Wikipedia talk:Attack sites/Archive 4

message: This is clearly a personal attack on users who oppose Denny Ciolt on this page. Is this use of a user space in iorder to attack those who disagree with him acceptable? SqueakBox 15:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He is allowed to express his opinion, but I would prefer to see him remove those comments. In addition, he, myself, Jossi, NewYorkBrad and a few others have opposed having this proposal tagged as rejected, and I am not happy about the editor who has twice replaced the rejected tag and referred to the opposition to this as "trolling". I am therefore once again removing the rejected tag.--MONGO 16:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I, for one, am for rejecting this as a policy proposal. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 16:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Denny also described this as trolling when he replaced the tag . I think we should definitely not have the reject tag yet. Even though I support rejecting the proposal doing so prematurely will not, IMO, help the cause of seeing this proposal rejected. Lets give it another few days? Or at least have a poll about when to close and what is the consensus (I dont think voting is evil), SqueakBox 16:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably a reaction to WAS4.250 commentary here--MONGO 16:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't this starting to sound like a fight among young siblings, full of "He started it!"  "No, she started it!"  "MOMMMMMMY... he's teasing me!"  "Don't listen to her... she was teasing me first!" *Dan T.* 17:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I hope everyone will calm down over the next week, SqueakBox 17:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that contemplating over the w/end and coming backl to debate this fresh on Monday would be for the best, SqueakBox 16:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Brilliant ideas, Mongo - both the page protection and the taking a break.  Risker 16:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can everyone please remain civil, especially in edit6 summaries which are not easily removed. And can we work out the reject or not issue on this page and not the project page itself. Thanks for removing the material from your user page, Denny, I for one appreciate it as I consider myself to have high moral standards and do oppose the proposal, SqueakBox 16:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well advertising it, eg at the Village Pump and one of the admin pages would be helpful, IMO, as more input from other editors would certainly be welcome, SqueakBox 17:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: User page personal attack against users here

message: Given that the initial author of this essay/proposed policy was the person who requested that ArbComm clarify its previous rulings with relation to attack sites, it seems unreasonable to exclude the response of the ArbComm at this point.  Several editors seem to be removing it.  Please stop.   Right now this document belongs to the entire community, and edit warring to remove entirely relevant material with which one personally does not agree is not helping the position of those advocating continued debate.  Denny, if you prefer to revert this back to a personal essay and withdraw it from review as a policy proposal, I guess you could include what you want in your own personal work. Risker 16:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree wholeheartedly. You can't just dismiss an ArbCom response because you don't like it, Denny. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 17:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suport the inclusion of this material. Denny, when I said unexplained blanking here I meant that you should explain the blanking on the talk page not just in an edit summary. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, to be clear, Denny is not the only one who has removed this paragraph; at least two other editors have as well. Nonetheless, it reflects poorly that the ArbComm clarification requested specifically with respect to this matter is not included in the proposed policy. Risker 17:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary of ArbComm Clarification 

message: Including 'some attempt to engage in legitimate criticism' does not remove the attacks and harassment any more than the occasional spelling correction makes a persistent vandal a useful contributor. Rather than add an insightful critique, they need to remove the attacks. Tom Harrison Talk 17:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. Go and tell them. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 18:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about if we just don't link to them and see if they figure it out? Tom Harrison Talk 19:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They appear to claim that if people weren't criticising us from their site they would be doing so elsewhere. Which makes sense, there is a need out there to criticise wikipedia (or WR wouldnt be as polular as it is) and it looks bad if we just censor that completely, it just doesn't serve wikipedia at all, IMO, especially when we dont censor what IMO are more virulent sites like Jew Watch. It makes us seem shrill and intolerant which I dont think will in any way benefit this project overall, SqueakBox 00:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Alison has protected the page for a week, so that gives us time to come to a full consensus on this issue. I'll probably be removed from this for a couple days as I try and figure out the best way to word this. I know many have expressed that they want this to be rejected and those points aren't misunderstood, but I feel it is premature as this thing is not even a week old and there have been a number of voices that oppose rejecting this as of yet. Let's either make this work or reject it, but keep our discussions on wiki, not on the mailing list, or IRC. Thanks.--MONGO 17:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree that this is the only place to discuss this issue and that the proposal hasnt reached consensus to be either rejected or accepted at this point, SqueakBox 17:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I concur, additionally I admonish all good editors to fully observe the various conduct policies that are in place, particularly WP:AGF and WP:NPA, which don't require off-site links to violate. Best regards to all,--Academy Leader 18:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm skeptical about the chance for consensus support for this proposal, especially given the Free Republic issue (how do we handle sites which have attack content on their forums, but which are also clearly notable enough for Wikipedia pages?), but I agree that it's premature to mark it as rejected.  Also agreed that there's been a lot of assuming bad faith going on. JavaTenor 18:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, too. But let me annotate that a lot of assuming good faith has also been going on. More than in some other debates. It's probably too early to congratulate each other, but we're not completely on the wrong track, either. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 18:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true, I didn't mean to imply that we were off track... my suggestion had more to do with "going forward" than "where we've been" in this debate. Best, --Academy Leader 18:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protected 

message: * The Passive-agressive behavior. Please read this article and make sure you don't exhibit any of these signs.
* The Appeals to emotion, especially in edit summaries
* The accusations of disruption, trolling, and other misdeeds in edit summaries
* The ad hominem arguments and related deliberate misrepresention of other peoples' positions
Perform an honest evaluation of yourself and make sure this doesn't apply to you. Please be aware that most people here aren't stupid and see right through this type of behavior. It does nothing to help your argument. Quite the opposite, actually. Frise 19:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think homicidal, suicidal and schizophrenic behavior is even less desirable, and fortunately has been absent from this discussion.--Mantanmoreland 21:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Weird reply, if I may say so. Frise asks for a self-check of our behaviour. I take it you're not so much into all that Human self-reflection stuff? —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 21:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all. I am totally wrapped up in myself. I was just attempting a note of levity. I think the discussion has been quite civil, and that we don't have to be quite so heavy about it. The essay has been protected for one week, after all. --Mantanmoreland 21:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a great idea; why don't we just cut off the source by rejecting this proposal?  Then we all win.  See #1 at #What is the purpose of this page?.  Milto LOL pia 23:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear, hear! But it might be interesting to see this train wreck go on for another week or so.--Academy Leader 00:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha ha, as much as I love rubbernecking at an utter debacle like this, it's probably better to draw this fiasco to a close. —  MichaelLinnear 01:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA? Frise 01:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because I'm cold, cruel, evil, and I love to gloat over the fallen corpses of rejected policies. :P —  MichaelLinnear 01:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Things that need to cease in this discussion 

message: Can I put the reference back in this article that was scrubbed on the basis of this proposal? Mangoe 02:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're not an admin, not until it's unprotected. *Dan T.* 02:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if you are an admin you really shouldn't, not while it's protected. —  MichaelLinnear 02:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I meant the reference in the talk page here. Mangoe 02:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you have more to say on the topic, it might be better to consider the discussion closed. I don't think a stand on principle would facilitate further discussion with those who are adamantly opposed to WR. The link is still retrievable to people who are curious about it via the history tab. If you insist on principle message my talk page and I'll find and restore the link (once) to keep you from getting blocked. But unless you have more to say on it I don't think this would be an appropriate course of action now.--Academy Leader 03:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a bit of a paradox here.  If the discussion is truly closed, this is because the proposal is dead, and thus nobody should be authorized to block anybody for violating such a nonexistent policy. However, it would also be mostly pointless to revert a link within a dead discussion page, except perhaps for historical interest.  On the other hand, if the discussion is still "live", this could be an indication that the proposed policy still has life in it, and might perhaps become enforceable; however, that is the situation under which having the link might be necessary to a vigorous debate of it.  It can get as paradoxical as "This Sentence Is False". *Dan T.* 03:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but I didn't intend to get quite that metaphysical. By "discussion closed" I just meant that no one seemed to be commenting anymore on the topic under that heading . Though we could say that the discussion there was violently terminated, or shifted in focus, by removal of the link, I don't think restoring the link would be a good idea in moving forward and "closing" the larger argument, in "winning the war," so to speak. (But I appreciate your thoughts on that!) Academy Leader 03:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see not restoring the particular reference in question, but we seem to be hung up on whether or not we can actually refer to the website in assessing it. Mangoe 04:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which means, even in apparent defeat, this proposal is still having a chilling effect on discussion. *Dan T.* 04:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, it might be interesting to post diffs from the WP history log with the reference on it, to see what happens. But I would say unless you need to make a point using the reference in question, don't do it, as they've already "proved" your point re:  overzealous enforcement of (proposed!) policy and suppression of free inquiry.--Academy Leader 05:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just you wait... I expect to see "blocked per WP:PANDA" as a block reason soon... GracenotesT § 20:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do remember that if you feel a block is unjustified that there are ways of complaining, eg the arbcom. All questionable admin actions can be taken to this august body and perhaps a somebody's being blocked on this issue could be used to gain clarification on what admins are and arent entitled to do, SqueakBox 20:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If this is the kind of blindly quixotic audacity with which people are going to enforce WP:BADSITES (if it becomes policy), that seems like reason enough to at least be rather wary of it. GracenotesT § 02:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't enforcing the policy. My edit summary states what I was trying to do... and I think it worked to a mild degree... --KzTalk• Contribs 02:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't referring to your edit, nor to most of the list of edits; mediating is a good thing, methinks. Sorry for any confusion. I was merely noting that enforcing a non-rule item when its status is disputed leads me to fear its enforcing if it were policy. GracenotesT § 02:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we at least settle this one question? 

message: Okay. Here goes.....Crum, please dont delete others users comments under any circumstances. If you see an attack within another user's comments remove the attack and explain your reasons without fail here, SqueakBox 05:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SqueakBox, I did want to remove the link only, but then I realized that there was actual discussion of a specific editor mentioned in the link in the text itself. So I would have had to somehow modify the verbiage of the post in a non-trivial manner to make it generic, if I really wanted to excise mention of individuals, and I felt this was inappropriate. Instead, I removed the entire post and suggested to the editor to re-post it generically, without mentioning specifics. I felt this was the only reasonable course, given that I wanted to eliminate the effective personal attack immediately. I am willing to assume that the editor had no malicious intent by posting this information. Crum375 11:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And what about this edit? —AldeBaer 13:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a link to an essay, which is generic, but as you scroll below it you can find at least one personal attack in the lower posts, plus if you scroll up to the top and navigate to any of the other main parts of the site, you can find copious amounts of attacks and harassment of our editors. In that case, the attack site link was the  essence of the short post, so I removed the post with an appropriate comment. The original poster could re-post while not linking to a specific attack site, full of harassment and attacks. If we are discussing generic issues, there is no reason to promote or facilitate actual attacks on editors by linking to specific sites. Crum375 16:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the explanation, SqueakBox 18:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: A link to an essay containing: "Examples of provocative responses:
* Question the anti-partisan’s motives.
* Accuse the anti-partisan of being disruptive.
* Stop responding to the anti-partisan’s talk page comments while still reverting, using a tag-team if necessary, any attempts to contribute to the article.
* Shift from reverting the anti-partisan’s undesirable attempts to contribute to aggressively reverting any and all attempts by the anti-partisan to contribute no matter how minor the changes." was deleted. Maybe someone felt described, I mean attacked. WAS 4.250 15:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The unacceptability of deleting other users comments

message: Though discussion here is already rather unwieldy, it seems that voices we are mainly familiar with have been doing most of the talking. Would anyone be interested in formulating a substantiative query for an Wp:rfc#Request_comment_on_policy_and_conventions? This may bring in more third parties into this discussion. Also, was anyone aware of the debate (or lack of one) re: the rejection of various privacy proposals, two of which were explicitly designed to protect our vulnerable youth from the sort MONGO seems most worried about? 
The individual rejected proposals are:
Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy
Wikipedia:Youth protection
Wikipedia:Privacy
Before I read the utter lack of comments from the hardcore proponents of this policy on those pages (except for Crum375, who helped sink Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy!), I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and think they were sincere in caring about the safety and well-being of all Wikipedians. Now I can see they only care about themselves, and are willing to construct policy purely in view of their own benefit. They don't care about other Wikipedians, they only supported this policy because they saw that WR was on to them. I say, just deserts! Academy Leader 07:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Help me with a better interpretation. I can only judge myself, and I strongly believe that not having been the target of an outing campaign is what enables me to argue for some caution when it comes to carte blanche bans against controversial sites. You're basically calling me an ass because I would like to be able to link to subpages without personal attacks? How much more ad hominem can it get? I hate attacks on any Wikipedia editors and I do feel sorry for what happened to you, but this is not a matter of emotional reaction. We simply need a rule how to proceed with possibly problematic links. Obviously problematic ones are forbidden anyway by existing policy. —AldeBaer 18:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I understood that the next morning after I posted the above, so I struck my own comments. Still, the relative uproar over this proposal and the relative lack of interest (or less conflicted interest) in the related failed "privacy" proposals, especially concerning children's privacy, does seem worthy of some social analysis. I made my own immediate connections, and posted them, but realized independently they were grossly inappropriate per this immediate discussion. Comparing the thematic elements of the two policy area discussions, what seems to be animating this one are actual, linkable instances of outing attempts as opposed to a more nebulous specter of "child endangerment." As I understand the circumstances, those discussions might have failed due to the lack of observable instances of such re: minors on Wikipedia, and for the relative lack of self-identified minors (or specific victims, or their guardians) involved with those discussions. It would be a natural response for victims of such sites to militate against them, and it does not necessarily follow that they are self-interested. I was wrong to suggest such, but there must be some objective way of accounting for the lack of a vigorous community effort to push the proposed privacy policies through. My utmost apologies if I have offended anyone.--Academy Leader 18:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy RFC anyone? Also, related "privacy" proposals rejected

message: Someone suggested this to me in a private communication: can we just change this from attack sites to attack pages? Mangoe 02:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I would support this page move. And while I wouldnt guarantee to support such a re-named policy it would certainly make it more likely, SqueakBox 02:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds more reasonable and more in line with common sense to me also.  I think we may have reached a workable compromise.  A poll in order? Cla68 02:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe attack pages are already covered by WP:NPA: "Posting a link to an external source that fits the commonly accepted threshold for a personal attack, in a manner that incorporates the substance of that attack into Wikipedia discussion, including the suggestion that such a link applies to another editor, or that another editor needs to visit the external source containing the substance of the attack."  The difference between that sentence and this, is that this proposed policy applies to any external sources which host such material, even if the page directly linked to does not fit the NPA description.  I'd suggest that if this policy is ultimately accepted, it could probably be reduced to a single sentence in NPA rather than the current mound of beans.JavaTenor 14:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would concur with that, with the observation that prohibitions against attack "content" would make an even finer distinction, not that I see the utility of more than a single sentence amended to WP:NPA to that effect, as the editor above me suggested.--Academy Leader 03:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. And so does the ArbCom. Seems some people have yet to understand that. —AldeBaer 18:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:CIVIL. —AldeBaer 20:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A user who serves as a representative of an attack site, as you did via this edit , should not preach to others about WP:CIVIL and, in my humble opinion, not be editing Wikipedia at all.--Mantanmoreland 21:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's ad-hominem, and doesn't even seem to be obviously true; the diff you cited merely had him expressing an opinion against censoring links to external sites, consistent to the one he's expressing here; how do you stretch it to saying he's being a "respresentative" of that site?  Anyway, your arguments here are full of straw men and apples-and-oranges comparisons; there's a difference between what's a reliable source to cite in an article and what may be linked to in a talk page in the context of discussion; and, besides, it's not true that all links to fan sites are banned anyway; last I heard, it was considered acceptable to link to the one most prominent fan site for a given celebrity in the "external links" section; it was just discouraged to let the fancruft get thicker by adding more fan site links than that. *Dan T.* 21:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's not even a member of WR let alone a staff member so how can he be their representative? SqueakBox 22:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:WordBomb runs another attack site. The "strikover" jibe in that edit indicates that Alde is (in my hunble opinion) a meatpuppet of User:WordBomb and the attack site that he runs for his corporate employer, the CEO of an Internet company. It is not WR. I don't object to this edit, as it shows the agenda at work here. Oh, and incidentally Dan T., in the process of stomping your feet about my imaginary "ad hominem" you threw in some real ad hominems yourself.--Mantanmoreland 22:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO if you think somebody is a sock of a banned user you should report it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or inform an admin, etc. In the meantime we must do what we can to assume good faith on this page, SqueakBox 22:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say that Alde was a "sock" of a banned user, but that this edit indicates that he was pushing the agenda of a banned user. If Alde continues with that kind of behavior, yes a block would definitely be warranted. Again, you are incorrect about WP:AGF. Read the policy. It is not absolute and does not apply to this editor in light of his behavior. --Mantanmoreland 22:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A quick solution 

message: I thought this might be of interest to participants in this discussion.  For reference, the forum mentioned in that post is owned by a Hollywood producer who was annoyed at WP:BLP issues in his article.  There are several threads on his forum which are in clear violation of WP policy.  Apparently there exists a bot-based procedure for local blacklisting of links, which I wasn't aware of. JavaTenor 15:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting recent action