Wikipedia talk:Linking to external harassment/Archive 1

message: A problem I see with implementation is, who decides what category a site falls in to?  Is WR okay and ED isn't, or both aren't?  And where would the Michael Moore thing go?  ←BenB4 02:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the end, there will always be disputes over the application, but if we could at least get consensus on some abstract guidelines, that would substantially help things.  As it is, every time one of these disputes comes up, people are debating both principle, policy, AND application all at the same time, and edit warring at the same time.  If we write up the parts of the debate that DO have consensus, that should give us a good framework for resolving future disputes.  --Alecmconroy 05:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drawing the line 

message: There are situations in which the identity of an editor is relevant to good faith criticism:
* Conflict of Interest: Editor posts material, such as links to his or her own published work, anonymously, circumventing COI scrutiny.
* Propagandists & publicists: Editor's real name would reveal a situation in which questions of being paid to edit for a 3rd party should be raised. These issues cannot be raised unless the editor's identity can be revealed.
--Pleasantville 12:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also the matter of the object of "Good Faith." Good faith to the WP project is not the same as good faith with respect to the person one might suspect of COI or being, say, a paid political operative. --Pleasantville 17:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Faith Criticism of Wikipedia Can Involve Revealing Some's Identity 

message: "It is worth noting that, in general, a site that engages in these practices is unlikely to fall within the definition of reliable sources for article content."
Proponents of BADSITES have often said "there's little chance these would be reliable sources for articles", used that to justify the policy, and then applied the policy to more than just articles.  I think this is falling into the same trap.  Such sites may be needed as sources in talk pages, policy discussions, and such even when they are not sources for articles. Ken Arromdee 14:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the solution is just to note, somewhere in this, that if a site meets the critera for a reliable source, it is a "criticism" site, not an "attack site".  Even if that "criticism" is impolite, rude, or hurtful-- meeting the criteria for being a reliable source is automatic proof that the link shouldn't be expunged. --Alecmconroy 11:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree.  If we prohibit linking to a New Yorker article because it outs a respected admin or anyone else, we have ceased to become an encyclopedia. ←BenB4 14:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure I follow. Do you think we should allow links to attack pages because they are considered reliable primary sources of the fact that they are an attack?  Unless there are reliable secondary sources, why should we? ←BenB4 16:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer, I think, is when a notable source of debatable reliability engages in attack/criticism.  For example, Michael Moore is notable and his official website is linked to, as a matter of course, in his biography article.  If Michael Moore makes a claim on his website, we might or might not agree that he is a RELIABLE source-- but we would agree he is a notable primary source, and his site should be linked to on those grounds. --Alecmconroy 17:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see what you are saying. I agree with you for talk pages, and I hope that you agree that a link to a page such as Michael Moore's was (if the harassment had not been on his front page) should not be included in any article.  I am not sure how to codify this.  I will take a tentative stab at it. ←BenB4 17:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Same problem as in the arbcom case 

message: "This policy affects only webpages or websites that engage in "outing" or call for editors to be harassed. "
One tweak that might be considered:  as worded, this would apply even to "good faith" outing sites, like Wikiscanner and NYT's outing of notable editors.  As wikipedia becomes more prominent, we can expect will be more outings of people.  The real-world journalists have a duty to report conflicts-of-interests when they discover them-- and there's nothing wrong with that.  
Instead, make it clear that outing by itself, absent intent to harass, isn't inherently verboten:
"This policy affects only webpages or websites that engage in "outing" for the purposes of harassment. " --Alecmconroy 11:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, outing for the purpose of making critical comments about, say, someone's subject area expertise should not be considered harassment as such. --Pleasantville 12:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A loophole like that would effectively void the policy. It'd be an excuse to out any editor. "Editor Joe, whose real name is Joe Blow, isn't listed as a member of the Consulting Engineers of America, therefore he has no justification for making those edits." The next logical progression might be, "Editor Joe doesn't even live in Poughkeepsie, so how can he dare to presume to edit this article. Records show he lives at 1212 Pine St., Pleasanton instead."  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 16:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point isn't that outing is NEVER a case of harassment.  The point is-- outing isn't ALWAYS a case of harassment either.  Other factors, like reliability, notability, and intention, must be considered.  The NYTimes and Wikiscanner have both engaged in multiple instances of "outing", but they have never harassed. --Alecmconroy 17:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not aware of anyone being outed by Wikiscanner, nor can I imagine we'd use it as a source for an article. Did the New York Times out anyone, or simply report on a widely-known outing? If outing is permitted in order to criticize an editor's expertise, that's the same as allowing the outing of any and all editors.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Dutch Prince and Princess Whatstherename, were "outed" (from an IP) by Wikiscanner, and I think the New Yorker broke Essjay's identity. ←BenB4 17:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The IP addresses reported by Wikiscanner have been public knowledge all along. And Wikiscanner didn't name names, it simply showed that IPs connected to an institution were editing. As for the NYT, did they break the story? I thought Essjay's identity was already widely known by the time they reported it.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dutch Prins Johan Friso and Princess Mabel Wisse Smit were confirmed by their official royal and governmental press-agency to have edited her article as determined by Wikiscanner (in that it wasn't known before Wikiscanner was run, even though the IPs were available.) Essjay controversy says this New Yorker editor's note (not NYT) was the first mention of his real name. ←BenB4 17:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I might add, Michael Moore claimed to out an editor who had a severe conflict of interest.  I haven't looked into whether his claims were actually true or not-- but suppose they were 100% true, and a person had been editing his own article/his company's article so as to promote his personal interests-- that clearly is another good-faith instance of outing-- not outing used as bad-faith harassment. --Alecmconroy 17:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So in the case of the Dutch royalty, it was one of their own officials who outed them. Since the New Yorker correction says, "Essjay now says that his real name is Ryan Jordan," it appears that Essjay outed himself. And obviously Michael Moore didn't out anyone who hadn't already edited for many months under s real name. So my previous objection stands.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The loophole I'm referring to is this assertion: "Also, outing for the purpose of making critical comments about, say, someone's subject area expertise should not be considered harassment as such." I think that "reliable" is an issue. Blogs are considered reliable only in two narrow circumstances: for assertions by and about the blogger himself, and in areas where the blogger is a recognized expert. I think that if we exclude blogs (as self-published sources) then the loophole is probably closed.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The exclusion of self-published sources has been removed, so my earlier objection to the proposed language aplies again.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wording tweak

message: The factor order is tricky, but useful.   I concur that RS is most important.  In my own mind, I think of Notability and Intention being more import than "degree of privacy violation".  Which is to say, when a notable person makes attempt at legitimate criticism, we don't exclude that (on these grounds).   In contrast, an EXTREMELY notable instance of bad-faith harassment might merit inclusion if the notability of the incident is high enough, i.e. if it were to become covered by lots of media.  However, something that's unreliable and non-notable is always going to be excluded anyway, regardless of its treatment of privacy.  --Alecmconroy 16:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done; I also added the italics in: "If a web site or page discussing Wikipedia or its editors meets the reliable source criteria and is neither a primary source nor self-published, then it is considered criticism and not an attack, even if it includes statements or quotations that are rude, hurtful, or that expose the identity of Wikipedia editors." ←BenB4 17:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that if we don't put the factors on equal footing, that intention should be close to the top (if not _at_ the top). These factors aren't a general catch-all "should a link be allowed" guide, they're for determining whether something is harassment. Something that's not a reliable source can be removed where appropriate per WP:RS without even involving this page. —Random832 13:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The motivation for including RS and notability is to try to curtail future abuses, like those times in the past where reliable/notable sources were temporarily purged.  By listing these two factors, and ranking them of primary importance, we help remind people not to purge the New York Times or the New Yorker and the like. --Alecmconroy 13:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Factor order

message: While we're brainstorming wishlists, it might be nice to mention a "If you feel harassed" section urging "being cool".  If at all possible, it's better for the person who feels harassed to NOT be the one to actually remove the links, due to the obvious COI.  WE might not be able to codify that as a rule, but it's a good suggestion.  --Alecmconroy 18:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried, but please proofread and see if you can copy edit it. I'm getting tired. ←BenB4 19:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is getting really good.  Thank you for all your help with this, Ben :). --Alecmconroy 20:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What to do when attacked

message: ===Traits of actual harassment===
;Unreliable:  Sources that engage in harassment are generally those that are unreliable, knowingly makes false claims, and fails to meet critera for reliable source.  Harassment is usually conducted by self-published sources with no peer review or reputation for reliability.
;Non-Notable: Sources that engage in harassment are generally those that are non-notable.  They typically have not merited mention in reliable sources.     
;Intentionally Bad-faith:  True harassment is an act done with intentional bad-faith.  
;Systemic campaign:  True harassment is not an isolated event, but is a systemic campaign of actions with the intention of intimidating.  
;No respect for Privacy:  True harassment is characterized by a lack of respect for the privacy of others. Publication of people's phone numbers and home addresses against their wishes is one tactic used by most genuine harassment.
===What is not considered off-wiki harassment===
; Reliable Sources:  If the source reliable source criteria and is neither a primary source nor self-published, it does meet the criteria for even if it includes statements or quotations that are rude, hurtful, or that expose the identity of Wikipedia editors. For example, if a news magazine publishes an article stating the full identity of a widely respected and previously anonymous editor, then linking to, quoting, and discussing that article are permitted in articles and on talk pages. If you are in doubt about whether a source is considered reliable, you may ask on the reliable sources noticeboard; please do not repeat any potentially harmful information until the reliability of the source has been ascertained by uninvolved editors.
;Notable Sources:   NPOV requires that articles fairly represent all significant views-- even if those views are critical of Wikipedia or its editors.  If a source or view is sufficiently notable to merit discussion in the article, linking to it may be appropriate way.  For example, articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any-- even if that link criticizes/attacks Wikipedia or its editors.
;Legitimate attempts at criticism:  Harassment does not include good-faith criticism of Wikipedia or its editors (whether or not our editors believe the criticism has merit), teasing our editors without crossing the line into harassment, or the like.  
;Isolated Events:  Otherwise appropriate links to websites that that do not generally engage in harassment of Wikipedians should not be removed simply because the website becomes engaged in an isolated or specific dispute with a Wikipedia editor, except in extreme circumstances.
;Respect for Privacy:  Intentional harassment is generally characterize by a lack of respect of the privacy of living persons.  Sites that criticize Wikipedia or Wikipedians, without attempting to violating their privacy by revealing real names and contact info, are usually best regarded as "criticism" rather than "harassment". 
--Alecmconroy 20:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am reluctant to include those because they could be taken out of context, unlike the bullet points going from general restrictions to specific exemptions, and the monolithic table. ←BenB4 04:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, as I was writing the expanded prose version of the table, I started questioning whether the expansion was even a good idea. I'm not sure that it is-- for both the reason you specified, and for how difficult it is to find a way to explain each factor that draws the right balance.  The table seems pretty easy to agree with for everyone.  The prose expansion seems like a source of great disagreement and dispute.  --Alecmconroy 21:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting stolen from [[WP:VANDAL]]

message: ; Reliable Sources:  If the source reliable source criteria and is neither a primary source nor self-published, it does meet the criteria for even if it includes statements or quotations that are rude, hurtful, or that expose the identity of Wikipedia editors. For example, if a news magazine publishes an article stating the full identity of a widely respected and previously anonymous editor, then linking to, quoting, and discussing that article are permitted in articles and on talk pages. If you are in doubt about whether a source is considered reliable, you may ask on the reliable sources noticeboard; please do not repeat any potentially harmful information until the reliability of the source has been ascertained by uninvolved editors.
;Notable Sources:   NPOV requires that articles fairly represent all significant views-- even if those views are critical of Wikipedia or its editors.  If a source or view is sufficiently notable to merit discussion in the article, linking to it may be appropriate way.  For example, articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any-- even if that link criticizes/attacks Wikipedia or its editors.
;Legitimate attempts at criticism:  Harassment does not include good-faith criticism of Wikipedia or its editors (whether or not our editors believe the criticism has merit), teasing our editors without crossing the line into harassment, or the like.  
;Isolated Events:  Otherwise appropriate links to websites that that do not generally engage in harassment of Wikipedians should not be removed simply because the website becomes engaged in an isolated or specific dispute with a Wikipedia editor, except in extreme circumstances.
;Respect for Privacy:  Intentional harassment is generally characterize by a lack of respect of the privacy of living persons.  Sites that criticize Wikipedia or Wikipedians, without attempting to violating their privacy by revealing real names and contact info, are usually best regarded as "criticism" rather than "harassment". 
--Alecmconroy 20:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am reluctant to include those because they could be taken out of context, unlike the bullet points going from general restrictions to specific exemptions, and the monolithic table. ←BenB4 04:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, as I was writing the expanded prose version of the table, I started questioning whether the expansion was even a good idea. I'm not sure that it is-- for both the reason you specified, and for how difficult it is to find a way to explain each factor that draws the right balance.  The table seems pretty easy to agree with for everyone.  The prose expansion seems like a source of great disagreement and dispute.  --Alecmconroy 21:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What is not considered off-wiki harassment

message: How do people feel about Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment?  I've been trying to reword "off/on-wiki" as it may be confusing jargon to newcomers. ←BenB4 05:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Being bold then.... ←BenB4 06:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good change. --Alecmconroy 21:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move? 

message: Current wording:
:"Links to pages of web sites that routinely engage in harassment, but not to a page containing offending material, are discouraged. Additionally, a site that engages in these practices is unlikely to qualify as a reliable source."
I think this could be tweaked just a tad.  The current logic says that:
:(1) "Engaging in Harassment" implies "being discouraged" 
:(2) "Engaging in Harassment" implies "non-reliable source".  
I would prefer we reverse this a little:
:(1) "Engage in harassment" is typically a tactic employed by "Partisan, Extremist sites"
:(2) Citing "Partisan, Extremist sites" is discouraged. 
How best to word this, I'm not sure.  I can take a stab at it, but I bet it can be improved upon.
Suggested wording:
:"Routinely engaging in harassment is a tactic which is typically employed by extremist sources.  Citing extremist sources is discouraged, even in cases where the cited page does not itself contain offending material.  See WP:RS#Extremist_sources.
--Alecmconroy 00:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Tweak

message: I've cut the following;
:* Otherwise appropriate links to web sites that do not usually engage in harassment should generally not be removed if the website becomes engaged in an isolated or specific dispute with a Wikipedia editor, except in circumstances of extreme harassment or violation of privacy. However, such links should not be added to harass editors or disturb readers.
:* Links to calls for harassment which do not violate editors' privacy and are not clearly hurtful may be included in discussions about them on talk and project pages, but not for other purposes or in articles.  Removal of such links from talk or project page discussions about them is discouraged, especially if they can help to contain their impact (e.g., with semi-protection.) In this case, editors should follow the usual talk page guidelines unless such links are being included to harass or disturb.
:This policy applies only to web pages or sites that engage in privacy violations ("outing"), call for the harassment of editors, or clearly try to hurt or embarrass editors. It does not apply to sites that simply offer criticism of Wikipedia or its editors (whether or not the criticism has merit) or that tease or taunt editors without calling for their harassment, violating their privacy, or trying to hurt or embarrass them. 
This, like any other, policy is susceptible to instruction creep, the good faith desire to add clarity which ends up achieving the opposite. It's my belief that the points which remain cover all bases well, remembering of course, that this issue will always boil down to editorial judgment.
I also think it's clearer. Privatemusings 22:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  info cull..... 

message: I guess I should move my little spiel here, just so it can get more eyeballs.  Basically, I think we can "build" this policy by noting how the other fundamental wikipedia policies apply to this situation.  This written for the original NYB proposal-- i know we've since tweaked that a little here and there, but the approach would still work if we thought it was a useful way to go:
===Point A===
Links to an external webpage that reveals the personal identifying information of a Wikipedia editor who chooses to edit anonymously and whose real-life identity is not generally known, or which expressly or impliedly calls for any editor to be harassed in real life or otherwise, are strictly prohibited. Deliberate addition of such links is grounds for blocking, and removal of such links is not subject to 3RR.
Because:
*Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is applicable to ALL living persons, including those living persons who are also editors of Wikipedia.  
*Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons says:  "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). If the material is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply to its removal. Content may be re-inserted when it conforms to this policy."
*In particular, decisions regarding linking to Off-Wiki Harassment should be mindful of the portions of BLP which discusses respecting the Privacy of Names, Birthdays, and Contact Information.
===Point B===
Links to pages of websites that routinely engage in the practices described in (A), but where the link is not to the specific webpage containing the offending material, are discouraged. In general, a site that engages in these practices is unlikely to fall within the usual definition of reliable sources for article content in any event. Links to such sites should be used, if at all, only where including the link contributes substantially to an article or discussion, and where no other citation for the same information can be reasonably be substituted without loss of content or comprehension.
Because:
*WP:Reliable Sources says "Extremist sources:  Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution."
*Wikipedia:Attribution#Primary_and_secondary_sources says: "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible."  Since websites that engage in the practices are invariably unreliable primary sources, citing them is generally discouraged.
===Point C===
Otherwise appropriate links to websites that do not generally engage in the practices described in (A) generally should not be removed because the website becomes engaged in an isolated or specific dispute with a Wikipedia editor, except in extreme circumstances. On the other hand, such links should not be added for an illegitimate purpose, such as the harassment of any editor.
Because:
* WP:NPOV mandates that "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias."  Removing otherwise appropriate links might, in some cases, be incompatible with the requirements of NPOV. 
* WP:EL says "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any."  In rare cases of highly notable websites, articles might need link to websites which contain criticism or attacks of Wikipedia or its editors.  
* WP:VANDALISM says "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia."  Vandalism might in some cases included links to off-wiki harassment added for illegitimate purposes.  Vandalism may be removed immediately, and repeatedly vandalizing Wikipedia can constitute grounds for being blocked.
*  WP:Harassment says "Harassment is defined as a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating the primary target. The intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely."  Adding external links for the purpose of harassment can constitute grounds for being blocked.
===Point D===
This policy affects only webpages or websites that engage in "outing" or call for editors to be harassed. It has no application to sites that simply offer criticism of Wikipedia or its editors (whether or not our editors believe the criticism has merit), tease our editors without crossing the line into harassment, or the like, none of which are tantament to outing or harassment.
Because:
* WP:NPOV mandates that "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias."  Applying this policy to sites that simply criticize Wikipedia or it editors might, in some cases, be incompatible with the requirements of NPOV.
===Point E===
In deciding what links should be included in Wikipedia, the effect of including such links on our editors is a legitimate factor to be considered in the exercise of editorial discretion, although except as described above it is not the only factor to be considered.
Because:
*Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is applicable to ALL living persons, including those living persons who are also editors.  
*In particular, decisions regarding linking to Off-Wiki Harassment should be mindful of the portions of BLP which discusses respecting the Privacy of Names, Birthdays, and Contact Information.
--Alecmconroy 22:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How to build the original New York Brad proposal using things found around the project

message: In deciding what links should be included in Wikipedia, the effect of including such links on our editors is a legitimate factor to be considered in the exercise of editorial discretion, although except as described above it is not the only factor to be considered.
Because:
*Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is applicable to ALL living persons, including those living persons who are also editors.  
*In particular, decisions regarding linking to Off-Wiki Harassment should be mindful of the portions of BLP which discusses respecting the Privacy of Names, Birthdays, and Contact Information.
--Alecmconroy 22:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Point E

message: I had posted some thoughts in the context of the pending "Attack sites" arbitration case (see, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites/Proposed decision). I wasn't sure whether the arbitration case or a policy page was the best place to include such proposals, and submitted them for whatever use they might make. Please note that they were my attempt to synthesize such consensus as now exists about this matter, and there are nuances (though not major points) in which they may not reflect my exact personal views.
One of the arbitrators had placed these proposals into the proposed decision in the case for arbitrator voting, where they had attracted a bit of support, but they were later removed from the voting on the ground that they would constitute "legislation" beyond ArbCom's purview. I'm glad to post the proposals here for further discussion. As posted to the ArbCom case, they read:
:(A) Links to an external web page that (1) reveals information regarding the identity of a Wikipedia editor who chooses to edit anonymously and whose real-life identity is not generally known (where "generally known" means the identity has been released by the editor or published by reliable sources), (2) expressly or implicitly calls for any editor to be harassed, or (3) contains defamatory or exceptionally offensive material about a specific Wikipedia editor, are prohibited. Deliberate addition of such links is grounds for blocking, and removal of such links is not subject to 3RR.
:(B) Links to pages of websites that routinely engage in "outing" or harassment of Wikipedia users, but where the link is not to the specific web page containing the offending material, are discouraged. In general, a site that engages in these practices is unlikely to fall within the usual definition of reliable sources for article content in any event. Links to such sites should be used, if at all, only where including the link contributes substantially to an article or discussion, and where no other citation for the same information could reasonably be substituted without loss of content or comprehension.
:(C) Otherwise appropriate links to websites that do not generally engage in "outing" or harassment generally should not be removed because the website becomes engaged in an isolated or specific dispute with a Wikipedia editor, except in extreme circumstances. On the other hand, such links should not be added for an illegitimate purpose, such as the harassment of any editor.
:(D) Harassment policy affects only web pages or websites that engage in "outing", call for editors to be harassed, or contain grossly offensive content about specific editors. It has no application to sites that simply offer criticism of Wikipedia or its editors (whether or not our editors believe the criticism has merit), tease our editors without crossing the line into harassment, or the like, none of which are tantamount to outing or harassment.
:(E) In deciding what links should be included in Wikipedia, the effect of including such links on our editors is a legitimate factor to be considered in the exercise of editorial discretion.
:(F) A reasonable policy formulated by the community in connection with the issue of links to external sites engaged in harassment would supersede previous Arbitration Committee decisions on the subject.
Also, here is my attempt to summarize what I believe is the current state of community consensus (or non-consensus) on these issues:
*General agreement (not unanimous, but probably enough for consensus) that there should be no links directly to attack/outing/harassment pages, with some reasonable definition of what that term means; 
*General agreement (same caveat) that where a site contains only an isolated dispute with a wikipedian, links to other pages in the site need not be removed; 
*I have not noted any disagreement as yet with my suggestion (I think this was the novel element of my proposal) that where a site contains attack/outing pages (beyond the isolated dispute situation), links to other pages within that site should be disfavored, but not prohibited outright; the test I proposed was whether the site contains information material to an article or discussion and no other source for the same information could reasonably be substituted; this is new ground that should be discussed; 
*There is still strong disagreement on whether there remain a relatively small handful of sites (the canonical example is the site that was at issue in the original MONGO case) so problematic that no links to them should be permitted at all.
Comments most welcome. Newyorkbrad 22:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newyorkbrad's proposal from the ArbCom case 

message: I've culled some of the info. previously discussed to attempt to stimulate discussion here. 
*Re : Discouraged in artcles vs. discouraged - I believe these links should be discouraged universally
*Re : The final sentence mentioning allowing certain links on talk pages - unnecessary as instruction creep.
With a growing collection of erstwhile editors, i see some hope that we may achieve something here. Privatemusings 22:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definie improvements.  Good job. --Alecmconroy 23:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discouraged in articles reword etc. 

message: Looking over the two sections that deal with such links outside of article space, they seem a little hard to follow and unwieldy:
::Links to calls for harassment which do not violate editors' privacy and are not clearly hurtful may be included in discussions about them on talk and project pages, but not for other purposes or in articles. Removal of such links from talk or project page discussions about them is discouraged, especially if they can help to contain their impact (e.g., with semi-protection.) In this case, editors should follow the usual talk page guidelines unless such links are being included to harass or disturb.
::Politely raising good-faith concerns based on information found within external harassment is not considered harassment. Repeating, linking to, or including additional rude or hurtful statements when raising such concerns is harassment and is forbidden. Repeating, linking to, or adding private personal information is also forbidden unless doing so is unavoidably necessary to explain the concerns. Violations may be removed without the restriction of the three-revert rule, and violators may be blocked.
I think we can simplify these down to two basic principles:
* Don't attack or harass, period.  Inserting links for the purposes of attack/harassment is grounds for being blocked.
* Good-faith discussion of external harassment is not forbidden, but linking to external harassment is discouraged unless doing so is truly necessary.  
Which could be expanded into the following text:
* Linking to external harassment for the purposes of attacking or harassing other editors is unacceptable and forbidden.  Engaging in personal attacks or harassment can be grounds for blocking.  
* Politely raising good-faith concerns based on information found within external harassment is not considered harassment. Linking to controversial pages are discouraged unless doing so is unavoidably necessary.
Thoughts? 
--Alecmconroy 23:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside of article space

message: Shouldn't this give a more private option for reporting privacy violations than AN/I?  If something really is a serious privacy violation, the victim might not wish to call more public attention to it by posting publicly about it, so giving some other contact possibility (e-mail?) might be helpful. *Dan T.* 23:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reporting privacy violations 

message: *If a web site or page discussing Wikipedia or its editors meets the reliable source criteria, then it is considered criticism and not harassment, even if it includes statements or quotations that are hurtful or that violate the personal privacy of Wikipedia editors.
Blogs and other self-published websites are not generally considered reliable sources, however recognized experts are considered reliable when commenting in their field of expertise, regardless of the venue. Becuase that is a narrow exemption and because the sites themselves are not considered reliable, I think we need to clarify the difference. Self-published sites that engage in harassment should probably not be linked to, regardless of the expertise of one of the contributors. Otherwise that gives all experts on any topic free rein to harass Wikipedia editors, and permits links to unreliable sources that host harassment so long as an expert has posted anywhere on it. I propose this change:
*If a web site or page discussing Wikipedia or its editors meets the reliable source criteria, then it is considered criticism and not harassment, even if it includes statements or quotations that are hurtful or that violate the personal privacy of Wikipedia editors. 
That will make it clear that the website as a whole must meet our guidelines for reliable sources.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the distinction as necessary; a site that's reliable only in a limited field is valid to link to within the context of that field and not elsewhere; the presence or absence of Wikipedia "attacks" is irrelevant to this. *Dan T.* 00:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Is there any danger in making the unnecessary distinction? - I'm inclinded to agree with Will that this small 'loophole' should be closed. Privatemusings 00:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmmm. I'm not sure how that would work. One website might host both reliable and unreliable sources. A NYT fact-piece, and NYT opinion piece, and an NYT Forum post all appear on the same website, but have very different levels of reliabilities. --Alecmconroy 00:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think there's got to be some wording that will get us what we want.  What about "If a source meets the reliable source criteria-"-  allowing us a more flexible definition of "source".  In some cases, one author is the source for an entire website.  In other cases, dozens of different authors might be on one domain name.          An expert might qualify as a reliable source when discussing their area of expertise, but not qualify as a reliable source when discussing the identities of wikipedia editors, for example.   --Alecmconroy 00:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or "if the link is to a reliable source" --Alecmconroy 01:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Just thinking aloud-- maybe the answer is to draw a clearer distinctions between "inside article space" and "outside article space".  Inside article space, the main issues are reliability and notability.  Outside article space, the main issues are Civility, NPA, and HARASS.  If you look at how we cover other forms and harassment-- racism for example, we make a strong distinction.  Articles link to racist content and quote racist content when it's notable, but we would never permit such racial hatred outside of article space. --Alecmconroy 00:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, we definitely need to close that loophole somehow.  Current wording basically reads that if a source is reliable for ANYTHING, it's reliable for EVERYTHING, which isn't what we want it to mean.  --Alecmconroy 00:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A hypothetical case would be an expert posting to a forum. The presence of the expert doesn't make a forum reliable as a whole. A portion of this problem traces back to the lack of clarity in the reliable sources guideline, but we shouldn't allow that vagueness to compromise this proposal.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having thought all this over,  I think we can solve the problem by speaking more in terms of "principles" than "rules".  We can point out that harassment usually comes from non-notable, unreliable sources.  We can observe, for example, that a major news organization is almost certainly NOT engaging in harassment.  This gets the point across, without going so far as to make "rules" about it.  No hard and fast rules, no loopholes to hard and fast rules. See below. --Alecmconroy 09:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable sources vs experts 

message: I have posted a notice at the policy pump in an attempt to encourage as many editors as possible to contribute here. Welcome all, and thanks for coming. Privatemusings 06:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Village Pump 

message: As always, I'm trying to distill these down to the bare essentials-- the fewest number of axioms needed.  Here's another shot at this:  
*Within articles:  links of no encyclopedia value are prohibited.  Links of encyclopedia value are permitted, but great caution should be exercised.
*Within discussion:  Using links as a tool to attack or harasss is prohibited.  Using links for good-faith discussion permitted, but great caution should be exercised.
Which can be expanded to:
:;Within articles
:* Linking to external harassment of no encyclopedic value is prohibited.  Deliberate addition of such links is grounds for blocking, and removal of such links is not subject to the three-revert rule.
:* Linking to sites containing harassment for valid encyclopedia reasons should be done only with caution, because such sites typically do not meet the criteria for reliable sources.     
:;Within discussions
:* Linking to external harassment for the purposes of attacking or harassing other editors is unacceptable and forbidden. Engaging in personal attacks or harassment can be grounds for blocking.
:* Truly good-faith discussion of external harassment may, in some cases, be necessary. Politely raising good-faith concerns based on information found within external harassment is not, in itself, harassment. Linking to external harassment during such discussions is discouraged unless doing so is unavoidably necessary.
I _think_ these four  basically cover it.  I prefer to keep things "general" and flexible, rather than trying to spell out a complex set of rules.  We've bumped into that as we've tried to define precisely how reliability should factor in, for example.  We get into a similar situation trying to define exactly when and where links can be purged from discussions.  
Maybe better to keep it simple and general. --Alecmconroy 08:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Four principles

message: Once again, I think that intention should be at the top of the list (if we rank them by importance at all), not the bottom. However, it should also be said that if the intent of the user linking it is to harass, it should still be removed; even if the intent of the author of the material is not harassment. —Random832 17:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of importance 

message: 1) User is accused (in a talk page) of posting on an attack site with the implication that this makes the user untrustworthy.  User tries to defend himself by giving a link to the attack site showing what he actually posted.
2) A policy about attack sites is being discussed.  Someone wants to post a link to show how such sites may be useful, or even to show how someone else discussing the policy has taken things from the attack site out of context.
In these scenarios, would the proposed policy allow the link?
(The scenarios can happen even when the site routinely engages in attacks, so just saying that it's okay if the site doesn't routinely engage in attacks doesn't solve the problem.)
Ken Arromdee 17:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's some unfairness to a situation where opponents of the sites in question are free to smear the sites and the people who post there all they want, but anybody trying to defend them is hamstrung by being either prohibited or at least discouraged from linking there to show how there is some useful and constructive content there. *Dan T.* 22:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Where an editor has a valid reason to post (ie. a particular site is being smeared, and that editor wishes to rebuff the smear), a link to useful material would be welcome (as in, discouraged, but because of the relevance to the discussion at hand, suitable.) The discouragement is important as a useful net limiter of harm - perhaps you disagree that it would function thus? Privatemusings 22:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It hasn't functioned thus so far (in fact, the two scenarios have actually happened).  Opponents of attack sites are so strict about it and so unwilling to make exceptions that "discouraged" always ends up being treated as "never allowed" or at least "never allowed unless you convince me personally". Ken Arromdee 22:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I may add that allowing links "in good faith" doesn't work either.  What happens is that someone puts up the link in good faith, then a BADSITES proponent removes it and says "you put that link up in good faith, so I'm just going to remove it and warn you.  But now that I've warned you about it, any further attempts by you to put the link back will no longer be in good faith".  Ken Arromdee 18:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I might hope that the solution is to somehow be clear that we're not creating an addition exemption to 3RR beyond the exceptions already provided (for example, to revert vandalism or under BLP).  I think part of what has exacerbated the problems is the idea that it doesn't qualify as a content dispute.   Rather than discussion and consensus, there's instead been a lot of decision-quoting and block-threatening.  Recognizing the bulk of these for what they are-- legitimate content disputes between respected editors, should go a long way to stop the "this is against the rules, period, end of discussion" and lead back to "let's talk about it and form a consensus on whether this particular link is helpful or not".  --Alecmconroy 05:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So what about the scenarios? 

message: Should language to the effect of "(proposed) Principle #15 in the "Attack Sites" arbitration is hereby vacated." be added to this proposed policy? Or, if not that wording, at least something to clarify that consensus-based policy prevails over arbcom "principles" in case of a conflict, per foundation issue #3. —Random832 18:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're trying to repeal a decision point before it even passes? *Dan T.* 19:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy vs arbcom 

message: isn't teasing and taunting fundamentally intended to hurt and embarrass? Unfortunately that makes our scope para. illogical. Another on the list of things to do. Privatemusings 21:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  re : scope 

message: Another dimension I'd like to see added is relevance. For example, linking to Wikipedia Review from an article about its creator is virtually mandatory, whereas linking to it from an article about a type of bird because it mentions some editor's comments about birds is silly. This is generally used to evaluate links and factors into the whole "how useful is this link, independent of its harassment value?" question. Dcoetzee 10:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance 

message: There needs to be some exception to "outing" when it involves WP:Conflict of interest concerns. Obviously, that whole policy has no meaning if editors have perfect anonymity, and though outing-for-the-sake-of-outing is problematic, it's actually a benefit to the project when it is brought to our attention that an editor is actively engaging in editing articles in which they have a conflict of interest. Thoughts? -- 67.98.206.2 14:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  outing versus [[WP:COI]] 

message: I hate to get all anti-Dr. Phil here, but this wording is a little too subjective for me -- I mean we're talking "feelings" here and all. Are we looking for something more along the lines of "disdain" or "insult" or something? -- 146.115.58.152 04:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "try to hurt" in scope 

message: I notice that it's gotten quite common to speculate about the motives of people who oppose BADSITES.  It seems like people genuinely are confused about why the ANTI-BADSITES crowd are so motivated, and this has led to rampant speculation that the objections to BADSITES stem form personal character flaws, a lack of compassion, or support for harassment.   I've written a little manifesto in response, User:Alecmconroy/AGF and BADSITES. --Alecmconroy 16:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AGF, NPA, and BADSITES