Wikipedia talk:Attack sites/Archive 3

message: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification with regard to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO
Request for clarification filed. - Denny (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requests for clarification with regard to [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO]] 

message: If we had an article on someone, they would be subject to BLP. If there was a website that said, "Jane Doe is an inbred cock mongler, and I will sue him for screwing with me! Also, his birth name is actually John Doe!" we obviously would not link to this site. 
Why is it any different with a site that says, "User:Jane Doe is an inbred cock mongler, and I will sue him for screwing with me! Also, his birth name is actually John Doe!" Why should the editors here not be granted this protection from harassment? - Denny (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're already got that protection.  We can remove harassing links without any new policy, and all the unintended consequences that it carries with it. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You get it. This essay was to define what is an attack site--so that anyone can reasonably and without concern excise attack/hate material from the encyclopedia (as I wrote the essay, that is!). - Denny (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An essay is one thing, a policy proposal another and policy something completely different altogether, SqueakBox 18:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Anybody can already, reasonably and without concern, excise any kind of harassing material. No new policy is required for that. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's the hitch: people ARE opposing removal of such content. Hence, this is needed to clearly define what can be removed without fear of partisan reversion. - Denny (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it not be better to allow editors the freedom to make these choices on a case by case basis? SqueakBox 19:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when is NPA/harassment a consensus matter? - Denny (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well since people opposed the removal of such content (ie you answered the question yourself in your above comment), SqueakBox 19:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Denny, example, please? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: , , ,  for example. It seems some editors are now watching my contributions, so I could I suspect generate more diffs of this nature, if you needed, by simply enforcing policy. - Denny (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thatr wasnt enfoprcing policy it was enforcing your proposed policy. Please get your facts straight before posting here, SqueakBox 19:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, those are good examples of your overreaching enforcement of this "policy" before it has even become a policy. *Dan T.* 19:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Denny, as for generating more examples, I wouldn't recommend it. The links you were removing were hardly "promotion". They look to me more like archived discussions and Wikipedians going about our business. Letting sleeping dogs lie is very smart, sometimes. Your removal of those links caused many more people to see them than leaving them alone would have. More importantly, those are not examples of harassment. If somebody is linking to WR for harassment, that's one thing, but that's not what we're looking at here. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Replying to all at once: I restored the first link that Sqeeak removed for some reason. This essay/proposed policy does nothing more than define what is an attack site. Everything else is already supporting such removals in other policies or precedent. I simply cited this page instead of multiple other ones. Links to hate/attack sites can be removed by anyone by existing policy and precedent. We don't provide advocacy for trolls and attack sites. - Denny (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which of those links you removed consisted of "advocacy for trolls and attack sites"?  Would you rather have good intentions, or bring about good consequences? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Not allowing such a link in an article is not to protect the biographed living person, but to protect us from getting sued - and because it has no merit for the article. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's both. BLP is intended to protect us, and the subject, from harm. I see no reason editors shouldn't have the same protections. - Denny (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your proposal doesnt protect editors from harm in a BLP way, SqueakBox 19:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Character attacks. Why are you opposed to giving editors protection? - Denny (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Opposing this policy" does not equal "opposing giving editors protection" or "condoning harassment" or "promoting hate sites." That's the fundamental mistake you keep making in this discussion. Frise 19:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: (ec)That's a rather cheap shot, Denny. To say that anybody opposed to making your essay into a guideline is opposed to giving editors protection is neither accurate nor fair. As noted several times, protection already exists; what doesn't already exist is a misguided policy that's prone to unintended consequences and to perpetuating the drama it purports to oppose. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (my ec too) Absolutely right. We all want to protect editors and ensure there safety and well being here (which is also a good faith assumption) and nobody has the right to assume those who oppose this policy do not care about the saftey and well-being of fellow editors (which would be to assume bad faith on the part of contributors here), SqueakBox 19:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Where does WP:BLP talk about protecting the biographed persons? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia." - Denny (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: User:Mangoe has filed for arbitration about Wikipedia:Attack sites at this address. - Denny (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for not bringing this to everyone's attention myself- wife wanting to know when I'll be home and all that. Mangoe 20:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if its appropriate but I did the notifications. Shit happens, as they say. :) - Denny (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Aren't there intermediate steps before going to arbitration? --Mantanmoreland 20:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're generally supposed to show that other dispute resolution steps have been attempted.  In this case, I don't believe there's been an RfC, or any attempt at mediation.  Perhaps I just didn't see it. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I confess to having shortcut things a bit, and if they say "take it elsewhere", that's what will happen, of course. However since the arbcom decisions on previous cases are being used as the basis for this, it seems inevitable that it's going to end up back there anyway. Mangoe 20:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not even sure there is really a dispute over this essay, at least by my reading of the Arb request. --Mantanmoreland 21:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't think there is, all the essay does really is clarify in a four sentences what an attack site is. The rest is just reiteration of what past policy/precedent already empowers anyone to do to that attack/hate content. The ArbCom as I read it is over actions on this talk page. - Denny (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

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

message: I dont think it is acceptable to be mentioning a user on a proposed policy page. This could be interpreted as a harrassment of MONGO, SqueakBox 22:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's laughable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And of Badlydrawnjeff, SqueakBox 22:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: For reasons that are moot now, the case in which ArbCom first addressed some of the issues that are the subject of this essay was captioned Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO. If the decision is to be mentioned, there will be no way to avoid linking to the case, but I agree there is no reason to mention a specific user's name in the essay itself. Newyorkbrad 22:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So when people click, they see his username anyway.  Again, how really silly.  How many contortions are we going to make here? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone mentioned in that arbcom case might feel harrassed by having the page and their alleged wrongdoings made public in this way and it is especially unfair to PrivateEditor and Rootology who have been indefinitely banned and thus cant express their opinioon here. Perhaps the arbcom should comment on the fact that if Requests for arbitration/MONGO is to be used a s a policy or to justify a policy that a separate page should be linked to that avoids giving out personal and entirely unnecessary details of wikipedia editors. Otherweise we are in danger perpetuating the problem we are trying to resolve (ie making wikipedia a safe place to edit), SqueakBox 22:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This assumes there's a problem to perpetuate, especially when it comes to our own internal dealings. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think arbcom is a very difficult place for a user to be and that there are users for whom the whole process of being in front of the arbcom would be very difficult and to then have that publicised in a policy page would surely be making those users feel less safe, or some of them, SqueakBox 23:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  These are banned users, and they are not identified other than by username.  The problem is minimal.  Unless, of course, some external site "outs" their real identity... Guy (Help!) 22:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Please can Denny comment here befopre unilaterally inserting the name of a user in the proposal policy. How does this protect MONGO? It could be argued that syuch a move harrasses MONGO, SqueakBox 23:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh for heavens sake. I'll leave him a note asking him. If he doesn't think it's harassment it should go back in, if he does, it should go out. - Denny (talk) 23:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: We link to arbcom cases all the time...being indefinitely banned is their own fault anyway and Rootology has been banned several times since for sock puppeting/ban evasion. I can't see what there is to protect in regards to me or them. It's a easily located onwiki arbitration case and ot likely to be deleted.--MONGO 17:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not on policy pages we dont. And if I am wrong please give an example, SqueakBox 17:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mention of MONGO

message: You know, leaving an edit summary that says "Don't edit war!" on a revert that's part of an edit war might not have the effect you're shooting for. Just saying, is all. Frise 03:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And just where and how is anybody supposed to "discuss" it before reverting again?  Isn't that what we've been doing all along?  I think there are more people against that censorship than for it, but the pro-censor forces are more vigorous in their actions and threats. *Dan T.* 03:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And, it appears, have the powers necessary to carry out their threats. Frankly, I don't see that there is much more to say here. My offerings of evidence that the censorship is uncalled for are being censored in name of applying the finding whose refutation requires the evidence that I'm not being allowed to represent in the name of the finding. If that isn't a classic Catch-22, I don't know what is. The conflict of interest sits spang in the middle of the discussion, and it's quite clear that there's never going to be the slightest acknowledgement of it by the culprits. Meanwhile WP:EXR sails through this, with nobody daring to apply this supposed policy to it. Since that's what I was trying to protect in the first place, I suppose I should count my blessings and withdraw from the fray while I can still edit. Besides, it's past my bedtime. Mangoe 04:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm attempting to determine how the original edit of the comment in question conforms to WP:TALK#Others.27_comments, given that WP:BADSITES is not, to my understanding, currently an official policy or guideline. JavaTenor 04:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if my edit was ironic but I was just trying to stop you guys from changing it so much and violating 3RR. I thought that one section for the discussion would be more appropriate than the discussion being all over the place and people disagreeing. The edit has nothing to do with my personal point of view. --KZTalk• Contribs 04:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mine was a lighthearted comment. Frise 04:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Warring 

message: # - Denny (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Agree

message: * *Dan T.* 03:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disagree

message: * Question is deliberately loaded, so not sure...since we are still discussing and this poll is meaningless, not sure.--MONGO 04:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not sure

message: * Except within the context of mentioning the attack site for administrative purposes, such as on this page, on ANI, or in an Arbcom setting, links to attack sites should be removed.  But it would be silly, for example, to say "we're desysopping someone because of what they said at a site that we can't talk about." --BigDT 04:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Silly question

message: A poll with a loaded partisan question that is "decided" in <24 hours is funny. - Denny (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Loaded partisan"? As opposed to the two rhetorical questions you're asking below? —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 14:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Real Conclusion

message: I've found a number of forum posts on a site which could qualify that site as an attack site under the guideline being discussed.  It's my understanding that it would be a blockable offense to link to those posts, link to the site in general, mention the site by name, etc.  Should I also avoid linking to the site's Wikipedia entry?  If so, what should be done about other pages linking to that entry?  Thanks!  JavaTenor 07:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course you can link to the wikipedia site as wikipedia is exempt from the Bad Site proposal and there is no precedent for not allowing internal links, SqueakBox 15:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In that case, the site in question is Free Republic.  I'm not going to link to the posts there which might constitute attack posts, (for, I think, obvious reasons - if people want to find them, it's not especially difficult), but this does call into question how the proposed guideline ought to be applied to sites it defines as "attack sites" which are generally considered notable enough to have their own Wikipedia entries. JavaTenor 17:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for clarification  

message: Google searches may be linked to, what about a search using innocuous keywords? (possibly problematic link to Google removed by myself, pending further clarification) —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 13:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No different than linking to a magic keyword that happens to pull up a link that personally attacks Kncyu38. Not good, not good. - Denny (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a gigantic difference. We're talking about selectively censoring links to Google searches with certain keywords. You do see the dilemma, don't you? This was but an example, not meant to be elegant. Do you want to include this into the proposal? —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 13:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Two questions for you all. I especially challenge all who voted disagree on Dan Tobias's straw poll to stand by your convictions and reply. - Denny (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia and "real life" are not different things; editing Wikipedia is something people do in real life. Indeed, a lot of the controversialism in Wikipedia can be traced directly to people trying to use it to advance their "real life" causes. Mangoe 16:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two questions for everyone. 

message: # I think its reprehensible. - Denny (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1. What do you think of the fact that the sites try to 'out' editors identities there?

message: # Yes, it can cause material, personal, emotional, and tangible harm. Note that some editors such as User:Katefan0 even were harassed via their employers due to these monsters, and had to leave Wikipedia, and others have had IRL friends, associates, and employers also contacted. The anonymity of Wikipedia means that any of us should never, ever, never 'encounter' another of us in real life in any fashion unless we choose to. These hate site stalkers seek to take away that protection and hurt us. - Denny (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia and "real life" are not different things; editing Wikipedia is something people do in real life. Indeed, a lot of the controversialism in Wikipedia can be traced directly to people trying to use it to advance their "real life" causes. Mangoe 16:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2. Do you think think this is harmful? If not, why?

message: The two questions above hardly encompassed all relevant questions. *Dan T.* 14:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few more questions 

message: * Only where absolutely necessary, which probably extends only to an article specifically about such a site (where the site itself is sufficiently notable for this), and possibly where necessary to cite the specific things said by a specific person on such a site when that is judged to be a notable issue in another article.  Otherwise, such sites are not reliable sources and shouldn't be used as such, and certainly shouldn't be "spammed" into irrelevant places. *Dan T.* 14:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ...within the main Wikipedia article space?

message: * Judged on a case-by-case basis depending on relevance to the discussion and that it is not being used in a harrassing or abusive manner. *Dan T.* 14:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ...within talk pages?

message: * Probably not, when used on a user page to try to promote and encourage such sites, or even conversely to promote and encourage people to go to such sites and disrupt them; this isn't a productive use of Wikipedia.  Maybe when cited as a reference in user essays, if relevant and non-abusive. *Dan T.* 14:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ...within user pages and userspace?

message: * When relevant and constructive to the issue at hand. *Dan T.* 14:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ...within project pages such as AfD, RfA, etc.?

message: * Certainly... this is a canonical example of how a flat ban on such linkages is senseless and unfair, and tending to stifle one side of an argument. *Dan T.* 14:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ...within a page that is specifically debating a ban on linking to attack sites, where it may sometimes be considered by some to be useful to present specific examples?

message: Can people in this heated debate please try to avoid ad hominem arguments, arguments from authority, attempts to whip up moral panics, and so on, instead of rational discussion?  I know I've sometimes been guilty of getting too emotional and need to tone down my rhetoric a bit, but that should also apply to the other side. *Dan T.* 16:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The very essense of this debate is whether to reject claimed good content based on claimed tainted source. I submit that in each case the evidence must be examined rather than to allow a claim to go unchallenged as to the validity of either claim. WAS 4.250 20:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Styles of argument 

message: Websites such as wikipedia review and encyclopedia dramatica completely fail WP:RS. Not sure if this has been overlooked, but since we are here to write an encyclopedia, referencing is the same, across the board. Personal information that is published is reliable in most cases...ED and WR aren't published.--MONGO 16:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It hasn't been overlooked; I mentioned this explicitly in my comments above regarding links in main article space, where I concluded that they are in most cases not desirable due to the unreliability of the sources, except in special cases like where the site itself or the author of specific comments on the site are what it is being used as a source of.  However, talk and project pages are a different thing, not subject to the same standards (for instance, comments on a talk page aren't expected to be NPOV). *Dan T.* 16:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec)That is entirely relevant for main space but I dont believe it is relevant outside the main space, eg we link to google searches on talk pages though clearly a google search isnt a reliable source for main space so while WR fails RS for the main space for talk and official pages RS doesnt apply, SqueakBox 16:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Not entirely true. Reading WP:RS, these qualify as sources that can be used in limited circumstances, and the section that's probably most relevant quantifies it with "generally," noting that there are exceptions. Besides, the verifiability policy is the one that's the true directive, and it doesn't go against these in certain cases. And yes, those things are published. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like correcting you Jeff, but ED is not published, nor is WR.--MONGO 16:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you don't understand the word "published," unfortunately. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Publishing where it appears jeff is correct, SqueakBox 16:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Hum...no, that is actually not the case. Since they have no editorial oversight they are unreliable in all cases, no matter where they are posted. They fail WP:RS...it really is that simple. Unpublished opinions are useless to us.--MONGO 16:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to RS that is only so for BLP. Just because a (non-attacking) link on a talk page doesnt meet RS does not give any editor the right to tamper with another user's comments removing that link, and such a move would be considered vandalism. Users do not have to worry about RS for links to their user space either, SqueakBox 16:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you might want to reconsider your wording, Mongo.  Not being obstructionist or anything, but clearly if they are on the internet they are published - self-published, perhaps, but still published.  They might not meet the standard for WP:RS, but that is a different matter. In any case, I don't see what blocking users for linking to a particular source has to do with the reliable source policy. We already have policies in place for harassing people, and for tendentious editing (if they keep inserting an unacceptable source).  Risker 16:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I stated that these websites fail RS and they do.--MONGO 16:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except when they don't.  They are acceptable in some cases. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So we are to cherry pick which slander is reliable and which isn't? That won't work.--MONGO 17:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  I suggest reading WP:RS and WP:V to find your answers. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have in fact read them...thanks. It appears you are confusing reliablity of sources with verifiability of the information. If a website has posts made by anonymous "people" and/or is deliberately designed to be "comical" then they are useless as a reference base aside from to reference that the websites, etc. exist.--MONGO 17:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, so we're on the same page - they are acceptable as sources in some cases. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ....but since we have no article on ED, we don't have a reason to reference them, so yeah, we are on the same page.--MONGO 17:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One never knows.  That's why WP:RS and WP:V exist. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: and sadly:( we have no article on WR either so I guess we can scratch that one off the list of reliable sources too--MONGO 17:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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

message: From the many sections above, it is clear there is nothing resembling a consensus in the community to make or enforce a draconian, zero-tolerance ban on linking to "bad sites".  That seems to be why the proponents of such a ban are resorting to insisting that no consensus is needed or relevant because the ArbCom has spoken, and the law is the law... so siddown and shuddup!  Unfortunately for their side, ArbCom has hardly spoken with one consistent voice on this (only one site has actually gotten a majority decision for banning all links to it, and that not even unanimous; an effort to extend this to other sites was explicitly voted down), and ArbCom is not supposed to be the source of policy anyway.  *Dan T.* 16:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Arbcom dont make policy, they enforce current policy. They arent the lawmakers, they are the interpreters of already existent policy, SqueakBox 16:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus? 

message: See this comment.  Seems relatively clear-cut to me, but I'd appreciate thoughts from others involved in this discussion.  JavaTenor 18:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to me to be a finding that the Unspeakable Site is not identified as an "attack site" by arbcom, and that the various deletions of references to that site cannot be supported by reference to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO. Indeed, if the principle is to be followed that arbcom's decision is to be honored in the construction of this proposal, it is now dead, because as it stands this proposal is intended to ban the Unspeakable Site, and arbcom here opposes that. In any case the deletions of my reference to the site within this discussion are untenable. Mangoe 18:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Statement by one of twelve arbiters. Keep in mind, this has no bearing on the success/failure/acceptance of the proposed policy. It's just a clarification specifically of what that ruling meant. The community can and will still adopt any other policies it deems appropriate. - Denny (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest, however, that this posting implies that you may want to stop citing the ArbComm principles as a precedent in changes to established policy (and in general, I'd probably be cautious about making changes to established policy without first establishing a consensus for that change on the policy's talk page), and perhaps stop citing this proposed guideline in making changes to other users' talk-page comments, which appears to me to be a potentially disputed action based on WP:TALK#Others' comments. JavaTenor 18:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: Should we perhaps add wikipedia to the list of hate sites. I am thinking about its failure to remove tens of thousands of hate-spew attacks like this one, which is available in the public record for everyone to see just by snifing around a bit and which are surely intolerable attacks that make life unsafe for wikipedia editors, SqueakBox 19:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was reverted, and the abuser was indefinitely blocked forty-one minutes later. That shows the difference between Wikipedia and the what Denny calls "attack sites", SqueakBox. When Wikipedia administrators see that kind of stuff, we block and revert. If there's a privacy violation, rather than just a serious insult, we delete from page histories. The problem with the kind of sites that Denny seems to be talking about is that when privacy violations are posted, they're not immediately removed — in fact, they're not removed at all — and the abusers aren't blocked. In the case of one website, people who try to remove privacy violations are blocked. SqueakBox, if that link is causing you distress, please let me know, and I'll be extremely happy to remove it from the history of your page, even though it does not, as far as I can see, contain any personal information about you and your family. But speaking as someone who has been severely stalked in real life, as a result of someone discovering her identity here, not from an external site, I have to say that there are no "insults" posted to Wikipedians that can compare with the kind of harassment that can result from a sexual predator getting hold of your identity, workplace details, and elderly parents' address. A, it was removed, though not deleted from the history, and B, it was not something that could lead to real life stalking, as far as I can tell. Musical Linguist 12:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That's pretty horrible stuff. —  MichaelLinnear 20:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. I havent seen anything as bad in terms of attacks at WR. And while we do remove the attacks we dont mostly remove the history so actually the attack is only removed from public view not from wikipedia itself. My point also being that this former policy proposal wass unworkable and we should be looking at the logs in our own eyes before the specks in the eyes of others, SqueakBox 20:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That's also posted by a user that's since been blocked for obvious reasons. While such attacks do exist on Wikipedia, the site certainly doesn't promote or glorify them in the sort of way that WR and ED do. Besides, such a classification does nothing to help clarify this policy - this policy is supposed to list sites which should never be linked to; listing Wikipedia as such a site would be absurd. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And where appropriate a user can request that an administrator delete the edit—or if personal information or other grossly inappropriate content is present, request WP:OVERSIGHT to remove it altogether. Newyorkbrad 20:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well perhaps we should be seeing much more deletions of the record for this kind of material, ie lets get our own house in order rather than just focussing on those sites outside our control. I dont want to work for a project that is fundamentally seen a shypocritical and given we just bury rathert han delete personal attacks for the most part I would have thought we shopuld clean our own house first. Perhaps Denny could draft a proposal to enforce the deletion of all questionable attacks from the history log. It would make the arbcom's job much more difficult of course but that is another question, SqueakBox 20:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We cannot just erase what we don't want to see. User page is a part of GFDL, and therefore unless it violates privacy, we can't remove it. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 14:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's true. GFDL requires that we keep a record of who has contributed to the text of an article (and frankly, even so, arguments that problematic things need to be kept for GFDL considerations are generally based on a purely theoretical argument rather than a practical one). If a comment is going to be completely deleted, there is no need to keep it in the page history. Newyorkbrad 15:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia may be an attack site too

message: I support WAS's latest rejection edit and belueve the page talk consensus reflects this, SqueakBox 20:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Premature to reject? I am not sure. What do others think? SqueakBox 20:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I struck the tag for now because I believe that further discussion might be beneficial. I do agree though that a strong consensus in favor of the current version of the page does not seem to be imminent. Newyorkbrad 20:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further discussion wont do any harm and could indeed be useful but at least WAS has opened the debate and perhaps we should reject where, if anywhere, we are going with this, SqueakBox 20:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: "Rejected" doesn't necessarily mean that discussion is over. Changes may still be made to bring the proposal closer to being in line with consensus. However, I don't believe that this proposal has even come close to achieving consensus in its current form and major changes will be needed for that to happen. I believe marking it as rejected for right now is appropriate. Frise 20:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Second that. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 21:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Please clarify: Is it your position that consensus has been achieved regarding this proposal based on the current state of the discussion, or are you simply expressing your preference? JavaTenor 21:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Subject to correction, I read it as a statement that it's not yet clear that consensus on some version won't be achieved. Newyorkbrad 21:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

text: Do you have suggestions on how best to alert the "regulars" to the discussion here?  Has the proposal been underpublicized, and if so, what are the normal avenues by which to publicize such a discussion?  I notice it has been mentioned on wikien-l, but there may be on-wiki locations to which it ought to be added. JavaTenor 22:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  For example, would it be appropriate to add this page to Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion? JavaTenor 22:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Are you referring to WAS? I think he just thought the proposla was being so roundly rejected and wanted to reflect that. I think more discussion is good if we are precise about what else needs discusssing and how we are to make this proposal policy or reject it outright but to suggest something improper in the reject tag is ridiculous if not an bordering opnj being a sign of bad faith, SqueakBox 23:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can go after this further, but I have to say I can't see how this proposal is going to recover from having the central justification for the offending edits shot down. Either a rationale for excluding Wikipedia Review from the banned sites is going to have be constructed, or the discussion is going to have to create a consensus to overturn the arbcom clarification. The latter isn't going to happen as long as the principal players here remain the same, though this seems to be the current course of discussion. The former is in principle possible, but in practice nobody seems interested in pursuing it. So sure, we can let this sit around longer, but I'm not going to count on its successful revival. Mangoe 02:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this appears to be dead in the water and I have tagged it as such. —  MichaelLinnear 06:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, and I reverted it...let's have a little patience...this is hurting nothing either way, so cease tagging it as rejected.--MONGO 07:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Is rejected the wrong message, really? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is: "Rejected"? Ahh, guess it's all right to harass users by constantly linking to slander. By that I mean the essay makes a good point, and the point would be unfairly diminished by the trite "community doesn't give a fuck" template. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 14:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, now that I think about it, Wikipedia:Attack Links might be an appropriate compromise. Clarifies the stance on posting links to abusive commentary without   committing to an overall judgment of any site. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 14:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: I agree, there is no consensus for adding the rejected tag.--MONGO 17:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reject would be premature, SqueakBox 17:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no reason to rush to put any tag on it - the whole tagging fetish is not actually helpful, and tends to get us arguing about things that are several steps removed from improving Wikipedia. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rejected?

message: I'd like to ask: what is the purpose of this page?  As in, this page?  I'm well aware that the practice of unlinking/blacklisting "bad" sites of a variety of... varieties has the purpose of protecting Wikipedians from internet goofs who may or may not want to track them down and push into the gutter, or something, but what does the actual page accomplish?  So far it seems to do three things:
#Cause a bunch of fighting, in the form of sharp sarcasm, accusation of hidden, evil motives, and outright insults
#Promote and advertise the various attack pages on the talk pages of what has become one of the most actively read and edited Wikipedia/Wikipedia talk namespace pages
#...
So, what is this page actually doing that is helpful?  If it's anything, I'm missing it.  Milto LOL pia 01:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've wondered that too.  If someone is posting links to the unspeakable sites for the purpose of trolling, there is already a suitable instruction page for dealing with the problem - WP:RBI.  We don't need another instruction page to tell us to do that. --BigDT 02:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:RBI is an essay. And 'goofs' can cause real life harm. This page essentially codifies and explains existing practice. Crum375 02:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's current practice to add "attack" sites to the spam blacklist? Frise 02:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I concur, Miltopia, that it has not been helpful; there is policy and guideline already in place to cover every aspect of this issue, except of course to actually ban the use of references to (apparently) one particular website and stick it on the spam blacklist.  Although I am relieved that the other similar websites weren't really named during this debate for WP:BEANS reasons, I found it very curious that it all seemed to center on WR.  Risker 02:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because, none of the other sites that have been brought up here are even remotely defensible, as far as i can tell (though, it's not clear what WR's done that wikitruth hasn't). --Random832 03:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the purpose of this page?