to refer to his blog, but this administrator, as well as others, refuses to allow any such link. DB also is understandably peeved about this from a WP:BLP perspective, seeing as how he can't edit it-- not just because of blocks, but because it's ethically questionable. Various dedicated defenders of the Wiki Way are not so inhibited, though, and they tend to push the article towards a depiction of him that is far from flattering and on occaision downright slanderous.

Now the bad blood really begins to boil-- or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the media sharks smell the blood in the water. The Salon article has alerted them to the possibility of uncovering a great embarassment for a site that is well-known and influential. The growing noise, in spite of attempts to silence it on Wikipedia, alerts all the malcontents who have a bone to pick with these administrator actions. A lot of these people were, by any standard, banned with cause; but the sheer number of them allows reporters to get a pretty good picture of what's going on, and constructing a narrative of unsupervised administrators violating ordinary standards of ethical conduct is a piece of cake. Other admins who are unhappy about dealing with the "problem administrators" start leaking internal communications to the press, and it comes out that the admin who set this whole thing off has a real world connection to Billylamb that a lot of administrators know about. And the media also become hot about this because a lot of the controversial topics are about real world politics, and since they are prone to see the world in terms of partisan politics, here at last is a way for them to understand the whole conflict. And therefore they paint a picture of Wikipedia as the (on one leve not at all unwitting) tool of poltical actors, and its administration as being hopelessly corrupted by political activists and cliques and cabals. It won't matter that a lot of the time the details will be against this, because the major media don't "assume good faith" very well, even in the real world sense of the term. And finally, the day comes when the whole thing ends up on the cover of Time, complete with the wikiglobe logo split in half.

My point with this is not to cast allegations upon the present actors. I've used similar names to point up some rough parallels, not to cast aspersions. The Unspeakable Site is much more undisciplined than this, and Daniel Brandt is far less defensible than the putative David Brunt. But the breeding conditions are already there. The rest of the world has higher standards for neutrality than are appearing here, and they are not going to be swayed by appeals to "good faith" in the face of conflicts of interest. In the rest of the world, the way to solve these conflicts is for the conflicted to give up some of their authority, not for people to say that we have to assume that they are resolving the conflict in good faith. The rest of the world's standard is "Caesar's wife must be above suspicion."

I've been trying to get across the point, perhaps too fragmentarily, is that this proposal trades some pretty minimal protection from "attacks" (which a disinterested bystander might even view as "legitimate concerns") for a situation which enables bad behavior and exactly the sort of abuses that attrct media criticism. There is a very large pattern here of the proponents of this proposal doing things which are potentially embarassing-- such as pushing this proposal. I've brought this up over and over, and I'm getting stonewalling; the attitude seems to be that we don't have to care what the rest of the world thinks about us. Well, eventually someone is going to come along who takes advantage of the protection afforded by this, and gets to be an administrator, and combines editing, administration, and policy advocacy questionably, and it will come out that they weren't just questionable-- they were plainly guilty of ethical violations that no amount of good faith can cover for. Mangoe 16:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I take it you're opposed to this proposal?--MONGO 16:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Mangoe, [2] WAS 4.250 20:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it's an interesting read. Relatively captivating. The only thing I'm confused by is the acronyms... Gracenotes^T § 23:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it's a page turner. It takes place, however, in some Wikipedia other than the one I know. The Wikipedia I saw react to the Essjay affair isn't such a unified dark face, taking measures to hide and protect its own. Quite the contrary, we'll cheerfully turn on and stone suspected traitors to neutrality, especially if there's media involved.

Insofar as the story relates to this policy... I guess it's an argument against promotion... for reason of unintended consequences, but it doesn't make any sense that way. If such a situation arose, then of course we would reevaluate, rather than being shackled by an agreement some dozen or two of us made before any of it came up. We're not carving things in stone here, or making suicide pacts, or launching missles. I believe the soundbyte goes, "consensus can change".

Mangoe, I agree with you that this page shouldn't be promoted.... and I question how well you know Wikipedia if you consider your story realistic. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If people are reading my morality tale as depicting Wikipedia as acting monolithically, then for all those words I was unclear. Wikipedia clearly doesn't act monolithically; indeed, I think one of its characteristics that enables this kind of behavior is that for the most part it's right hand doesn't know what its left hand is doing. That has resulted in a community which is on the whole extremely resistant to any policy changes that attempt to rein it in any manner, though one can see from the controversies that revolve around those proposals that there are plenty of people who think that Wikipedia needs more discipline and tighter limits. But it also means that there is a lot of bad behavior going on that most people don't have any idea is going on. I used to edit in theology a little, and I never had any idea that Essjay was editing there.

The present proposal would appear to be an exception to that conservatism, but the effect is nonetheless conservative. It "protects" Wikipedia, to a limited degree, from criticisms of processes and practices, and of certain kinds of infractions. In the case of the Unspeakable Site, it "protects" Wikipedia from the appearance of certain accusations against some of the people pushing this proposal-- at least, on Wikipedia. Now, anyone who has bothered to look at the Unspeakable Site and to follow the story around to the many other sites that discuss it will know that a very serious charge is being leveled against a group of people that encompasses many of the proponents of this proposal. It's a charge that, by its nature, requires "outing"; but if it is true, then those identities are entirely relevant, because they show that the WP:COI is not only being violated, but that admins powers are being used to back up the violation. Whether or not this particular charge is true, groups that are investigating WP processes are going to look for similar situations, and when they find one, they are going name names, and are going to have to name names. I really don't see how there's any privacy involved in that; editing here is a public act, and Wikipedia cannot protect anyone from the external consequences of losing their anonymity. Those consequences would include loss of credibility for Wikipedia, should such an accusation be proven.

And as it stands, such a situation will happen. There is simply too much room for such abuses. And when it does, we're going to look bad if it comes out that we've approved a policy directed against all such investigative sites. Mangoe 15:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"Investigative sites"? You are giving them too much credence. I will simply call them "Detractors' sites". These sites are not "investigative", their main purpose being to discredit WP, usually by people that did not and could not edit within the challenges of an open collaborative project such as this one. These sites are not "for" anything, rather they are "against" something. An investigative effort does not have these aims.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd take that thought one step further. One of the attack sites, not WR or ED, whose concepts I see reflected by implication in some of the posts on this page, is the creation of an employee of a CEO who hates Wikipedia and has begun something of a Wikipedia imitator of his own. This site has received off-Wiki publicity, not for being "investigative" but for being an example of corporate malfeasance. Attacks on Wikipedians is just one small facet of a corporate smear campaign. The operator of that site is not a misguided ex-Wikipedian, but a public relations operative who has gone on a rampage of trolling and vandalism on Wikipedia, using multiple sockpuppets. I think that point needs to be made, as there is an innuendo in some of what I read on this page that laps up this attack site's kool aid, and is also ugly, disturbing and misleading. --Mantanmoreland 16:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, just to clarify because of its proximity, I'm not directing this at Mangoe's latest post. Also, I'm not necessarily arguing in favor of this proposal because this essay is simply a reiteration of existing policy. It is not a terrible idea to make this explicit for new users. However, it is not as if we would be inventing or reinventing the wheel on this subject. --Mantanmoreland 16:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well you know, Jossi, I don't agree with your depiction of these sites. They hold that Wikipedia is discredited because the community and the foundation do not stop the practices they accuse of going on there. And if their representation of certain "scandals" is even vaguely accurate, your response stands as complicity in the problem. Once again we've reached a point where it's really impossible to continue effectively without naming names, because if their identification of real-world people with editors and administrators here is correct, there's no question that those editors and administrators are at least negligent and more probably guilty of gross misconduct. And unfortunately for you, Mantamoreland, convicting them of a "smear campaign" isn't going to protect you. According to them, you are a party in the very same conflict, in real life. If they are involved, then the affair becomes more sordid. It's extremely tempting to assume that everyone is lying, and everyone is telling the truth.

The thing is that this proposal is part of constructing a narrative about how the Forces of Good are trying to keep out the Evil Influences of the Unspeakable Sites from harming innocent Wikipedians. Of course, if those Wikipedians aren't so innocent, then this narrative doesn't work so well, and if the Forces of Good are those same non-innocent Wikipedians, it especially doesn't work well. So in context, this can be read as an attempt to WP:OWN the talk pages to make sure that the FoG version of the narrative is the one that is represented there. And that's not assuming good faith, of course, but the rest of thw world wouldn't under the circumstances, and I think we do need to care how they read it. The posturing about investigations is just nonsense, and I don't agree that everyone's actions have to be "for" something. If malfeasance is going on in Wikipedia, those who care about it at all, positively or negatively, have an obligation to point it out. And those who are "for" Wikipedia have an obligation to try to get it fixed, to the best of their abilities. Any site examining Wikipedia can come upon situations where "attacking" the behavior of editors and giving them rest-of-the-world names is going to be necessary. This proposal is specifically designed to censor such sites, no matter how good they are. Therefore the consequence of this proposal is to suppress reference to any seriously critical site. Do we want Wikipedia to adopt a policy that begs to be interpreted as an admission that we can't take the heat? Mangoe 16:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Mangoe, I don't need protection from "them." There is no "them," there is a "him," a PR guy who makes a career out of lying. He begins with an assumption and builds his "case" around it no matter how many denials stand in his way, and plays to the sympathies of the anti-Wikipedia crowd. He just yesterday had to retract a lie he published about someone else, a "case" that he had built up over months. He devotes his energies nowadays stalking people on message boards who criticize his boss. If you lap up his kool aid that is your misfortune. People who act out on Wikipedia by naively swallowing his fairy tales are the ones needing "protection."--Mantanmoreland 17:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You say "According to them, you are a party in the very same conflict". That is news to me... Could you be kind enough to email me a link in which they implicate me? I am curious to know on which basis they made me a party. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think he meant me. What you see here is an example of the poison that has afflicted this discussion, and why I am really tired of having AGF thrown in my face by people peddling the same crap that we see posted on these attack sites. Again and again in the discussion on this and other pages, we have seen editors, some of whom are contributors to these attack sites, justifying linking to sites attacking their fellow Wikipedians. Some even repeat, directly or as "hypotheticals," the filth that is on these sites. The fact that one of these sites is a coporate astroturfing site just makes the whole thing even more vile. No, it is very difficult to assume good faith in light of such behavior.--Mantanmoreland 17:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, when I said earlier that I was "directing this at Mangoe's latest post," I was assuming good faith and that he was not repeating assertions on an attack site. When he converted his hypothetical into a personal attack on myself [3], that assumption no longer applied.--Mantanmoreland 17:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute. You make allegations against some site, and it is neither relevant nor fair to report that they make allegations against you? We're right back at the original problem: you protest too much! I mean, I can't tell who is telling the truth here, but I can observe a pattern of you and the other proponents consistently avoiding admission that you are the chief beneficiaries of this "protection". And you've completely dodged the point: that whatever animus is justified against the actual sites we are discussing now, a site from someone who isn't tainted and who has found a situation in Wikipedia where rest-of-the-world identities matter would be routinely blocked under this proposal. The last thing Wikipedia needs is a policy that looks like "we don't accept criticism."

I understand that you find these people to be a nuisance, and I think that your annoyance against a lot of them is justified. But the apparent desire to block their genuinely offensive posts (and their offensiveness is overstated for the uncensored Wikipedia) has to be balanced against a willingness to take legitimate criticism and even "attacks". It just isn't true that everything at the Unspeakable Site is dreck, though the good stuff isn't as good as I would have it. Mangoe 18:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Last time...there is a distinct difference between websites that provide a critical analysis and those that promote the efforts to invade the privacy of Wikipedians by posting personal information on them. No, no one here has to put up with attacks of any nature. This policy proposal needs to make an unambiguous statement that linking to websites that promote "outing" the real life identities of individual Wikipedia editors is unacceptable.--MONGO 19:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Mangoe is suggesting that certain types of critical analysis - namely revealing conflicts of interest - actually require identifying real-world identities, in order to establish the conflict of interest. I still don't see where the lack of "unambiguous statement" is doing any actual harm. We do very well without rules here to cover every situation - we can move easily that way. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You're proving my point again by misrepresenting my position and the character of these sites and this proposal. I am a "proponent" only of the existing policy that we have concerning attack sites. This essay adds nothing. While I thought at first that it was benign, the dissembling of people such as yourself have led me to believe otherwise.

You and others keep raising the theoretical, phony strawman of how this "new" policy (which isn't new at all), would "censor" sites from people who aren't "tainted and who has found a situation in Wikipedia where rest-of-the-world identities matter would be routinely blocked under this proposal."

That only exists in la-la land. In the real world, all of the attack sites are run by people who have an axe to grind against Wikipedia. The corporate smear site that you have been promoting by innuendo and personal attacks on me is an outstanding example not of someone seeking to "expose" conflict of interest but rather the application of conflict of interest. This PR guy edited articles on his boss. The Unspeakable Site has no problem with that because he was banned from Wikipedia and that makes him a homeboy.

And while we are on the subject of conflicts of interest, why is it you do not disclose that you yourself are a contributor to one of these sites?--Mantanmoreland 19:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It is true that I am a member of and have made posts on Wikipedia Review. However, I was not a member there until this proposal brought it to my attention, and if you go there you can see (which is how you know, I imagine) my Wikipedia identity. And I have hardly outed anyone. Some of my posts are discussions of this, and some are attempts to engage them on only very peripherally related subjects. DTobias is also a member there (as he readily admits), largely as a critic of their efforts. They allege that you are a member there as well and have made posts, not that I can tell.

At any rate, this has fallen back into an attack upon the particulars of one site. I don't think that is legitimate as long as citations are banned, because it means that neither your allegations nor theirs can be substantiated. Strictly speaking even the fact that they have a grievance with you cannot be substantiated, though it is trivial to uncover this. At any rate, however, your "la-la land" comment, besides being in essence a personal attack, is once again a dodge of the point. I see nothing whatsoever that is protecting Wikipedia from being involved in another case of the same type where the sins of editors are real and the external site is untainted. When that happens (and I believe it will happen), that external site will get called an "attack site", and strenuous efforts will be made to keep anything from it from appearing in Wikipedia, though it will be entirely germane. I think that avoiding that situation is far more important than the protection you would be afforded by this policy, especially since in practice it isn't amounting to much at all.

As far as privacy is concerned, MONGO, this is one of the places where we have a substantial difference of opinion. I agree 100% that Wikipedia itself has an expectation of not violating your privacy by revealing your identity. But you have no reasonable expectation of any such privacy from the outside. Everything you do and write in Wikipedia is utterly public, and by editing and writing here you are risking whatever consequences may result from the exposure of your identity, whether you accept that or not.

As far as revelation of irrelevant personal data is concerned, nobody is arguing against you, and we all agree that existing policy-- not Arbcom-- gives sufficient justification to remove specific links to specific offensive revelations of that character. Administrators routinely unmask editors in certain situations of misconduct (e.g. sockpuppetry), so it seems that in practice at least some of the time one can lose one's privacy over abuses of anonymity.

The sticking point is in the overgeneralization. While there is a lot of bad behavior there, the fact remains that someone here did link to the site for another purpose. (And it wasn't me.) Your privacy isn't invaded just because someone links to a site that has untoward revelations about you on it, never mind revelations that are germane to your editing. And I looked at every link that DennyColt erased, and for the most part they were simply not the kind of offensiveness that is implied here. Perhaps the only exception was in an talk page which SlimVirgin edited to her advantage after re-erasing the reference. Mangoe 20:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I would not be surprised if they say that I am a member there. I would not be surprised if they said I ran the damn place, for Pete's sake, or was the uncrowned king of Egypt. That's why I object to your constantly using this discussion page to push the swill that is on attack sites. Your doing so repeatedly is pure WP:POINT, and is yet another example of why these attack sites should not be linked. The presence of snippets of non-kool-aid content is irrelevant. Even if Plato's dialogs were printed on those sites, their primary purpose and content is to demonize Wikipedia editors that the regular users do not like.--Mantanmoreland 20:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be a contest between "making a point" and "making attacks". I'm not the one who is saying "these places are nasty, these places are rude, these places are dangerous, these places have an agenda, there's nothing there of any value....". It is you and the other people whom the Unspeakable Site "attacks" who say all these things. Your chief argument against them-- and a necessary argument-- is one long attack upon their character. They absolutely are not without sin, and a lot of them got what they deserved when they were banned. And yet it is overstated.

At any rate, I am not trying to make a point by opposing this. I am opposing it because it sets us up for an embarassing situation under conditions which on the surface are pretty similar to the current case. Everyone (including myself) seems to agree that if we changed "attack site" to "attack pages", there would be no problem with this proposal. But there seems to be a consensus that "attack pages" are already covered by other policies. We don't seem to be getting anywhere on the issue of why it is necessary to expand this to cover whole sites. Perhaps if we concentrated on that single point and ceased the discussion of the unspeakable site entirely, we might be able to definitively determine a consensus-- or not. Mangoe 21:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Fred Bauder's most recent statement was to the effect that not only ED, but WR as well, should considered attacks sites and we shouldn't link to them. In all but the most rarest of circumstances (which I can't even imagine), websites of this nature don't need to be linked to from here...anything that might be needed by arbcom could be emailed to them.--MONGO 21:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Fred Bauder's most recent statement was, "Links to aggressive attacks on Wikipedia users may be removed. No one needs permission, no one needs to spend time making a policy about it, or arguing about it."

I'm not getting the argument that our current way of dealing with such things is in any way deficient. Whether or not this page is promoted, MONGO, you and I will continue to remove harassing material, and we'll continue to be backed by policy. Since when do such things have to be specified to the letter? When has the lack of a specific rule ever hurt anyone? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Mangoe, I am not suggesting you are making a WP:POINT "point" by opposing this policy or essay. There are good reasons to not like promoting this essay, not the least of which is that it is not necessary. Perhaps desirable, but it is duplicative of current practices. What I am saying is that you are running up against WP:POINT, or worse, by making snide "hypothetical" insinuations that parrot what these attack sites say. You also make annoying "apocalyptic" comments indicating that the world will collapse if Wiki omits links to these sites.

I would gently suggest that if you want to avoid causing offense to other editors, particularly those of us who are not participants in these sites as you are but victims, that you avoid repeating their slime in your arguments on this policy. You sometimes give the impression that you are here to defend them and to push their poppycock. You are not helping your cause in the least, believe me, if indeed your intent is to simply oppose promotion of this policy. So my advice is that you knock it off.--Mantanmoreland 23:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I get the impression, Mantanmoreland, that the argument Mangoe is making - that this policy could lead to a big public embarassment for Wikipedia - has everything to do with the specifics of the allegat..., er... slime. It makes it difficult for him to avoid bringing it up, or to come close to assuming good faith.

Mangoe: if the situation you're describing were to actually happen, it sounds like it would be good for Wikipedia in the long run. I suggest you let it happen. Let things come out in the wash. If there really is all this corruption going on, it's better to have it rooted out, and if this policy hastens that, good for it. Maybe I'll support its promotion after all... nah. Fred Bauder was right, we don't need a new rule, and somebody has to stand against well-intentioned policy creep. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course. The argument that Mangoe is making assumes bad faith on my part, and bad faith on the part of other editors and administrators (to the extent that we are not sockpuppets of each other, according to the PR man who is peddling this slime and who has five dozen sockpuppets on Wikipedia). Recently an editor who hasn't been on Wiki in some months, and who was alleged by this PR man/attack site owner/sockpuppet to be a "sockpuppet" of myself, started editing Wikipedia after a year. I have emailed this editor (sorry, myself) for him to come here and introduce himself, so that the PR man who is dictating much of the discourse here could get to work on him off-site. Then Mangoe could latch on to that and assume bad faith of all concerned.

The conspiracy is definitely getting bigger, and I agree with you that Wikipedia will collapse upon itself eventually through the weight of all this corruption. I cannot tell you the extent of this corruption. Since this dialogue is to a large extent being dictated by a PR man for an Internet company, the extent of the conspiracy will have to await further press releases and blog postings.--Mantanmoreland 04:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this is all about. Nevertheless, I'm pleased to introduce myself. I've been away from WP for about a year. Within about the first hour of my return, I found myself being reverted on my own user talk page and then slandered on others. And now that it has been a couple days since I'm back, I find out that I'm another's sock puppet. Maybe it's time to take another year off.Doright 05:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure either, and what with all the accusations of sockpuppetry and the like I'm not sure that anyone other than God in heaven could figure this out. The rest of us cannot see enough of this at once. My personal reaction, when I see a knotty message of counter-accusations like this, is to assume that everyone is guilty, and move on. It's a completely cynical reaction, of course. But here we are, and Mantmoreland is accusing me of bad faith in repeating these accusations (which is inaccurate) and at the same time repeating accusations himself. I really don't see how I can point out the apparent conflicts of interest here without insinuatingimplying that the Unspeakable Site is making accusations against him and others involved in this.

I'm implied to go along with GTBacchus at this point, and throw up my hands. There are on'y so many different ways I can come at the problem here, and it's obvious that this has pretty much been argued out. Mangoe 13:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Mangoe, you seem to be replying to my one and only post to this page. Yet, I have no idea what you are talking about. Nor do I have any idea why you wrote: "you're accusing me of bad faith." Are you saying that it is me that is accusing you? If so, I find that very strange since I'm quite sure I've never read anything that you wrote, nor have I ever talked to you or about you.Doright 19:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

My apologies: I switched who "you" was in midparagraph. I've corrected the problem spots. Mangoe 20:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Details of the proposal

Trying to keep this it SETR (short enough to read).

Having spent the last day "off", I finally had the chance to catch up on several of the sites in question. I'm confident I won't have to go into details, but since I myself went on the barricades against censorship and whatnot, I'm now correcting and clarifying my position on several points.

This has to do with Fred Bauder's update regarding WR, which leaves nothing to quarrel about. But there's a lot more to it. I'm afraid that while I assumed I was arguing for freedom of speech, I actually argued advertisement of some seriously dangerous material, far beyond questionable taste.

As said, I suppose I won't need to go into details for the attendant crowd. But just in case: Everyone should be aware that information exchanged on these sites has been used for real life harassment, not to mention threats, libel, and mean slander (some of it aimed at a deceased individual).

I'm actually glad I had the chance to catch up on what we should be talking about on this talk page. But several things happening here make me doubt that we're on the right track. The appalling things I now know about are only part of a greater misunderstanding:

The people maintaining those sites (and WR is one of those) not only appear to be mean, but also hive-minded. It's actually a small group who follows and criticises each and every step of their chosen targets. And even though not all people posting there are evil, what finally matters is Wikipedia, not them or their opinions or interests. This includes not only the safety of our editors, but also some essential agreements.

We should not talk "justice" here, and not speculate about hypothetical situations. The issue at hand is enough, we shouldn't be complicating matters beyond feasibility by mixing it with other, unconnected issues. Especially not when those issues are nothing but a live feed from WR.

I'm not even talking about AGF, CIVIL or NPA. Let's face it: We're not discussing editing details of this proposal. We're actually abusing this talk page.

I don't know why you switched on your computer today. I did it to edit Wikipedia, not to lobby for some cowards sitting around the regulars' table.

—AldeBaer 00:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

AldeBaer, I think I agree with most of what you just said. Does that mean that we're both... opposing this page's promotion? Or am I confused? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont think any of us argue that anyone other than SlimVirgin has the right to link to a WR page that attacks her, and especially not in order to attack her. The problem is that there are many pages on WR that arent attack pages and may be useful to link to, as on the Jimbo Wales user talk page updating him on the HM situation with a link to a page that attacks nobody, SqueakBox 01:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo's email is on, so any links can be emailed to him.--MONGO 07:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You know, even if this is promoted, obvious exceptions, like communications involving Jimbo that he's clearly ok with, will be allowed in the usual manner. Just like, even if this isn't promoted, harassment will still be deleted on sight, just like it always has been. The question isn't whether either worst-case scenario will happen; we're flexible enough that it won't. The question... only has meaning because people don't understand that these tags are just tags. Personally, I think adding a guideline or policy tag would empower those who wish to harass Wikipedians in a small way, probably unnoticeable, and that's about it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd think that allowing such links on a page discussing an attack site policy was also an "obvious exception". A lot of people seem to agree that this is an obvious exception. Such links have been removed anyway. Obvious exceptions don't seem to be allowed even now. We're *not* that flexible; what has actually happened doesn't match up with what you're saying. Ken Arromdee 13:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Has that link been removed from Jimbo's talk page? Are you referring to the recent deletion of links by Denny that were justified by this essay? Perhaps I'm not familiar enough with the examples to say, but I was getting the impression that, until this essay came along, the usual practice was to apply common sense, removing attacks immediately, and leaving links that are clearly not attacks and are being used for something meaningful. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the link has been removed from Jimbo's talk page, but anything related to Jimbo causes editors and admins to act as if they're walking on eggshells. Nobody would dare take out a link that was put in for Jimbo's sake; it's a special case with little bearing on how people behave elsewhere. And yes, I was referring to Denny's deletion--and SlimVirgin's block threat. We manifestly have not been allowing obvious exceptions, since "on a talk page about a policy related to such links" is about the most obvious exception I can imagine.

Yeah, we've been more sensible about it before the proposal, but I don't believe that "even if this is promoted, obvious exceptions... will be allowed in the usual manner". The mere existence of the proposal has already kept obvious exceptions from being allowed. Ken Arromdee 04:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

My observation, and the reason for my strong opposition to this proposal, is that various would-be Judge Dredds have, at times, showed a complete lack of common-sense discretion and felt compelled to be utterly draconian in suppressing links to disfavored sites regardless of context; this very talk page has been the victim of this. *Dan T.* 23:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, that seems to be where almost all of the opposition is coming from. Let's go to the history: the "essay" was promulgated, and immediately thereafter 22 articles were modified with this proposal as justification. All this was done by one user. And we've been back and forth over this, and have established that if this were applied on a page instead of site basis, nobody would have a problem with it. But whenever push has come to shove, the intent has been to interpret this absolutely strictly. Just about the only "flexibility" I've seen is that nobody has seen fit to go back and re-break the link that brought this to my attention in the first place. But attempts to make a similar link in the course of this discussion have been met with erasures and in one case a wholesale reversion of a reply. Mangoe 02:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The newbie user who IMO mistakenly and zealously tried to promote this has now left. IMO said user is indirectly respopnsible for the whole DB unblocking situation too. I am not convinced there is now any energy to promote this proposal into policy, SqueakBox 02:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can't see myself linking to the Unspeakable Site myself, and I'd be hard pressed to suggest that there is much there that is linkable. I too have backed away from this page for a bit to re-evaluate my position. And after doing so, I still believe that this proposal in and of itself is severely flawed. For example:

• It does not address whether or not the same policy applies to users who edit under their own names or who provide personal details in their edits or on their user page.
  • In particular, there are many notable Wikipedians here, and some regularly used news sources have been very derogatory about some of them. The way this proposal is written, any links to those news sources would be considered an attack site. If Conrad Black edited here, we'd have to put every major newspaper in the English-speaking world on the spam list.
• The definition of an attack site is so broad that many regularly linked-to sites fall into the definition. In one case I found more than 1000 links to a site that fits the current criteria.
• At one point, the terminology changed from "attack site" to "hate site." Even at its worst, the Unspeakable Site is just a gossip page. Nasty gossip, yes...but it doesn't advocate causing actual physical harm to any group or person because they are Wikipedians or Admins or anything else. Unfortunately, most definitions of the terms "attack site" and "hate site" are pretty well interchangeable, even though I bet most of us would come to the same conclusions in classifying a random list of 20 of these links.
• Defamation has to come out of the definition because it is a specific legal term that requires the hypothetically defamed party to sue the alleged defamer - and win. (Slander, by the way, is spoken and does not include anything that can be found on the internet. That's libel.)
• There is no clarity on where links to sites that meet the current definition are "forbidden." Can they be used in articles? Article talk? Other project areas?
• Who gets to decide whether or not a site is an attack site? I can see some unsuspecting user linking to one of the less obvious sites that meet this description in a perfectly innocent way, and getting themselves permablocked because they ran across the wrong person. (And heaven forbid we create a list!)

At the end of the day, I believe there are sufficient protections already in the existing policies to manage harassment or abuse of any editor while here on Wikipedia. If I was having a debate with someone named on WR and linked to a thread containing derogatory statements about that editor, I would be harassing them and would deserve to be warned and have that link removed; if I kept doing it, I would deserve to get blocked. On the other hand, I have included a link to another site that meets this description in at least one article I have edited - and I discussed it with another editor on his talk page before proposing it on the talk page of the article, just to get a feel of whether or not it was going to be helpful. The link was widely considered relevant to the article, and I would be very disturbed if I had been blocked simply for doing normal, day-to-day review of reference sources that, unbeknownst to me, happen to have a page somewhere that takes some Wikipedian's name in vain. This is about proportional response. To be honest, some of these sites have undoubtedly received more visits in the past week or so than they have in the previous six months - strictly because of this page. The less attention paid to them, and the more proscribed our reactions to them, the healthier Wikipedia will be. --Risker 01:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to yesterday re HM but decided not to and then another HM subject who hadnt seen the latest at WR got the wrong end of the stick and so an admin did link to the page but really it would have been better for me to have done so, SqueakBox 02:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be obvious that if you start posting links to Brandts hivemind they would be reverted on sight.--MONGO 07:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope this was a link to WR as what I was telling Jimbo is that the HM site has been pulled. This HM page that included private info on folk like me was linked to on Daniel Brandt till I removed it as a 404 but there are certainly still other links to WW there and, as I say, the HM site was itself linked to before and nobody had removed it while live. The WR link introduced by another editor to help clarify the HM situation has not been removed from Jimbo's talk page, not by him (he has edited his talk page since) or anyone else, SqueakBox 16:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I used to have a link to the Hivemind page on my user page, in a list of places that have made baseless personal attacks on me, along with Jeff Merkey's page. However, I took down the Brandt link when he started redirecting all accesses with a Wikipedia referer, and took down the Merkey link when that site underwent one of his frequent complete changes of content and no longer had the attack on me. I never bothered to re-link the Hivemind page after the redirect was removed, and now that it's 404 Not Found it's a moot point anyway. The original link, however, was part of my general philosophy to deal with personal attacks, not by trying to bury or suppress them, but by pointing at them in broad daylight and laughing heartily. *Dan T.* 16:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Risker makes most of the points I would like to make. I think existing policy is pretty clear on what ought to be linked and what ought not to be linked, and that this proposed policy and the attendant discussion seems to have become a very effective source of free advertising for some of the sites in question. I would also note that any website allowing user-generated content either is or has the potential to become an "attack site" under this definition, as there aren't any laws I'm aware of that prevent attempts to divine the real-world identity of a particular user (in fact, we at Wikipedia do it all the time in COI and sockpuppet investigations). As I've mentioned elsewhere in this discussion, Free Republic is a good example of a site with a very active message board that contains multiple instances of clear (and, in some cases, quite nasty) attacks against Wikipedians, although it's certainly far from the primary focus of the discussions there. Hence, this proposal appears over-broad to me, and I don't see any obvious way to fix that without making it clear which site(s) are the specific targets of the proposal (which seems counterproductive, for what I think are relatively obvious reasons).

As with Risker, I have never linked to the site which seems to be the primary topic of this discussion, and see no reason why I would be interested in doing so in the future, but I do note instances in which people have done so in what seems to me to be an appropriate manner (primarily, as evidence of off-wiki conduct relevant to various proceedings and investigations).

I would also concur with others above that this discussion has taken an odd and unfortunate turn recently. There's no need to bring conspiracy theories and accusations of conflict of interest into the conversation, and I would ask Mangoe especially to reevaluate the appropriateness of some of his statements and arguments. JavaTenor 18:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this proposal adds nothing, and is a reiteration of existing policy. I agree that, had it not been proposed, it would not be affect administrator actions against attack sites. However, we have come this far, perhaps unnecessarily, so the question is: can something of value be salvaged from this essay? --Mantanmoreland 18:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe it can still serve as a good disambig / go-to point. After all, it combines what policy and the ArbCom say on the matter. It's definitely more than an essay, yet less than a new policy. Couldn't it be a permanent "disambig" page of sorts that concentrates certain aspects of existing policy with regard to attack sites? —AldeBaer 21:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That is one possibility. I am not clear why this essay was written in the first place. The author has not participated in this discussion recently, so I cannot ask him. In fact I emailed him a few days ago and received no response. Was the essay to be an end in itself, or was the idea for this to be a Wikipedia policy? There are many essays on Wikipedia that are not official policy and I think this one is reasonable enough just as that.--Mantanmoreland 23:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I would argue for this page to be a guideline to start with. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An example

[4] Should this diff be removed? This person is posting material imported from an attack site, which is clearly in violation of this proposal as written. Common sense says no, but this proposal says yes. Frise 00:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The material has also been posted to the wikien-l list, so it could be sourced from there without need to reference a so-called "bad site". *Dan T.* 01:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

He could easily email Jimbo to reblock him...so that link from WR still doesn't substantiate why we need to link to WR. We don't and I have yet to see any decent examples of why other avenues of communication, such as email, aren't effective.--MONGO 04:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point. That diff contains material that was reposted from WR. Should it be removed? Frise 05:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The quoted content itself could be taken as a referential "link" to WR, just not a hot one. But I don't believe WR content is published under a GFDL license, so their material may only be legally reproducible with appropriate permissions. —ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 05:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about any sort of referential link. This proposal states "Links to, promotion of, or material imported from any attack site should be removed." That is material imported from WR. Does anyone here think that it should be removed? Frise 05:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

But when you think about it, the questionable legal grounds for reproducing off-site content here becomes another pragmatic basis for the abolition of this proposal. If we can't legally replicate certain copy-protected content here, the only way we could discuss it in a public, communal context in user-space would be to link to it.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 05:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Does anyone honestly think that this idea could gain consensus?

I think this is really the underlying question here. .V. _[Talk|Email] 04:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Depends on how many ED and WR partisans try to get it deleted. The loudest of those in opposition are regular contributors to the very sites I and a number of others here which to ensure aren't linked to. It can remain as a Wikipedia page, as there are a number of pages like that. WP:SNOW is one example.--MONGO 04:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy and Wikipedia:Youth protection are others. In view of which, WP:SNOW well applies to the likelihood of this proposal gaining consensus. —ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 05:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, this is the kind of claim that is helping to keep the string of RfC/RfA actions against you going. As far as I can tell, the only opponents to this proposal who are/were at all active there are me and Dtobias. His first post was back in February, and if anyone looks at it instead of accepting your vague allegations, they can see that he joined specifically to engage them as an opponent; his first post was in a thread titled "Dtobias belongs in a free-fire zone". I showed up there on 9 April with a post in a thread titled "Portals and WikiProjects", two days after my first objection to this proposal. Meanwhile, a whole range of proponents for the proposal (or for doing what it is being used to justify, whether or not the proposal passes) are people such as yourself who are among the people they "attack".

All of this can only be substantiated (he says in a weary tone) by links to specific threads, some of which are pretty rude. I'm not going to do so, since it seems to be permissible to make fairly vague insinuations about my/Dtobias participation there without proof. Sauce for the goose and all that.

At any rate, the opposition goes well beyond the two of us. I haven't seen any indication that the other opponents are changing their minds. Mangoe 12:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed your posts at WR, and your comments on the Rfc...surely, with the incivility you have displayed at times on this discussion page, an Rfc on your commentary and accusations is probably in order as well, Mangoe. I'll see what I can arrange, and it won't have to involve any links from any off wiki website. You've been warned and asked to cease underminning the integrity of those who have opposed you here on this proposal multiple times, and have been asked to stop violating WP:POINT by adding links from these sites while we have been in discussion to not add them. I haven't seen any indication that those in favor of this page are changing their minds either, they just seem to be less vocal than you about it.--MONGO 13:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, as I explained above, I changed my mind and am now actually for the preservation of this page as whatever can gain consensus (be it policy, disambig or essay), but disregarding the dispute opposition by calling them "partisans" is not helpful by any means. —AldeBaer 12:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

And deleting links used as examples of why banning them is a bad idea, during discussion of same, isn't a WP:POINT violation? And insinuating about opponents being participants on "bad sites" and how this makes their ideas worthless isn't "untermining the integrity of those who have opposed you"? Mangoe is dead-on about "sauce for the gander". People on both sides seem pretty vocal about it. *Dan T.* 13:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't deleted any links...have no plans of doing so. If this were promoted to poicy, I have no intention of seeking out links and deleting them, just support the proposal for future actions.--MONGO 13:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

For the safety and well-being of the Wikipedia community, attack sites should neither be linked to nor promoted. - I think most of the community supports that. Certainly it is a kernel around which consensus can form, subject to details of implementation. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This entire discussion has been about the ramifications of that. Can they be linked to arbcoms, or the myriad of other places they could be linked in good faith. can a linked essay linked to a user page be considered an attack, etc. I've been watching this discussion, as many people are, and really it is a few editors going in circles. I think there was talk of people recusing themselves from the conversation earlier, that really sounds like a good idea. It needs fresh eyes to establish: a) if anyone really cares and b) if the ramifications and unintended consequences are something people want. The longer it goes on, the less I care really. That may be the intention of this. El hombre de haha 14:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

If the major contributors to this page did recuse I doubt if there would be sufficient momentum to take this guideline/essay/whatever much further. In so far that there appears to be a tentative consensus forming around having it as an essay, I think that the previous participants should be encouraged to talk it through and come up with something that they can both agree on. Taking both parties out of the equation is unlikely, if it got that far, to provide a document either will agree on and any one participant recusing themself unilaterally is going to unbalance the input.

I really don't want to wade through a page like this again. I know where I stand on the matter, but I am not going to be so foolish as to say what it is. The amount of passion and energy expended here should have meant that there should have been a decision to adopt or delete, but that is evidently not going to happen. I just want the people here to, if they cannot come to consensus, arrive at some compromise. LessHeard vanU 21:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, my Wikipedia username has never appeared on the pages of any attack site, including WR. (Frankly, I am too minor to be noticed, and have already declared that I have no intention of becoming an admin, so I'm of no interest to them.) I am, however, a senior member of a site that meets the definition of an attack site - the main subject of the site edits here under another name, and has definitely been the subject of some pretty slimy gossip there. Interestingly, he also owns the site but is secure enough in his sense of self not to take it seriously. And yes, there are links to this site on Wikipedia. That is what originally brought me to this debate - the unplanned side effects of this proposal. I certainly hope this proposal could never gain consensus here. Risker 23:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Partisans

If everybody who has ever either participated in one of the so-called "attack sites", or been personally attacked by the people on one of them (I'm in both of these categories myself) were to recuse themselves from this discussion, I suspect this page would become much quieter, but probably much more civil as well. I have no idea what consensus whoever remained would arrive at. Anyway, I've been trying to stay out of this page for the last couple of days in order to avoid diverting my efforts to pointless fighting instead of less-controversial parts of this site where I can actually be helpful (such as in finishing up the task of adding infoboxes to country code top level domain articles), and will try to continue to do so (although it's hard to keep resisting my inclination to put in my two cents (U.S.; two euro-cents would be more valuable these days) here. *Dan T.* 14:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, nothing posted about MONGO on WR is a big deal to me. Seriously. I cannot be attacked via my username, and no one has made any overt effort to either identify my real identity, threaten to sue me or do anything else that really constitutes harassment. Some of the comments there have actully been spot on about me. Things posted on MONGO at ED are, well simply stupid, childish nonsense...but they at least claim to be a parody website. On the other hand, things that have been either originally posted on WR or have been mirrored there from another site, have definitely been harassment of others, identify (or attempt to) the real life identities of Wikipedians and other forms of outrageous incivilities. There is no reason to link to these kinds of websites.--MONGO 14:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I found the attacks on "Mr Squeaky" at WR hilarious, and while mildly insulting nothing about me there was a big deal to me either. On the other hand I objected strongly to the inclusion of my name (which I have never openly stated while being SqueakBox) and my city location on the WW HM page. WR is a forum which it is relatively easy for nearly anyone (with a non-free email address) to edit whereas WW is a site controlled by a webmaster. But I understand the dislike of the site by those whom WR has tried to out etc. The best idea I have seen here is to limit attack site to attack page and specifically those pages that try to out wikipedians or gravely insult them (eg you are a cxxt is unacceptable, you are a nut-job (as I am called) much less unacceptable), SqueakBox 18:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

May I suggest the following as a consensus? - This proposal be reverted to "Essay" rather than remain forever a proposal; and for the wikipedia community to continue doing what it has always done with regard to attack sites (which I choose to characterize as evaluating edits on a case by case basis that results in almost all such links in being deleted). WAS 4.250 15:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that at this time. That is much preferable to having this deleted. Can we wait at least half a day to see what thoughts others might have?--MONGO 15:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Going back to essay status is easy. I would argue that it does not harm to have this as aproposal for a few more days, to elicit further comments from others. A message at the WP:VPP could be useful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Message posted at WP:VPP ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

If it gets reverted to an essay, it is going to have to be rewritten as such. Part of the initial flap, remember, was that it was claimed to be an essay but was being used as a guideline. Mangoe 17:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I would concur with that. Particularly I am interested in the, seriously neglected, copyright angle into all of this. Now, under the WR forum thread titled "Wikipedia's being mean to us!" the first post by Somey explicitly and in bold print says

(removed WP:COPYRIGHT#Linking_to_copyrighted_works violation)

So, if anyone wants to, I would enthusiastically support the removal of any quoted material from WR anywhere on WP. That, along with removal of links, should pretty much keep us innocents on WP "safe" from whatever they are saying or doing over there. —ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 19:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I support it being made into an essay again, SqueakBox 20:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what is the situation of essays where the original author has elected to use the right to vanish? DennyColt has not edited for over a week, and I somehow doubt we will see him reappear. I agree that for this to remain even as an essay, it needs to be rewritten; however, I have a hard time figuring out who would be willing to do so. I do not support reflexively removing links to WR. There should be a clear reason for removing links, and any discussion of them (otherwise removing them is pointless), particularly in the project space. Users can delete anything on their own pages themselves. Risker 23:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fine for those interested to edit the essay, especially since it's in project space and not in DennyColt's userspace (not that it would be difficult to move, if it were there). I think there are people here representing both sides of the dispute, who can yet all be characterized as "Wikipedia partisans". Why don't we toss out some ideas about what major edits need to be made? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed Denny had the right to put it in his user space, and was made aware of this. He wanted it in the wikipedia space and therefore can claim no rights over it if he does return at some point in the future, SqueakBox 02:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barrett v. Rosenthal

I've been doing some research, and it seems to me that the spirit and the letter of this "project page," as a "proposed policy," concerning libel, is inconsistent with the California Supreme Court decision in Barrett v. Rosenthal. For a brief analysis, check out the commentary on The Volokh Conspiracy, a popular hate/attack site among the legal-minded [5]. Also, per existing WP:COPYRIGHT, I am seriously considering scouring WP of any material quoted from WR, and telling complainers that a link to the material would allow us to comment on it without reproducing it, whatever the status of this page. I will leave it up to them whether they want to follow through on that, and may alert Crum375 or MONGO if they do, but I am of the firm belief that all our pages should be consistent with policy, and that policy here should be consistent with existing law.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 18:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The opening statement at The Volokh Conspiracy is

The California Supreme Court just held, in Barrett v. Rosenthal, that Internet users who post (to Web sites or discussion groups) material created by others are immune from liability.

for those who do not wish to go to the link.

I would comment that while websites may post such material without liability, there is no duty to do so. Websites, as I understand matters, may impose their own standards or policies, within the law(s). What we are discussing here is whether we should create such a policy or guideline for Wikipedia. LessHeard vanU 21:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. The fact that the law does not prohibit something does not necessarily mean that we shouldn't. We can't be less strict than the law, of course, but we can be more. -Amarkov moo! 22:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, it means that libel (from some original source) reprinted elsewhere (such as here) is not legally actionable. It is true that we could prohibit against reprinting libel (through policy) ourselves, but there is no legal basis for doing so, at least in law I am aware of. (I am interested in learning about any legal precedent for this in other countries.) —ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 22:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't recall anybody in this debate actually claiming that the law required any particular policy on this issue; the debate was in terms of what we ought to be doing, for the good of the encyclopedia and its editors, not in terms of being required to enact (or not enact) a policy due to legislation or litigation. *Dan T.* 01:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right, I may have overstated what is at most only a personal preference/opinion of mine. But still, food for thought: If WP:Policy does not have to reflect existing law, I'd rather have it at least considered/developed/executed in context of existing law/legal precedent. —ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 01:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What we could do......

per GTB above - i've been thinking about what this policy page could usefully say.....

I think the page in a nutshell bit makes good sense - it's only as I read through the page that i find myself thinking 'but who decides that?' or 'jeez, that could be abused badly', and ultimately 'a badly constructed policy has been built on a seed of a decent idea, and i can't see how this poor construct would ever do anything but harm to the wiki'...

how about we just cull everything after the page in a nutshell? - i think that idea could immediately gain consensus, and we keep the baby when we throw out the filthy water.... thoughts? - Purples 02:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Then someone gets to use their own definition of what an attack site is. Of course, as just an essay, it may not be so bad; however, I have often seen people use essays as their defense to delete something (even block people on occasion), particularly new editors who haven't figured out that essays are just opinion pieces. Frankly, I don't think there is anything to salvage here. The language is so inflammatory and addresses a problem that already has solutions within Wikipedia. I'd flag it for deletion except that I don't think it would be healthy to have this debate continue to rage on at this time. Risker 04:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fine too leave it with the rejected tag on it, sends a pretty clear message. — MichaelLinnear 06:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is fine.--MONGO 06:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. — MichaelLinnear 06:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I take your points, Risker - though how would feel about this;

[edit] purples' proposed alternative for the page

{{essay|[[WP:BADSITES]], [[WP:BAS]]}}

This page in a nutshell: For the safety and well-being of the Wikipedia community, attack sites should neither be linked to nor promoted.

This can be a controversial guideline, because individual's definition of attack sites will vary, and the ultimate decision will always be subjective. It is probably best to only refer to this guideline in cases where you are not only certain that a site is an attack site, but also certain that no reasonable editor would consider otherwise.

Any links or references to an attack site can be removed at will, in the same way as vandalism.

Add current 'see also' info + precedents etc.

-- keeps it simple, no? - Purples 07:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I like it. I'd add a little something like... if people disagree with this justification, and restore a link that you removed as being from an attack site, then the question should be brought to AN/I (or another more appropriate location?) for a swift decision as to whether the link in question does in fact need to be removed. This isn't the sort of issue we want to waste time with by letting people edit war when some informed input can take care of things quickly. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, this is still a "guideline disguised as essay" version. If it is going to be an essay, it needs to be purged of any hint of authorizing people to take action. That, after all, is what got it changed to a proposal in the first place. Mangoe 10:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Essays can still quote existing policy, or existing ArbCom rulings, and can make recommendations on actions based on such policy and/or rulings. ElinorD (talk) 10:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

GTBacchus, I think you've forgotten something really, really important. The whole problem that Denny (as far as I can tell, though it's just a guess) was trying to solve was that of people's private details being posted. I've seen various examples of someone coming along and posting that a certain editor's real name, or address, or phone number is XXXXXXXXXXXX. A well-meaning editor in good faith reverts, doesn't know about WP:RFO where you have the possibility of sending a single email that goes to all the admins who have oversight, and goes to AN/I, and posts the diff, saying that it will have to be oversighted. The personal information might be gone within fifteen minutes, but in the meantime, everyone who was looking at AN/I has had an opportunity to find out the real name and address of an editor.

I recently removed from an admin's talk page a post which called her a "little slut" and hoped she'd "get breast cancer". I reported the single-purpose attack account, and it was blocked. I felt absolutely no need to request oversighting. If the post had given a real name or address, I would have emailed the oversight list, and would definitely not have posted publicly about it on Wikipedia. That shows the difference in need for discretion and sensitivity with regard to different kinds of attacks. "You nasty slut" doesn't need to be removed from a page history. "Your phone number is XXXXXXX" does need to be removed.

I think Denny's big mistake was in pushing for a policy that would allow removal of all attack sites, while insisting on too broad a definition of "attack" or "hate". For the record, I support not linking to any site that attacks or ridicules individual editors, but a calm removal would suffice. I am confident that most administrators would enforce removal of the kind of site I have in mind, without necessarily forcing removal of a site that engages in respectful criticism of how Jimbo runs things. But the last thing we want is an open discussion on AN/I as to whether the removal of a site that gives a particular editor's real name and phone number was appropriate — with the whole community clicking on the link and going to the site to see if it really does contain inappropriate information, so that they can feel that they were involved, as a community, in making these decisions. I am sure that that is not what you intend, but am concerned that it could be the result of a rule that before removing the link a second time, you have to bring it to AN/I. Remember that the ruling in the MONGO case was that you could remove such links without regard to 3RR. Please bear in mind that I am talking about sites that identify editors who are trying to remain anonymous. The news sites that reported on the Essjay case do not apply here, because the person who originally, publicly posted his real name on his Wikia page, and then confirmed it on his Wikipedia talk page was Essjay himself. I'll post more thoughts later about the problem of having to bring it to AN/I for discussion. ElinorD (talk) 10:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a mistake we are having trouble getting past. We've already been around links to attack pages. Everyone agrees that specific attacks cannot be linked to; but there seems to be a consensus that we don't need any new guideline/policy or maybe even an essay to cover that. The sticking point is links to a site where personal information is revealed, but where the specific link isn't to such information. We are stuck there because it is clear that there is never going to be a consensus about that point, but the proponents don't seem to be willing to edit this to take out the authorization to delete links on that basis. And since that authorization seems to have been the only point of this, we aren't making progress. Mangoe 10:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Elinor, it's not a matter of forgetting. I didn't know there was such a thing as an "oversight list". I'm certainly not worried about the "three revert rule"; I just think it's a waste of time to go back and forth reverting someone when one could be bringing the situation to the attention of those who can block, delete, etc. I'm pretty sure than "somthing like" posting on AN/I would include clever options like emailing the oversight list.

Whatever the best thing to do in such a situation is; that's what this page should recommend. I'm not married to AN/I. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Take it to AN/I if the link you've removed is restored" ???

I don't know how much different people would mind if their details became known. Some editors voluntarily link to such information; others don't but still do not feel they have a great deal to lose if their details are made public. Let's imagine, though, that you (this is addressed to everyone at this page) very very very badly want to remain anonymous because you're afraid of real life harassment. People at one of these sites start trying to out you.

Did you notice that he posted on 6 July 2004 that his mother is French? StalkerA

Hey, he used to say on his user page that he graduated from the University of Sussex in 1997. StalkerB

I think his degree is in geography. StalkerC

We should be able to find out. There were only seventeen geography graduates in that university in 1997, and eight of them were women. Stalker B

Oh, and he says on someone's talk page in March 2005 that he lived in Japan for two years. StalkerA

Look, he says here that his wife is a lawyer. StalkerC

In November last year, he forgot to log on, and posted from an IP that resolved to Manchester. StalkerD

The circle is closing round you, and you're beginning to panic. Oooooooooohhhhhhh, they've discovered who you are!!! Now there's a photo of you on that website as well. Oh, they've added your home address and your phone number. Someone posts a link to that site — perhaps not to the actual page, which has your name, address, phone number, work address, email address and phone number of your boss, your wife's name and photo, your children's names, and where they go to school. The link which is posted is to the site index, from where you can get to the page about you in three clicks. (Or perhaps it's to an inoffensive discussion page, from where you can get to the site index in one click, and to the harassing page in three more.) I revert it. (Yes, I'd do that for every single person here.) The person who posts it restores it, talking about censorship. Would you want me to ask for help discreetly (perhaps by checking the contributions of friendly admins to see who seems to be online, and then sending an email, as well as an email to the oversight list)? Or would you want me to bring it to AN/I, where there could be a twenty-minute discussion, read by hundreds of people?

I'm bringing this here, because someone added a link to a website which harasses User:X, and I reverted it, but I was reverted, so I'd like everyone here to look at the link and see if it really is harassment. The link is [link removed by AdminA] ElinorD

This is ridiculous. We don't need a nanny on Wikipedia. User:A

I clicked on the link, and I don't see in what way it's harassing someone, or who's being harassed? User:B

Oh, but it's not on the main page. The main page links to "Lulz" at the top right, and then, when you're there, if you click on "Wikipedia Lulz", you'll see the name of this editor. If you click on that link, you'll see a page where they have this editor's real name, address, phone number, etc. Oh, if you can't find that link easily, it's at the left, on the second from the bottom. Or would you prefer me to paste in the URL here, in a nowiki'd form, of course. ElinorD

Elinor, please don't do that. You've made things much worse for the victim. AdminA

Sorry, but the policy says that if I'm reverted, I have to bring it here. ElinorD

I've found the actual page now, and I agree that it's harassment, so Elinor was quite right to remove it. UserB

Yes, but she posted it here, and this page is read by far more people that the page she removed it from. AdminA

AdminA, you have no right to tamper with other people's posts. This is blatant censorship. UserC

Actually, I'm happy that she did, but it's still in the history. ElinorD

(Resetting indent) If people are going to start removing links, I think the whole community has the right to know what the links are, so that we can decide if they really are harassment, and if they really should be removed. It's arrogant and patronising for administrators to be taking this decision on our behalf. And Elinor isn't even an admin. UserC

I've seen the page too, and I think it should have been deleted. UserD

I've seen it too, and I agree. User:E

I disagree. The link that Elinor removed wasn't to the page that gives User:X's name and phone number. It was to the site index. And that site does have other useful things. To suppress it looks like censorship to me. UserC

Besides, how do we know that it really is his phone number. Someone should try phoning the number to check. UserC

UserC, stop trolling or I'll block you. AdminA

Stop trying to intimidate users. This is a legitimate discussion. I think someone should phone that number. UserC

I've blocked UserC for 24 hours. AdminB

I've sent an email to the oversight mailing list. Elinor, please go to WP:RFO next time. AdminC

I would have, except that the policy says that we have to bring it here, to get feedback on whether or not the link really is inappropriate. ElinorD

Looks like it's been oversighted now. AdminB

Um, could we have this noticeboard oversighted too? ElinorD

I'm posting this not to make fun of people who think that the community should be allowed to decide whether or not a certain link is harassing, or who think that it's okay to link to a site that hosts such harassment, as long as we don't link to the specific page, but to point out how dangerous that might be for the affected person. Sites like BBC News or The Times don't have subpages that are devoted to trying to "out" Wikipedians. Now, if some reputable site like the BBC has an article about criticism of Wikipedia, and that article has one link to the main page of a site which has within it another page which contains a link to another site which has whole pages devoted to trying to "out" and stalk Wikipedians, do we remove all links to BBC News? Of course not. But we do remove links to the sites that host pages devoted to "out"ing Wikipedians. There is absolutely no way that BBC News is going to have a page within it saying what it thinks my full name and address are, and what kind of detective work it did to find out. And I say once again, NO news site published Essjay's real name until he posted it himself on Wikia and confirmed it here.

One final word. People have argued that we should be allowed to post links in certain places, like here, where we're discussing whether such links should be posted. Someone who starts getting threatening phone calls, or whose employer is contacted as a result of a stalker finding their details on a site which he found by clicking on a link on this page is not going to be comforted by knowing that the link was posted here rather than at an article talk page. And if such links are need as evidence in ArbCom cases, or to bring to the attention of Jimbo and/or the Foundation, there is no reason why they can't be supplied in a private email. ElinorD (talk) 11:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think you've made this point very clearly. Let's strike AN/I from my thought above and replace it with RFO. Actually, better still would be to email a trusted admin, or to ping a trusted admin in IRC, if you happen to be set up with that. In my initial thinking, I was considering that the admin you choose to email might be asleep, or something, so it's nice to be able to get the attention of several at once. Clearly AN/I isn't the best place to do that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Clever arguments... and pretty good simulation of the kinds of debates that erupt every time the issue of linking to "attack sites" comes up. But, basically, if you get "outed" online, you're pretty much screwed whether we link to it or not; when it's out there, it's out there, and you can't put the genie back in the bottle. The more fuss you raise about it (and hence draw people's attention to it), the more screwed you are, but even without a direct link, pretty much everything on the Internet is a few clicks away from everything else (like the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon), and probably an easy Google search too. *Dan T.* 23:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a further problem with repeatedly reverting an inappropriate insertion, too. How many times do you really want the insertion and removal of an inappropriate link to cross "Recent changes", where you know many eyes are watching? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

But, I still haven't seen an argument that makes sense as to why we need to link to attack sites. Why import anything into this project from them. Why can't useful (if such exists) information simply be emailed?--MONGO 03:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not all discussions of such need to be "behind closed doors." I would say if any item of information published on another site can be aired out and discussed in public rather than in private, esp if it is already "public" on other sites, why try to restrict acess to this content if it is not "outing" or any other attempt at harassment? As I see, entirely "banning" links to sites hosting such attempts sounds like "punishment," which is not something I understand us to be especially interested in on WP.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 03:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

IMO the question needs to be "why not link to these sites" rather than "why link to these sites", SqueakBox 03:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not? Because they actively engage in allowing editors to make efforts to out the real life identities of Wikipedia editors. They use their websites as gathering places for evidence about people's identities.--MONGO 04:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

True, but that's not all they do over there. In any case, it's not something this linking policy, as is or in any other foreseeable form really, could control.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 04:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

IMO, the question of whether something is ever a good idea is distinct from the question of whether it's a good idea to ban it. What if the ban, in and of itself, brings about harm to the project? Then would it be a good idea? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Status of this thing

The only edits to this thing since it was unlocked have been changing the status template. Personally I'd say that it evinces a lack of consensus, but in the meantime, can we leave it alone until it either gets resolved as a policy proposal or gets rewritten? Mangoe 18:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with it as either an essay or as a policy proposal, but prefer the latter. Thank you for your efforts to keep it listed as a proposed. Maybe we are nearing a point at which we can do a straw poll, listing the poll at AN and AN/I and offering several options: Promote to policy/reject/leave as an eassy.--MONGO 18:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer also to keep it as a proposed policy or even as a proposed guideline. I think there's quite a lot that needs to be changed, but there's basically something worth working on. What I think we need is something that will give more protection to those who want their privacy protected — something we can point to immediately if someone challenges the removal of a link to a site that gives an editor's name and contact details, so that there won't be lots of reverts, followed by extensive discussion at AN/I, generating further publicity and ensuring that anyone who mightn't have seen the link at the page where it was originally posted will have seen it now! ElinorD (talk) 19:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think the semantics of the thing need clearing out. It seems to me that there are two major "no-no's" or taboos this "project page" is attempting to articulate:

• Attempts off-site to reveal identity (outing attempts) of users on Wikipedia.
• Attempts to reprint or link-to actual libel or to conduct other (possibly legally actionable) harassment in conjunction with the above.

It seems to me that, to begin with, the best defense is, well, "defense" which would mean not revealing items of personal information on your user page (or anywhere in WP user-space) which could lead to real-life stalking. I mean, when it seemed to me that I could run into one of the WP trolls I've engaged with in real life, I ceased interactions on WP through my prior account and no longer edit in those subject domains. If you already edit using your real identity or if your real identity is guessable from the subjects you edit (such as your own biography!) I don't mean to say that "you're asking for outing attempts" (or other harassment) but still you should expect that if your account becomes popular or controversial on WP.

If you are concerned about privacy or off-site harassment, don't make yourself an open target, and save Wikipedia the problem of "protecting" you from your indiscretion. Beyond that, anything else that becomes legally actionable as a result of anyone's editing on WP can be handled without specific policies against specific criminal activities, per WP:BEANS, WP:CREEP, etc.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 20:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Have there been cases where personal information has lingered here longer than it should have, that some additional policy would remedy? I see people making the argument that we need "more protection", but are we actually slow or equivocal about removing personal info now? In cases I've seen, admins will race to be the first to delete personal info. Is that not the usual way of things? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't know. I'm actually not that experienced, but from my observations most admins don't seem particularly obstructed from removing links to items of personal information or harrassment by the lack of an explicit policy on it. As I see it this proposal in its current form is mainly a way of retroactively and symbolically militating against outside sites hosting such attempts at harrassment... it may be noble-intentioned, but it seems to me useless as to its own aims of halting the spread of such information "for the safety and well-being of the Wikipedia community" or for any other reason, not to say counter-productive to the community's abiltity to conduct informed critiques of any useful items of (non-harrassing, non-"outing") information where it may be relevant on WP user-space. (We could also comment on and critique their activites in appropriate spaces here, which I believe we have been doing already.) It seems to me that we could just ammend WP:NPA#Off-wiki_personal_attacks to prohibit links to specific instances/items of off-site harassment and the problems created by this page would be solved entirely.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 01:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like we're largely in agreement. I would support an appropriate rewording of NPA to reflect the reality, confirmed above by arbitrator Fred Bauder, that links to harassment may be removed on sight with no need for a specific supporting guideline, per WP:COMMON, WP:NPA, WP:IAR, and basic knowledge of right and wrong. The potential increased protection is minimal to nonexistent, and the potential increased harm is real, in my view, so I think promoting the page would be bad for Wikipedia. -GTBacchus^(talk)

Concur. Will wait for other opinions before proceeding. —ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 04:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This is very different than the NPA policy. This is explcitily about attack sites...websites that we shouldn't link to. I defintiely believe we need this to be at least a guideline. It appears that ElinorD and Jossi are also in favor of this as a minimum.--MONGO 04:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, is there any evidence that the current lack of explicit guideline has ever stopped any administrator from doing the right thing in such a situation? Aren't we generally pretty good about taking care of harassment without worrying whether we've got specific policy justification? That's been my experience, it seems. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The entire MONGO arbcom case was commenced from my efforts to remove harassment from the ED article we had here. I had to delete an image made of their webpage that had the featured article about MONGO on it, four times. I had to remove the harassing link to that website which went to their mainpage article about me. I was confronted by numerous editors who were ED partisans who declared that my actions to keep from being harassed were unilateral, and even "wrong". No one should have to again have to explain why they removed harassment from this website. ED was the situation then and now we also have WR doing what I see as even worse transgressions. At least ED justifies it's efforts as essentially a parody. WR makes no such distinction...their efforts to harass and compile evidence about Wikipedians is as plain as day...and this has happened to many editors from this website. I could care less what they say about MONGO...in fact, I can't believe I am so often examined there...they must be really bored.--MONGO 05:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, I think we're on the same page as far as wanting to minimize harm to Wikipedians. I sincerely believe that this guideline would do more harm than good, and that it would lead to an increase in the damage you seek to prevent. That's the only reason I oppose you on this matter.

You cite your own experience with ED as evidence that we need a specific guideline. I think I understand where you're coming from. However, it's not clear to me what an additional guideline would have done. It seems to me that its talk page would provide a nexus for people with shady intentions to protest, and wikilawyer, and spend weeks and months thinking of new ways to shove BEANS into their noses. Think of ElinorD's reproduction of a possible AN/I thread if someone were to bring a case of harassment there - imagine a talk page devoted entirely to such threads. Are we really better off with such a thing on the Wiki? Since we've got an oversight mailing list, isn't it better to go straight to it, rather than creating a new rule for people to argue about?

All we need to say, in some clause in NPA, is that harassment may be removed on sight, and that RFO (not AN/I; thank you, ElinorD) should be the first response to any repeated posting of harassing information or links. That way we avoid dedicating a specific policy to harassers, and thus empowering them to control one end of a dyad that we're stuck at the other end of.

Remember, prohibition supported the mob. The "war on drugs" enriches Columbian drug lords and the Taliban. Outlaw guns, and only outlaws will have 'em. The war on terror has bred a new generation of US-hating terrorists. Please, let's not make that kind of mistake here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, but this isn't about the same types of things you relate it to. Wikipedians make zero for all their hard work. I think we need to do all we can to ensure what I had to deal with is lessened. Trolls may look at this and sneer and be challenged by it to post links just for the sake of abusing policy, but the ambiguity of being allowed to remove the links is something I had to contend with...I don't want others to have to explain for months why they felt justified in removing links, and making this a guideline will allow editors to be able to point to this and say, I removed that link because it was from ED or WR...that website deliberately harasses Wikipedians and I didn't want my privacy violated.--MONGO 05:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems to me this ambiguity you are referring to could be adequately and appropriately addressed via a one or two line amendment to WP:NPA against linking to attack content or an attack page rather than a whole policy specifically to criminalize links to entire sites whose users, yeah, will obviously and intrepidly find ways to undermine, so we've seen, by linking to critical essays posted on such sites to make WP admins look like they are repressing free speech or free access to sites critical of WP. It seems to me the obvious trolling this page causes could best be mitigated by rejecting it soundly and adapting the explicit prohibitions against linking to any items of harassment or outing to WP:NPA, leaving other cases of links to essays or other critical commentary on these sites to be evaluated on an individual basis. —ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 07:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

We've got an arbitrator on this very page saying, "Links to aggressive attacks on Wikipedia users may be removed. No one needs permission, no one needs to spend time making a policy about it, or arguing about it." That seems to me like endorsement enough, without adding the negative effects that making this page into policy would bring about.

MONGO, you say above that "this isn't about the same types of things you relate it to," but I don't see the difference. What I see is that passing rules attempting to ban some kind of unethical behavior is almost always a terrible idea, prone to backfire in unexpected ways. I understand what you're working towards, but I really don't think you'll get that by promoting this page. That's just not how the world works, from what I've seen.

What's going to help the most is (a) helping people understand the dangers of posting their personal information online, (b) helping foster a culture in which Wikipedians support and defend each other, and (c) making sure that people are made aware what to do if links to harassment, or other harassing content, is posted, no matter what website it comes from. (Specifically: Remove it once, and if it's restored go straight to XXXXX, do not pass Go, do not collect $200. By XXXXX, I mean either RFO, or IRC, or whatever forum is deemed most appropriate to get help without attracting undue attention by reverting repeatedly or by posting on AN/I.) -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No long winded response from me, aside from the fact that arbcom does not make policy. It appears that the numbers in favor of this becoming policy are only marginally smaller than those not in favor of it. Myself and others have just been less vocal about it overall. I conmpletely fail to see what the negative effects of this becoming policy are...no one has demonstrated what these would be. Sites like ED and WR are attack sites...they should never be linked to...not unless they start cleaning up their acts, which I highly doubt.--MONGO 04:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It's true that ArbCom doesn't make policy. I mention Fred's words because the point he was making deserves a response; he's not a dumb guy, and he didn't say that on accident. (I know that you weren't implying that he's dumb.) I'm happy to tell you what I think the negative effects are, but it will have to wait for tomorrow. For now, I have time to say... just because I opposed promoting this page, that doesn't mean that I'm against the removal of harassing links. I do wonder whether you think my (a) (b) and (c) above aren't good ideas? Do you agree with the part in parentheses, about not passing Go? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I am opposed to excessive rules and policies generally, but I do think that things need to be spelled out in black and white on some matters. I do not think NPA allows us to be specific enough in detail about attack sites. I am opposed to only removing links from these websites that are harassing and feel that this will lead to battles regarding what is and what isn't acceptable as a link from these websites...it is best to not link to them at all. I prefer to have this spelled out, plain and simple. I agree with your three points, but believe that we need policy to back it up in this circumstance.--MONGO 05:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand your sentiment, but I honestly don't follow your logic. "Plain and simple" prohibitions against "attack sites" aren't going to work against sites where the content is primarily user-generated and multi-faceted. I mean, Fred Bauder and other respected WPers have responded to claims and criticisms on the WR site directly. I am not saying I support outing or other harassment attempts, but I think these can be prohibited against without setting into policy an apparent "digital curtain" between WP and its biggest off-site detractors. —ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 07:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Forked some content to WP:NPA

I went ahead and made an initial edit to WP:NPA forking some of this content: [6]. Please critize, critque, condem , etc. Best, —ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 19:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict breaks out yet again

Once again, this wrongheaded not-a-policy, and the judicial activism by ArbCom that preceded it, led to conflict and censorship. This time, the victim was an article in Wikipedia Signpost, where an editor saw fit to "enforce" the alleged policy by suppressing a relevant link. *Dan T.* 00:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and it was news to me that WW is on the BADSITES list though I would personally rather see it (as a whiole site) there than WR. Shame it wasnt handled more discreetly as was the intention of the admin, and even more of a shame that she didnt first talk to me as a fellow editor, SqueakBox 00:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox, I have taken the liberty of changing the "they" back to "she" in the above post, as that is what you originally had, and apparently changed just because you weren't sure that I am female.

I have now talked to you "as a fellow editor", in an extremely long post on your talk page. I would have been happy to do so at the time, but you made it very difficult by jumping in and reverting. If somebody removes a link on the grounds that it's an attack, could I appeal to everyone not to revert immediately. You didn't revert on the grounds that the link wasn't to an attack; you reverted on the grounds that BADSITES is not policy. I removed links to sites that tried to identify Wikipedians long before the MONGO case, and I expect to continue to do so, whether this essay / proposed policy / proposed guideline is upgraded or not. Fred Bauder, from the ArbCom has said on this talk page that we don't need a policy in order to remove links.

This is not particularly addressed to SqueakBox, but to everybody here: if a link is removed on the grounds that it's to an "attack site", do not jump in and revert if you disagree. If you really have a problem with the removal, a private e-mail to that editor is probably best. Failing that, a discreet message on his/her talk page. The idea of insisting that the link should stay in public view until you have been told exactly what and where the problem is is bizarre. Read Elinor's hypothetical case of bringing it to AN/I. If you revert, and revert again, and tell people to go to the talk page, you are making it almost impossible for someone to deal with it discreetly.

I am fully aware that that site no longer has the hivemind pages. However, this is not the case of a site having been taken over by a new owner with different moral principles, who's opposed to the violating of privacy of our editors. Nor is it the case of a webmaster having had a massive religous conversion and being full of repentance for the harm he caused. This is simply a decision taken by someone who has no remorse for the harm he has caused, but who is involved in negotiations at the moment. What if the negotiations break down? My stalker sometimes took down his pages about me, and then put them back up a few weeks later.

By the way, there is no list of official badsite links that are to be removed. It would be impossible to keep such a list updated. We delete sites that try to "out" people. We don't have a list of URLs. Musical Linguist 02:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Your changing my comments is fine, I wont comment otherwise till tomorrow (bit knackered), I actuually had figured you as a woman (and a classical musician which is about as cool as you can get!) see my email, SqueakBox

"Fred Bauder, from the ArbCom has said on this talk page that we don't need a policy in order to remove links."

NO, he *did not*. This is what he said:

"Links to aggressive attacks on Wikipedia users may be removed. No one needs permission, no one needs to spend time making a policy about it, or arguing about it."

There's one big difference between what he said and what you're saying: he's saying we can't link to *attacks*, not to *attack sites*. Linking to an attack is one thing; linking to a site which contains an attack on it somewhere, or even linking to a site which had once contained attacks and may do so again but doesn't at the moment, is very different from linking *to an attack*. And a ban on linking to attacks is much less controversial than one on linking to attack sites.

Besides, saying "you don't need a policy, but remove them anyway" is contradictory. If you authoritatively tell people to remove the links without a policy, then you've just created a policy, because telling you what you can and can't do is the very definition of a policy. And Arbcom can't create policy. Ken Arromdee 06:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging as rejected

I think it's time to say that the proposal, in this form at least, is rejected: it has failed to gain consensus and is unlikely to do so. It's been debated in many places for several weeks now, and hasn't achieved consensus anywhere. There has been very little progress in altering the proposal so it might gain consensus.

Normally it would be ok to just let discussion continue, but some people are starting to treat this as if it was already policy (in its entirety) and so I think it's necessary to say that this wording at least is rejected.

I think the way forward is to develop some wording that is not a strict liability blanket prohibition, but one that is specific about what content is linked to, and also specific about why content is linked to. I think that linking to external sites containing personal attacks in order to make those personal attacks, to give an example, is already adequately covered by existing policies, but there are gray areas (such as innocently linking to threaded discussions which partly contain personal attacks, to give an example) which could do with clarification. --bainer (talk) 05:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That's why this proposal should be promoted to policy. The fact that people are going to remove links from attack sites no matter what and the fact that some are going to revert that removal is why we need to have this as policy. It's best to simply not link to these sites at all rather than spend hours arguing about why a link is either good or bad. If these websites are posting personally identifying material about Wikipedians on them in an effort to "out" people, that is bad. If they is anything that is redeemable about any info on those sites that may need to be considered by arbcom or similar, then links can be emailed to them.--MONGO 05:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, policy follows practice, but that requires a well-established and accepted practice. That's simply not the case here; there's been substantial disagreement every time the proposal in this form has been discussed or invoked. --bainer (talk) 05:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The practice of removing links from attack sites isn't new...it's been going on for some time. This policy proposal makes it clear that it is to be expected. There is no reason anyone removing a link to an attack site should ahve to do anything more than point to this as an explanation of why they removed the link...otherwise, we spend hours arguing about what should be common sense. The disagreements won't stop just because this gets rejected.--MONGO 06:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If I may ask, what do you want to do through this policy that can't be done by amending NPA? You've said you "fail to see what the negative effects of this becoming policy are...no one has demonstrated what these would be" as revert wars and bad faith violations caused by conflicting interpretations of this page fly out in abundance around us... you do see this associated conflict as basically disruptive to Wikipedia, right? —ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 06:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Incidental support for the reject tag. A solution to the problem of "attack content" hosted off-site cannot realistically be achieved by blanket prohibitions against linking or designations of such content providers as "attack sites" in their entirety. —ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 08:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Agree with Thebainer. Support tagging as rejected. Frise 08:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Agree; support tagging as rejected. Having a crutch out there for those who want to invoke a zero tolerance policy in a moral panic is exactly what many of us don't want there to be. *Dan T.* 11:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Agree with Thebainer. Support tagging as rejected. WAS 4.250 12:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Isn't going to get consensus, so agree with the above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• There is a broad consensus for this policy as it is expressed in the nutshell, and it reflects existing practice. I don't think it can be said to have been rejected by the community. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps existing practice isn't jiving with community desires, then. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Agree, Inappropriate links will continue to be removed without this as policy and it won't bring out any major disruption like this policy proposal unintentionally did. hombre de haha 13:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Agree, we don't need an additional policy to deal with this. We have WP:NPA, which already allows us to remove links that reveal personal information of Wikipedians. Marking this as rejected does not mean that we are allowed to link to such pages all of a sudden. --Conti|✉ 13:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• This is clearly not gaining consensus. There seems to be some theory that the lack of consensus justifies holding this open indefinitely, meanwhile applying it as if it were policy. It's time this was brought to an end, and marked as rejected for lack of consensus. Mangoe 14:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Agree, WP:NPA covers this ground already -- so it already is policy. What we have does the job... refactoring it into a new page isn't really necessary and borders on instruction creep. --Chris (talk) 22:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Agree to tag as rejected and move the debate to Talk:NPA as appropriate, SqueakBox 23:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Agree, atag as rejected, do not redirect. DES ^(talk) 11:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Agree, tag as rejected. Redundant, covered by WP:NPA LessHeard vanU 12:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• I think that a redirect to WP:NPA is the best solution. The specific subject matter is addressed at NPA, and that's where it should stay. Tagging this as 'rejected' would send a message that the community somehow endorses attack sites, which it clearly does not. In addition, per current practice and clear ArbCom decisions, we may remove any link to an attack site. So it seems to me that the redirect best handles these issues. Crum375 12:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to WP:NPA per reasons above. DES is wrong that to treat this like other policy proposals, this sets a dangerous precedent: someone can create a new page, call it a proposed policy, and thus ensure it could never be deleted. My point is just that not all policy proposals merit being maintained in the same way. Redirecting in this case is perfectly reasonable. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that a redirect is highly inappropriate. There was a policy proposal, that proposal was soundly rejected. This discussion page is beign preserved. Keep teh proposal page with the rejected tag, to document exactly waht proposal was rejected. The redirect hides this debate and the rejection, in effect. A note on the page saying "for current policies on this topic, see WP:NPA" m ight be a good idea, it would direct users to the peroiper place but also documetn what was not accepted. DES ^(talk) 01:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• People coming across the discussion in the future should be able to see the proposal as it was put. It should also be clear that this particular wording was rejected. We can certainly say in addition that the subject matter will now be covered at WP:NPA, but I don't think a redirect is the best option. --bainer (talk) 01:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Crum375's reasoning. And I don't think that the proposal was by any means "soundly" rejected. ElinorD (talk) 01:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Eh? The proposed policy did not even get close to gaining consensus, thus it was soundly rejected. LessHeard vanU 18:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• I'd support keeping the page accessable with a "no consensus, for historical interest only" sort of tag.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 01:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No, holding a vote on whether to stick a tag on this page won't stop this being policy if it is, and it won't make it policy if it isn't. Let's see how the discussion, which seems to be ongoing, works out. --Tony Sidaway 18:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I see lots of peopel who support leavign the proposal up, tagged as rejected, adn only two who suppoort convertign it to a redir. I think ther is consensus to restore the proposal page, with its rejected tag. DES ^(talk) 08:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've reverted to a version which has the {{rejected}} tag but also has a prominent note saying that the proposal in this form is rejected but much of the substance is being incorporated into WP:NPA, with a pointer to discuss it at the talk page. This is the most accurate way to represent the current situation. --bainer (talk) 09:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Please revert yourself. The page is currently protected because there was an edit war over that very issue. ElinorD (talk) 09:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I must have missed the notice next to the "you're editing an old version" box. Nevertheless, I don't think this should remain as a protected redirect indefinitely. What is wrong with having a version that expresses that the proposal in this form is rejected but that much of the substance is still supported by many people and is being discussed elsewhere? A redirect is not appropriate because that would suggest a merge has taken place, and would cover up the fact that the proposal in this form does not have consensus. Likewise a bald rejection would not be appropriate since it wouldn't acknowledge that many of the ideas this is based on are not rejected but are being worked on elsewhere.

Surely this middle approach is the best way to represent the state of affairs? The wording can be worked on if necessary. --bainer (talk) 10:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

From looking at the page history, and at the discussion here, it seems that those who support or supported having it as a redirect include Tony Sidaway, Crum375, Jossi, Tbeatty, myself, Tom harrison, and possibly MONGO. There may be others — perhaps SlimVirgin and/or SOPHIA. But since the discussion has moved to WT:NPA, people may no longer be paying attention to this page. ElinorD (talk) 09:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Too late...bainer has now rejected it, and having done so, has edited a protected redirect in the process.--MONGO 09:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it was an oversight, and he didn't realise that the page was protected. Do admnistrators get a warning message when they try to edit a protected page. All I get is "view source" at the top of the page, where it should say "edit". I really hope that it was not intentional. ElinorD (talk) 09:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It should say something like..."you are editing a protected page"...but I haven't been an admin in a while now and can't remember editing any pages that were protected.--MONGO 09:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Elinor is right - attention is elsewhere at the moment. I am getting a little fed up with being out of the editing loop. I never thought I'd have to consider running for admin to be able to join in a concensus building process. Sophia 09:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a red message over the edit box reminding admins that the page is protected, and that one should remember the protected page guidelines. One could fail to see that, though, and edit the page without realising it was protected. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sophia's last comment. Attention is somewhere else. And as for Elinor's list above: consider me included. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I too agree that a redirect is better than keeping it with a "rejected" label on top. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with the substance of what bainer has done. Perhaps I was to cursory in reading this page and conclusing that ther was consensus for such an action. bainer should not have edited a protected page unless s/he in good faith belived that the edit was supported by a clear consensus. Do we need a poll on this issue? I would hope not. DES ^(talk) 19:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Do we need a poll?!? Isn't that kind of like asking whether someone in the emergency room for broken limbs needs a good beating? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Apparently, we do, seeing as it's currently a protected redirect. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
      • And your proposed solution takes the form of a poll? The people who edit-warred the page and caused it to be protected (Mangoe, Tony Sidaway, DESiegel, Crum375, MichaelLinnear, Tom harrison, Thebainer, Tbeatty, Amarkov and Jossi) were reverting rather than discussing, and they should have known better. That list includes five admins, one former admin, and at least one declared would-be-admin.

        Our method for dealing with disputes is (a) stop reverting, preferably without getting the page protected first, and then (b) discussing and trying to reach consensus. I think we ought to at least try that method before handing our decisions over to the tyranny of the majority, unless we're actually aiming for hypocrisy. The page can remain protected (in The Wrong Version, of course) while we discuss, since we seem incapable as a community of controlling ourselves on this issue. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

        • I at least reverted while discussing, and I only reverted changes that seemed to me to be clarly made withotu or agaisnt a consensus on this page. As to whther this should be a redir or be left with teh rejected tag, or soem other tag, i am quite willign to continue discussion. i thought I saw consensus above, it seems I may have been premature. I still think that leaving the proposal avaialble, neither deelted nor redirected, but with a proepr tag, PLUS a pointer to WP:NPA or wherever further discussion may have gone, is the best route. DES ^(talk) 00:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
          • For the record, I put in the protect request. But it's clear that this is not developing consensus, either here or elsewhere. Indeed, what has happened is that the discussion has pretty much abandoned this venue, with the only remaining point being how to mark the failure to progress. My problem with the redirect is that the first thing one sees upon entering "Wikipedia:Attack sites" is "This page documents an official policy on the English Wikipedia." It gives the impression that there is already some official policy on the matter, when at best the existence of such a policy is disputed. Mangoe 00:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
          • I agree, it seems that this is an inappropriate state to leave this in. — MichaelLinnear 01:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
            • DES: I don't doubt that you edit warred in good faith. Whenever I do it, it's in good faith. The page is protected.
            • MichaelLinnear: Of course it's in an inappropriate state. That's because both proposed states are inappropriate, to different people and for different reasons, and we haven't figured out a solution yet. Since we can't stop reverting while looking for the solution, the page is protected. That's as it should be. It forces us to work towards consensus, even when we'd prefer not to.
            • Mangoe, I appreciate that you requested protection; that was a good idea. Now, you say that people will land at a policy page if they enter "Wikipedia:Attack sites" into the search box. I have to ask, why would they do that? Do you sit around making up names of potential policies and putting them in the search box to see whether anything comes up, and then somehow react badly if there's a policy tag wherever you land?

              What's a realistic scenario where somebody is actually misled, or even sees that redirect, unless they're in this discussion now? And if they are misled, what's the harm done, exactly? They might mistakenly believe that... "there is already some official policy on the matter"? Oh, noes.

              I don't understand the harm this redirect is supposed to do. I do understand the harm a "rejected" tag does, in continuing to be viewed, and linked to, and indexed by Google, while giving a terrible impression that it's somehow approved to link to "attack sites", (whatever that means)... rather funny, if you enjoy that sort of thing, but entirely inappropriate, and certainly unrelated to building a better encyclopedia. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

              • How about a tag similar to Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy and a soft redirect? hombre de haha 05:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) How about something completely different? I've just spent the evening reading the (actually rather interesting) history of WP:NPA and its talk pages and subpages. Perhaps this could become a subpage of that policy, with the "historical" or "rejected" tag attached. I don't know the practicalities of that, perhaps someone with page move/rename/subpage experience can confirm if this is possible. Risker 05:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the {{historical}} tag idea. I wonder whether those supporting and opposing the redirect could agree to that? I guess those calling for the page's deletion are unlikely to be pleased by anything other than deletion... -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think historical is probably okay. I would also put a disambiguation link to No Personal attacks. Under no cirumstances should it convey that attack sites are somehow okay to link to or create articles to promote them. --Tbeatty 06:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The historical tag and disambiguation sounds like a great idea. This seems to be as closest to a compromise as we've gotten so far. Hopefully, it'll make it. — MichaelLinnear 07:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think {{historical}} by itself conveys the full picture. That tag is used for proposals which become inactive, or lapse because of lack of interest. This page represents a proposal to have blanket bans over specified sites, and that has clearly failed to gain consensus (that much is evident from earlier in this thread), and that should be reflected in whatever message goes at the top. I would have thought that this would be sufficient, but failing that, perhaps something like what follows. --bainer (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This particular form of this proposal has been rejected by the community, that is, consensus to support is not present and seems unlikely to form. However, a different form of the proposal has been incorporated at Wikipedia:No personal attacks. This page is retained primarily for historical interest.

• There is now at last one link to this page from an active policy page, citing its rejection. It is therefore more important than ever, IMO, to stop hiding this behind a redirect. I propose to restore the rejected version if no one gives a reason not to do so fairly soon. DES ^(talk) 21:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, if you're referring to Wikipedia:Blocking policy, you added that passage yourself,[7] so I don't see that you can claim that because it's there now, it's "more important than ever" to stop redirecting. I disagree with your addition to that page, by the way. I think it's quite dangerous to have a wording that might give people the impression that it's okay to post a link that will allow would-be stalkers to find out the names and addresses of prominent Wikipedians in two further clicks. As for giving a reason, a lot of people have already given reasons, in this very section, the most important one being a concern for the safety of our fellow editors. ElinorD (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Elinor on both counts. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Policy

I don't know why this hasn't yet been tagged as policy, but I've taken the step of tagging it as such now. Fundamental policy isn't subject to negotiation. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. --Tony Sidaway 14:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Link farms have nothing to do with this. All of the actual examples are single mentions; some are citations. THere is no consensus that this represents policy. Mangoe 14:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

In the sense that links to attack sites don't hang around on Wikipedia, it is policy. --Tony Sidaway 14:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and WP:NPA covers this quite well already. We don't need an additional policy page for this, we have one already. And in that sense, this page is not policy. --Conti|✉ 14:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. No personal attacks does cover it. --Tony Sidaway 14:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If policy "isn't subject to negotiation", just where does it come from? Did God inscribe it on stone tablets to be brought down from Mount Sinai? Declaring that something is policy when it not only fails to have consensus for it, but in fact has what seems to be an overwhelming consensus against it, is highly arrogant, making it seem like you consider yourself qualified to declare something policy just because you say so. (But your later move of redirecting this to WP:NPA is much more reasonable.) *Dan T.* 17:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New forum

This debate is now being reopened at Wikipedia:No personal attacks. See Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks#Attack sites DES ^(talk) 19:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

...and is already going around the same circles as the debate here. That's the downside of doing this redirect... it just moves the argument, like a lump in a carpet that is stomped on and which then pops up at a different part of the carpet. It doesn't seem like it's ever going to end, at least until somebody with greater power (like the ArbCom or Jimbo) steps in and orders everybody to just sit down and shut up and accept whatever variant of the policy they impose from up high. *Dan T.* 21:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

In that this proposed policy has any validity, it is an instance of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. It's appropriate to concentrate discussion in one place rather than distribute it.

Needless to say, we all feel in good faith that personally attacking Wikipedians is very wrong indeed, and obviously we don't support the use of external websites as a proxy to perform such attacks. But we may have quibbles over the dots and commas so it's appropriate to discuss it in the right place. --Tony Sidaway 22:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem I have with that is that there have been a rash of changes to the WP:NPA policy since this discussion was moved over, there without any clear consensus on the talk page for that policy. I'd rather this get hashed out somewhere other than the middle of a currently accepted policy, personally, although I agree that NPA makes sense as an ultimate destination for this issue. JavaTenor 19:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I've changed it to say "rejected" and point to the new discussion. Mangoe 02:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It hasn't been rejected. It is de facto policy, supported by arbcom and current practice. Since it is being merged into npa, redirecting there is the best choice. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus behind your claim, but that's beside the point. The fact is that in this form consensus could not be obtained; hence, it is rejected. Mangoe 03:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather see the "rejected" tag on it too, so it is perfectly clear that this is not policy. Risker 20:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not as if having it as a redirect will cause people to think it's policy - they won't see it at all that way. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

A redirect implies a merge, obstructs people following links from discussion pages and elsewhere and ignores that the proposal in this form is rejected (in the sense that it does not have consensus and is unlikely to achieve consensus). I've only ever seen redirects used on policy proposal pages when the proposal succeeded and the material was merged into another policy page. What would be the problem with my suggestion a couple of sections above, for having both the rejected tag and a message explaining that much of the substance of the proposal is being incorporated into other policy pages (as in this version)? --bainer (talk) 03:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't find the "redirect implies merge" argument very convincing. For one thing, some ideas generated at this page have been or are being merged into WP:NPA, so implying a merge isn't entirely inaccurate. Also... "implies" to whom? Who actually looks at the page from which they were redirected? There are only 34 incoming links, and unlikely to be more.

There's little advantage to keeping it tagged as rejected, and some disadvantage, because it kind of looks as if we're saying that it's generally ok to link to the sites in question, which isn't the case. There's certainly no requirement to keep it as a rejected proposal, and I don't see any compelling reason to do so. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The shortcuts were also altered to point to WP:NPA, and there is also significant discussion on the mailing list about this. And yes, in te case of policy proposals, being turned into a redirect - especially a redirect to a policy page - does imply that the proposal has gained consensus and has been merged, which is not the case here.

You still haven't explained why having both the rejected tag and some message (the wording can be improved if you don't like it) explaining that much of the substance is being worked on elsewhere would not be a better way to accommodate all of the views here than a plain redirect. --bainer (talk) 06:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason is that a "rejected" tag makes it appear that the community decided that the links we're discussing are generally approved and ok, which is not the case. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I said "both the rejected tag and some message... explaining that much of the substance is being worked on elsewhere". I agree that having the rejected tag alone would be misleading (and I said so a couple of sections above), but that's not what I'm suggesting. --bainer (talk) 05:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right, you did say that; I'm sorry for being dense. I think the middle tag helps, but I'm not sure it's enough. It certainly isn't enough for a good handful of people. I believe this is the point I'm trying to address below in #New forum, in my de-indenting reply to DES. The problem isn't just giving a bad impression, but also warehousing this proposal and exhaustive discussion about sites that allow or encourage "outing" of Wikipedians. WP:BEANS would have us delete the proposal and talk page entirely, if one carries that train of thought to its logical end. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Umm...Redirects from pages with content normally imply a merge. The exception to this is redirects created to lead readers who misspell a word to the right page (for example: Richard _g_ere redirects to Richard _G_ere). I think it is important that it be shown for exactly what it is - a proposed policy that was rejected. The existence of the "rejected" tag serves as a cautionary tale to future editors - as a classic example of how NOT to start a policy discussion. There is still considerable debate on how much of what is proposed here will actually wind up in the other article. It could be one line, it could be one paragraph; it's unlikely to be much more. Risker 05:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't find your argument compelling. Maybe more people will see it your way; I don't know. I don't think it's so important to keep this particular misguided policy proposal around for future editors to learn from; Wikipedia is not a school of governance. I fail to see that delivering a "cautionary tale" is more important than avoiding the false impressions created by the "rejected" tag. It's like you want this page to wear a Scarlet Letter so everybody can see just what a bad idea it is. The sensible approach is to cover up the pot of BEANS and walk quickly away from it. That means redirecting. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Thank you, GTBacchus. In the over-broad form in which Denny proposed this, it didn't have much chance, but many people thought that there was something there that could be worked on. Some of those who opposed it were hastily trying to mark it publicly as rejected. In fact, the discussion had not really finished. I didn't particularly support it in the form it was in, but did support the idea of something based on it. If it had not been redirected by Tony Sidaway, it's quite likely that we would still be discussing it. Most of the supporters, however, seemed happy enough to take their comments to the NPA talk page, instead. And the page protection, combined with the redirect, temporarily caused people to lose interest. As the page is now protected, and some people feel they would be happy just getting a clear wording in WP:NPA, it's unlikely that this page is now going to be sufficiently worked on to keep the debate alive. But while it had failed to get consensus, it had not been rejected. There was, in fact, quite a lot of support for the basic idea, as something that could have been worked on. The discussion was prematurely cut short by the redirect. I'm not arguing that that was a bad thing. But just as there's a difference in RfAs between "failed" and "did not succeed", I think it's inaccurate to describe this as "rejected". And most important of all is GTBacchus's point that having it marked as rejected might give the impression that it's generally okay to link to these sites. ElinorD (talk) 05:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

...which is why it should include both the rejected tag and a notice saying that the substance is being incorporated elsewhere. See the discussion a couple of threads above: the proposal in this form is clearly rejected. Not that it's even necessary to have a consensus the other way; any proposal that fails to get a supporting consensus - and is unlikely to get consensus - is rejected, and this clearly fits that bill. --bainer (talk) 06:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You're not really responding to the thrust of my argument - why does keeping this particular case around as a "cautionary tale" outweigh the disadvantage of the wrong impression generated? There's no rule saying that any proposal not accepted must be tagged as rejected, and we've provided reasons to redirect it instead, so you need to provide a reason to tag it as rejected beyond the fact that it's no longer being considered in this form. That's not an argument that addresses any of the concerns being raised. Are the concerns not being made clearly enough? -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ther is IMO no wrong imnpression generated. it is clear both here and in the furhte discussion on WP:NPA that the idea of a blanket ban on all references to or even links to so called "attack sites" under any and all circumstances does not have community consensus, and that only a more nuanced and case-by-case and link-by-link versionwill achieve consensus. This page should be preserved, with its rejected tag, so that it can be clear in future just waht was proposed and rejected. This means that the argumetns of both those who favored the proposal, and those who opposed it, should be preserved, for future reference, and so that future attempts to buid or change consensus need not reinvent these wheels, but can start by addressing the argumetns and views already propounded. DES ^(talk) 00:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and this is how policy proposals are always treated, no matter what happens to them. It's also why we don't delete them if they are rejected or if they become inactive. In the future people need to know what has already been discussed. --bainer (talk) 05:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict and de-indent) DES, I posted a reply in a section above before reading your remark here, and I repeated the point you're arguing against here. I wasn't ignoring you; I just hadn't scrolled down that far yet.

I have a lot of sympathy for the "historical value" argument, and those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. However, I'm not convinced that there's "no wrong impression", and I don't think that's the only possible harm, either. I'm kind of torn on the question.

The idea behind redirecting is placing harm reduction first, right? We're talking about the problem of dirt, and sites where people try to find dirt on Wikipedians, so we don't want to leave a big pile of dirt sitting here full of BEANS. This train of thought, carried to its logical end, leads to calls for deletion of this page, as below.

The idea behind keeping the page in rejected form is that people can see what went wrong and how not to propose policy in the future. That's valuable, but it's a very diffuse and non-specific benefit that it delivers. Is that sufficient to outweigh a somewhat more concrete potential disadvantage, of facilitating harassment and "outing"? I guess that's what we're talking about. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just as a note of reference

I know know of the existence of many more attack sites than I used to. If I wanted to, I could do various bad things using the information I can find. So, I am now more exposed to attack sites by this proposal to lessen exposure to attack sites. There's now a meta-discussion somewhere about whether the NOR page should be protected in the version demanding no links to attack sites, widening the net more. Just wait until an Arbcom case, which will of course bring huge publicity to the attack sites we don't want people to see...

...does anyone get my point? -Amarkov moo! 05:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you appear to be saying we must allow attack sites on Wikipedia otherwise we'll be exposing people to personal attacks. Or am I missing something? --Tony Sidaway 10:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

So a free for all will protect wikipedians???? Sophia 10:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think he's saying this proposal is the biggest pot of WP:BEANS that we've had yet. The policy is not effective enough to offset the increased awareness of attack sites that's been raised by its proposal. We've given them publicity that this proposal is powerless to take away. Frise 10:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delete this page

This page and its talk page should be deleted. WAS 4.250 06:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right. Is this page indexed by Google? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Why?--MONGO 07:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It's another way for more people to find their way to the very attacks we're talking about. Beans, beans, beans. Maybe WAS 4.250 was thinking of something else, but that's what I'm thinking. Does that not make sense? -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't see how this has made ED, WR or WW more noticed...the websites are there, have been there and will continue to be there...but the point is that linking to them does exactly what to help us write/administer this encyclopedic effort. It's best to leave it as a redirect to NPA.--MONGO 07:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the more time we spend talking about them, the more we pass edits of this page through "Recent changes", potentially bringing this issue to the attention of one more person who had previously never heard of ED, WW, or WR, and now might go read them out of curiousity. If Google indexes this page, then anybody searching for WR can find our conversation here, and find directions to more harassing/"outing" sites.

I haven't made the claim that linking directly to one of those sites helps us with the project, so I can't really answer your question on that point.

I opposed the promotion of this page because I think rules such as the one suggested here tend to have more bad effects than good. They tend to empower those identified as "enemies" by focusing more energy on the conflict and steepening the drama gradient, thus making outbreaks of conflict more likely. You may disagree, but that's how I think about these things, based on my understanding of conflict and drama.

We're better off keeping our NPA policy lightweight and flexible, helping educate editors about the dangers of posting personal information, and making sure featues such as RFO are easy to find, so editors finding personal information that needs to be removed discreetly can get it done without announcing its presence first to every troll on the Internet by posting to AN/I (as ElinorD explained above). -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Since when are rejected policy pages deleted? GWFeeley 12:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the rationale and policy reason for suggesting it be deleted, also? Just throwing out something like that, "This should be deleted" is the hallmark of a troll's comment, in and of itself, as it encourages pointless and circuitous fighting. GWFeeley 12:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Wha? "The hallmark of a troll's comment"? WAS 4.250 was just making a suggestion; I see no reason to attack him for it. It's not like anybody's preventing us from discussing the idea on merits. It may not be the case that most rejected policy pages are deleted, but that's no reason to decide what to do on a case-by-case basis. If there are good reasons to delete this, then we'll delete it, otherwise not. There's certainly no harm talking about it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleting sounds an excellent idea and I strongly support it, SqueakBox 17:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• I strongly oppsoe deelting this talk page, and can see no policy basis for doing so. policy and process are formed by consensus, and if prior discusiions ar deelted, it is impossible to find out what the consensus really is, or to rais the issue again in an attempt to change consensus. DES ^(talk) 00:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• I do not think this should be deleted. I have suggested above that this proposal (marked historical or rejected) and its talk pages be made a subpage of the NPA policy. Risker 05:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rejection revisited

So here we are again. The lock on the page has expired, and the fate of this can be considered anew.

I am willing to accept the redirection if and when WP:NPA incorporates some version of this proposal. It's not at all clear that any such thing will happen; at this point it looks as though the discussion there is simply a continuation of the discussion here, and that there's a fair chance that it will also end in a lack of consensus. It has been discussed at length how the redirect creates the false impression that this proposal essentially passed. Therefore this proposal should go back to being tagged as rejected, for lack of consensus. It can point to the WP:NPA discussion, but that is all. Mangoe 15:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The point I have raised there is that lack of consensus should default to the safe postion - ban links to these sites. Sophia 15:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I've mentioned this several times already: noone has disagreed that the existing policy is more than sufficient to cover any malicious or malfeasant linking to inappropriate external content. The remaining issue is innocent or unintentional linking to such material and it is that question which is the locus of the dispute. Until that is resolved the default position must be that which everyone agrees on - which is that malicious or malfeasant linking is not permitted. --bainer (talk) 03:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

So will anyone object if the "Rejected" tag is put back? Risker 04:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm in full support. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose it, and it's obvious from comments all over this page, which have not been retracted, that several others do as well. ElinorD (talk) 04:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Mangoe, you said "it creates the false impression that this proposal essentially passed. I ask again: it creates that impression for whom? Can you provide any credible story where someone is misled by that redirect, and there's somehow a bad consequence? Who's going to link to Wikipedia:Attack sites or search for "Wikipedia:Attack sites"? If someone does, and gets redirected to WP:NPA, and that gives them the impression that there may be (or may have once been) discussion of something called "attack sites" in that policy, then so what?

If they actually care, and bother to dig through talk pages and history to find this dispute, they'll be disabused of the false impression you seem so concerned to protect them from. I don't understand your point. It's like you want the page to be visible with a scarlet "A" on it so everyone can see that we don't forbid linking to so-called attack sites, even though we're all agreeing that it's almost never helpful to actually do so.

Why not just let it die? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. And, as I've said elsewhere on this page, it's far from clear that this was rejected. Several people thought that there was something that could be worked on, while not necessarily endorsing the exact wording; there was quite a lot of edit warring and of argument on the talk page. People disputed that it had been truly rejected, and felt it should be discussed further. Then, a little prematurely, someone redirected it. Several people who had been in favour of some version of this page (while acknowledging that modifications would be appropriate) accepted the redirect, and took their arguments to the other page. That is the reason that they stopped working on this page. Personally, I'm happy with the redirect, but if we're not having a redirect, then we should go back to discussing what there is in this essay / proposed guideline / proposed policy that needs to be worked on. I've been unhappy all along with the broad use of the word "attack", as the issue that Denny presumably was trying to deal with was that of posting links to a site which engaged in "outing" anonymous editors. But the discussion stopped not because the proposal was clearly rejected, but because the redirect meant that we began to discuss the issue elsewhere. ElinorD (talk) 04:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

ElinorD, I'm wondering if you saw what I wrote just above; I've seen noone disagree that malicious or intentional linking to inappropriate content is bad, just that innocent or unintentional linking is not necessarily so, and that's really what the dispute is about. I think I mentioned this to DES a couple of sections above, that both a redirect to a policy page and a plain {{rejected}} tag would be misleading, and then I suggested that a more precisely worded tag would be appropriate (that only this form is rejected, but the substance still has support). Would you support some tag like this? The wording is open to suggestions of course. --bainer (talk) 05:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't let Elinor distract you - I'm still waiting to hear just who is supposed to be misled by a redirect, and what the harm is in that unlikely event. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone following links to this page, or reading any of the extensive discussion about this on-wiki or on the mailing list. A rejected proposal should not redirect to a policy page. --bainer (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

About 30 pages, mostly user talk pages that are frequently archived, link here. You've answered less than half of the question. These people following these links, what kind of false impression are they going to get, and how is that harmful?

Saying, "a rejected proposal should not redirect to a policy page," categorically like that reminds me of saying categorically that we should never link to any so-called "attack site". I think a case-by-case approach is better in both cases. In this case, some of us have been arguing that it's better to redirect, so let's talk about this case. How does the redirect hurt? -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Because it's misleading due to the idea that there was consensus to redirect it aywhere, or that the idea could be replaced by simply pointing it elsewhere, and because consensus was overwhelmingly to reject it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

And because it gives the impression, unless someone reads WP:NPA very carefully, that a policy against "attack sites" has been enacted. Conversely, I don't see what the problem is with being up front about the status of this: it has failed to get consensus, and discussion has moved to WP:NPA. Mangoe 13:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think what the problem is has been repeated several times. To have a page saying "Rejected" right above "Don't link to attack sites" makes it look quite a bit like linking to attack sites is somehow condoned or cool, when that's not the case. The reason this proposal didn't go forward it quite a bit subtler than that; so there's your "false impressions". Furthermore, keeping this page up is a big old pot of WP:BEANS in the sense that, as long as it's been talked about, and linked to, and indexed in search engines, it makes it more likely that people will learn about sites where outing of Wikipedians goes on, which is precisely what we'd rather avoid.

As for your answers regarding the harm in the redirect, I'm not seeing it. I'm still trying to figure out who's going to see this redirect, and what actual harm comes about. So what if someone is under the impression that we have some kind of policy relating to something called "attack sites"? What's the actual negative consequence? Are they going to freak out and start... doing what? I don't get it. Jeff and Mangoe both, why is it bad if someone (who doesn't read very carefully) thinks there was either consensus for a redirect (which I'm trying to build now) or that we "enacted" some kind of policy regarding "attack sites" (whatever any of that means)? I'm looking for an actual harm, not just a false impression that has no effect in the world. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You can't make the argument that there is no harm in a redirect because noone will be following links to the page, and at the same time argue that you can't tag it as rejected because of all the people that will follow links to the page and get the wrong impression.

Now can you please address the idea that I have raised a number of times now, of having a customised tag that makes it clear that this particular wording is rejected but much of the substance is being incorporated elsewhere? Both extremes, redirecting and tagging only with {{rejected}}, would be misleading. What is wrong with using a more accurate tag? --bainer (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This may be controversial so can you please say exactly what the tag would say, SqueakBox 15:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Bainer, actually I can make that argument. The redirect is pretty much invisible; a page with a rejected tag on it is indexed by search engines. As long as it's sitting there with content on it, the chances are much greater that people read it, link to it, get ideas from it, etc. A redirect does not constitute BEANS; the proposal does.

I note that nobody has established any credible story where a redirect leads to an actual bad consequence. I'm pretty sure nobody can come up with such a scenario.

The custom tag... I'm not necessarily opposed to that. I think the redirect is better, and I think the argument that the redirect implies anything to anybody is silly, but you're right that a custom tag is better than simply a rejected tag.

By the way, what about "historical" as opposed to "rejected"? Is that an option? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Some very good points in what GTBacchus is saying. For the record, I completely agree with Crum375 redirecting it, and I'm sorry to see another administrator using rollback on Crum's edit. ElinorD (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with this proposed policy and I would like it to be permanently rejected. Removing direct links to attack pages it's ok, but removing generic links to sites that may contain somewhere attacks to wikipedians is unacceptable and should be considered ad a vandalism. So, either delete it, or make it a redirect, or at least let me remove that 'nutshell' box please. --Twilight 14:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Twilight, I think you are misunderstanding something. The argument is not for deleting links to sites "that may contain" attacks somewhere. The argument is for deleting links to sites that are run by people who harass Wikipedians by publishing their real names, photos, etc. Sites that engage in the practice of publishing private information about Wikipedians — not sites that have something completely legitimate as their regular business, but that have somewhere a page which attacks someone. ElinorD (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

ElinorD, with due respect, I think Twilight's message is valid - he has defined exactly how this rejected policy has been used by some individuals, and even administrators. Having said that, it is indeed a *rejected* policy as it stands, while relevant content has been included elsewhere. I'd encourage everyone to stay with the subject of this section, which is whether this *rejected* policy should simply say that it is rejected, or if it should be redirected elsewhere. Whether or not it is redirected, the customized *rejected* tag should remain in place. Risker 15:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please review new proposal

Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment has been fleshed out with some more comprehensive general restrictions, and specific exemptions. Please have a look. ←Ben^B4 06:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)