Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Archive 5

message: There has been a query regarding the inclusion of profanity in the list of absolutely prohibited actions (specifically, in line with racial or religious epithets).  The use of profanity is contraindicated just below that section, but there are, to my mind, a couple of compelling reasons not to elevate it further.  First and foremost among these, profanity is regional.  As [[W{:AN/I|AN/I]] discovered not long ago, twat is a synonym for twit in some areas (uncivil, but not profanity), but means something very different elsewhere.  Serpent's Choice 06:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point. I also think it should be made clear that profanity qua profanity is not prohibited, but aiming it at someone else in a way designed to attack or insult them is. IronDuke 20:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can say I am having a shitty day, that is not a personal attack, so I don't think it is so simple that we can just add a prohibition on all profanity. HowIBecameCivil 17:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The profanity part definitely needs work. i recently got warned that if i made anymore "personal attacks" as i had on a user's talk page recently, i would be blocked. the problem being that (IMHO) i didn't make any personal attacks. i stated that i thought it was "bullshit" that i had been accused of editing/deleting other users' contributions. i had added a comment to a talk page that a band was "fucking horrible" (which i quoted on the talk page) and i went on to explain that i did not feel the reponse was appropriate as i do not "fuck with" other user contributions. i agree that i didn't really need to use such colorful language, but oh well. so this is why i was accused of "personal attacks" the user told me that i was warned because i was being profane/vulgar towards other users. yes i was being profane and vulgar. unnecessarily so even, but it wasn't directed at him. i.e. i didn't say "fuck you", i simply stated my feelings that it was bullshit. and from what i've just read on this article, i did not make a personal attack, at least not according to what this article defines as a personal attack.  so yeah, the vulgarity/profanity thing needs to be worked out. cuz i don't want to get accused of threatening people, because i sad i thought something was "fucking bullshit"68.255.173.144 09:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you ought to read WP:Civil. Communication is an important tool, and not everybody is as comfortable as some when swear words are used in casual conversation. It is best to use "polite" language when dealing with people you don't know well. Once you get to know some-one then you can use your preferred vernacular (even though some picky bastard well meaning editor is likely to give you a shitty timetalking to about appropriate language at some stage) if it is appropriate. The best policy is to limit the use of profanity to instances when you feel you have to make a point, and even then it is best to use decent arguments rather than an outburst of swearing. LessHeard vanU 21:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding profanity 

message: Recently User:Yuser31415, under the pretense of WP:ATTACK removed a polemical rant from my userpage. This rant can be seen here, and concerns my frustration with IP editors. User:Yuser31415 also placed a level 4 personal attack template on my userpagediff and then 3RR warnings for reverting the removal of material on my userpage here and here. The only attempt at dispute resolution prior to this action can be seen here I feel that 1.) the rant did not constitute a personal attack and 2.) the usage of a "Personal Attack Warning" template is in appropriate in such instances. Furthermore, I feel that using WP:ATTACK as a de facto form of censorship on userpages is something that needs to be specifically addressed in the policy guidelines. - WeniWidiWiki 05:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of userpage content and [[WP:ATTACK]] warning templates

message: What happened to the personal attack noticeboard? Is it gone?Anarcho-capitalism 21:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently so. I've had an issue for clarification on this page since last week with no replies, so I don't think many users watch this page. ANI is unwieldly. I think WP:PAIN should be reactivated. Now rather than acting with consensus on personal attack matters, an editor will get a few buddies on IRC to back his claim and there is zero mechanism for oversight. - WeniWidiWiki 21:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: personal attack noticeboard?

message: I have noticed that many users claim to be professionals in various fields on their user pages, which of course is a good attribute both for the editor and Wikipedia. I have also seen a few of them conducting themselves in unprofessional ways, and have wondered if they can be questioned about their behaviour based on their professional claims. Here is a hypothetical situation with two different editors and how I would choose to handle their behavoir:
* Editor A is a Wikipeian like me, no user page and very little talk. Editor A highly respects Pundit A, but recently said Pundit has been making a lot of false claims. When other editors add this information to Pundit A's Wikipedia article, Editor A reverts the page and argues in an immature manner saying things like "It's biased, It'S biased, It's biased, It's biased." In this case I wouild try to explain to Editor A why it is important for them to provide some evidence the information is biased.
* Editor B is a Wikipedian with a descriptive user page which claims that Editor B is a professor of logic at a respected university. Editor B chooses to argue in the exact same manner as Editor A above. Is it an attack to say something like: "Editor B, I would like to point out that your behavior is inappropriate for a professor, please explain to us why you think the information is biased."
Since Editor A makes no claims to be a professional, I would try to explain as politely as possible why making arguments like "It's biased, It'S biased, It's biased, It's biased" are not acceptable to Wikipedia standards.
Editor B claims to be a professor and as such should realize "It's biased, It'S biased, It's biased, It's biased" is not very academic. Anynobody 22:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Credentials mean nothing here. At least in theory. HowIBecameCivil 14:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree with HowIBecameCivil. The credentials give you no extra power. Their contributions are just as equal as any editor's, and must be from a reliable source. They could be of extra help however, because they could know of a reliable source for information that the general public might not know about or be readily accessable. --Nenyedi TalkDeeds@  18:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is an editor who claims to be a professional held to professional standards here?

message: Is there a way of reporting personal attack vandalism? if this is it, take a look at  that. Kiran90 02:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:ANI is the only means to snitch report that I am aware of. - WeniWidiWiki 02:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It can be very hard to get an admin response to personal attack, not sure why. HowIBecameCivil 14:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. Very hard to get a response... except when it comes to Essjay. No, I don't want to know why. Bah. Bi 15:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reporting 

message: From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xtreme Hockey League, as an example, when users get frustrated with others, especially new users trying to promote non-notable and unattributed subjects:
*Xtreme delete as Wikipedia is not for hockey leagues made up in school one day, regardless of how "xtreme" they are. (and yes, I did steal the "xtreme delete" thing from JzG) --TBCΦtalk? 01:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sarcasm in discussion of Articles for Deletion: can this constitute a personal attack? 

message: This editor (User:1523) has been in a content dispute with me and User:08albatross, and after arguing with the latter in Japanese (I don't know Japanese personally), he left this message.
Since this message has be included, I got someone to translate it and found me being denigrated due to my having Asperger Syndrome; he claimed autistics are psychotic, unable to use reason, and is generally "trash people" (together with 08albatross). I wonder if I should give a NPA warning, and which level should I start on?--Samuel CurtisShinichian-Hirokian-- TALK·CONTRIBS 02:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I wonder if I should give a NPA warning for this one? 

message: Note the first line of WP:NPA#Removing text:
:The community has not reached a consensus about whether personal attacks should be removed,...
Contrast with the current first line of WP:NPA#Linking to attacks
:Links or references to off-site personal attacks against Wikipedians should be removed.
I dont see how links are substantively different from text, and it seems clear to me that the proposal regarding links also lacked consensus. After turning over the two sections, it seems to me the only part of WP:NPA#Linking to attacks that could be consistent with WP:NPA#Removing text and also reflective of current social reality (re: a consensus) is a single, modified sentence:
:Links or references to off-site personal attacks against Wikipedians may be removed.
—ACADEMY LEADER FOCUS! 03:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Enduring precedent, inconsistency between sections

message: Here is some text I edited:
:Linking to attack sites
:Links or references to off-site personal attacks against Wikipedians may be removed. To cite the Arbitration committee:
::[l]inks to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking. [2] 
This itteration leaves "attack sites" undefined so as to allow prohibitions against links to anything "in particular" that could be considered a direct violation of NPA on-site, and eliminates redundancy and is consistent with prior policy. Prohibiting links to other content on sites hosting such attacks seems to me not in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia as a free information resource.—ACADEMY LEADER FOCUS! 21:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Free information does not mean information distribution without responsibilty. We have articles on paedophiles but they don't contain links to sites. Any site that hosts this stuff is not to be trusted or encourages - simple.  Sophia 21:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, per my wording anything that links to a specific instance of what would be an NPA violation on Wikipedia would be removed. The problem with defining open-membership sites entirely devoted to criticism/critique of Wikipedia as "attack sites," and restricting access to them because of the activities of certain individuals there, is that the designation will be used by other members of these sites to show how the administration here is not only intolerant but further removing themselves, by enforcement of this policy, from the outside world.—ACADEMY LEADER FOCUS! 22:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the article on the North American Man/Boy Love Association does link to its website, and also to an archive.org copy of it since the regular link is currently broken. *Dan T.* 01:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked the link. There are no dodgy photos and they do not advocate breaking the law but changing the law. If either of thise two situations changed then the site should be banned. That is where the attack sites cross the line - they publish private information to intimidate wikipedians. Calling someone a crap or corrupt admin is one thing. Publishing their home address/phone number with photos is quite another and external sites should be very clear as to how we will treat them if they do.  Sophia 06:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My Itteration

message: The database was briefly locked a few minutes ago, and some edits made before then seem to have disappeared, so please don't get in a tizzy about somebody deleting them--nobody did. Oddly, some were moved rather than removed, still without anybody touching them--I noticed Bishzilla's was. People had better each check for their own words of wisdom if they're concerned, as restoring the original order is beyond my skill. Bishonen | talk 22:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I figured something like that happened.  Not a problem.  hombre de haha 22:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can 'Zilla not restore them, with her coding skills? ElinorD (talk) 22:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fast-track Zilla Developer Status first, then restore! bishzilla ROARR!! 22:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits disappearing mysteriously

message: I believe after all this discussion it should be clear that any links to sites containing any attack material need to go. It may mean that some stuff interesting to some people may also not be linked to, but that's simply necessary and definitely worth it. I'd like "clearance" to go ahead and begin deleting all (or most) of these links.
Likewise, I'd like to direct everyone's attention to LiveJournal#Encyclopedia_Dramatica. That section features not a single reference, yet attempts to justify one particularly vicious attack site by claiming notability, and it makes indirect linking possible. I didn't want to delete it unilaterally, even though it's in fact uncontroversial, I believe.
—AldeBaer 03:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On your first item, I don't know that it's necessary to delete a bunch of links from old ArbCom evidence, but interpretations may vary.  On the second, terminate with extreme prejudice - that appears to be an endrun around the salting of the main ED article. JavaTenor 03:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Regarding your first item, there's no sign of any consensus on that point, no matter how much handwaving anybody might make.  On the second, given that the section in question is full of unreferenced assertions, policy certainly encourages its deletion, though not out of any value judgment about "attack sites", but simply because of the overall policy of verifiability and referencing. *Dan T.* 03:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Aldebaer, you are cleared for take off per existing wording of this policy!—ACADEMY LEADER FOCUS! 03:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I suspect some of you of trying to make a WP:POINT. *Dan T.* 03:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not me, I only make points after disruption. And then I say, "See, wasn't that a bad idea?"—ACADEMY LEADER FOCUS! 03:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it disturbing that some people find this funny... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it disturbing that some people take this seriously. *Dan T.* 03:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am asking you the same question I asked before: Would you have the same response, if it was your photo, full name, city and place of work, listed on that site? 15:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd like to urge people to keep this discussion more civil, if at all possible. JavaTenor 03:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the circumstances, I'm trying as best I can. It is an absurd situation, however.—ACADEMY LEADER FOCUS! 03:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Getting back to the point: Since about half of these are in archives of some sort, it is legalistic to go after them. But you know, if I were looking at an arbcom archive or something similar, and I found that a link had been erased after the fact, I'd be powerfully motivated to find it and follow it. Mangoe 11:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant occurrences like this rather than ArbCom discussions. —AldeBaer 14:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see any real problem with deleting these.  They are not part of the encyclopedia and it's hard to justify the proliferation of these references. --Tony Sidaway 15:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Existing links awaiting deletion 

message: I've made an analysis of the 196 links reffed above. It breaks down as follows:
        	Main	Talk
Article 	none	24
Category	none	1
User    	20  	45
Project 	89  	17
This is still misleading as the vast majority of the references in project space are in archives of WP:AN (9 refs), WP:AN/I (22 refs), or WP:ArbReq (39 refs, all in a single case). Likewise, most of the talkspace references are in Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia or Talk:Daniel Brandt, or archives thereof.
What it comes down to is that at least half of these references, and probably more, are evidentiary. At most there seem to be 25 references to the website itself, as opposed to specific references to threads or posts. Some of these are clearly iffy, like this one. But the majority of references are in situations where someone coming across the erasure is going to have cause to wonder why the evidence is being suppressed. Mangoe 18:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. This means that people are not linking, or that people are removing links to it. Excellent. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Good work on this, Mangoe.—ACADEMY LEADER FOCUS! 21:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another trip to the [[Animaniacs#Popularity_of_Animaniacs|Wheel of Reality]] 

message: Having spent the better part of the evening reviewing the history of this policy, it seems that the policy as it existed back on April 17, 2007 - just before all this edit warring - pretty well had it right.  This version was the result of a re-write in January 2007, largely carried out by Serpent's Choice, with only minor revisions for three months.  The point about external links not being permitted to be used as personal attacks was added in May 2006:
There was also a previous attempt about a year ago to considerably expand the section on off-wiki behaviour; however, this did not reach consensus, and was every bit as contentious last time as it was this time.  
My proposal is that we revert back to the version that was in existence on April 17, 2007, and call it a day.  As many editors have pointed out, existing policy was perfectly capable of addressing this situation before all of this started on April 6, 2007, with the "Attack Sites" essay and its original author's action to delete links based on it.  In the ensuing four weeks, the most frequently referred-to sites have no doubt seen a huge increase in traffic, as many Wikipedians have followed their inquiring minds to check out what all the fuss was about.  Now they know - plenty of snarky gossip, a few ideas worthy of thought, and not very much that people couldn't have figured out on-Wiki if they were really curious. Risker 05:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this fits well. --Tony Sidaway 06:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice clean-up, Serpent's Choice. I think perhaps being a little more specific about what is meant by "in such a manner" might be helpful...perhaps "when they are employed in such a way to imply a personal attack" ?  (Hmmm...maybe not much better...)  Risker 06:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had hoped that "in such a manner" would clearly refer to the previous "in a manner that incorporates ... into Wikipedia."  Is there a way to word this better without being redundant or unwieldy? Would "in this manner" suffice?  Serpent's Choice 06:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes...that works for me. Thanks. Risker 06:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Minor tweak to language: it should begin "Making links or references...." or some similar word (original version had "Posting"). Other than that, this is good. Mangoe 13:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Original did, yes, but I don't think it is necessary.  The assorted "threats of..." are not listed as "making threats...", for example.  This entry should not begin with a verb form either for consistent style, a mistake wasn't caught by the copyediting done during the previous rewrite.  Serpent's Choice 14:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This is the best proposal yet; it gets to the substance of what sorts of uses and references to remote material are bad, rather than trying to impose some arbitrary ban that's independent of context and purpose. *Dan T.* 14:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The version on the 17th of April is fine.  As a tangent, Tony's suggestion to add a second sentence ("Links and references to websites that host or condone personal attacks against Wikipedians need not be to a specific attack when they are employed in such a manner.") is a no-go, it leaves the door open for witch hunts. SchmuckyTheCat 14:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My suggestion, actually (just below my sig rather than above it, sorry) ... no need to blame Tony for my middle-of-the-night style efforts.  But authorship aside, I'm not certain that I see how that phrase could lead to a witch hunt.  Really, nothing is acceptable when used "in a manner that incorporates the substance or purpose of [a personal] attack into Wikipedia."  What sort of scenario do you foresee as problematic here?  Serpent's Choice 14:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People cut and choose sentences out of context, by mistake or purpose.  The contingent of editors that want blanket bans on their own personal blacklist will see this sentence stand-alone and justify purges of external links.  The door should be closed to purges of external links based simply on the top-level domain. SchmuckyTheCat 15:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that there are other editors who consider this element to be a valuable addition, beyond those who are trying to justify "blanket bans".  To be honest, I do not think that the principle of policy is well-served by attempting to remove (or add, for that matter) text due to the expectation that it will be taken out of context.  I mean, through ellipses and selective quoting, I could say that WP:NPA says that "Violations ... may result in a block for an extended period of time, ... applied immediately by any administrator."  It does say that, sort of, in a specific context.  I view this the same way; as others have said here, editors who desire link removal are probably going to remove links regardless of what we put in this policy.  If that is itself a problem (and I will remain steadfastly silent on the issue), then it is a matter for dispute resolution.  But expectations of bad faith aside, I think this sentence serves a valid and valuable purpose.  If some website (let's fictionalize a Wikihate.com for argument; it isn't real) is posting detailed personal information about Wikipedians as a matter of course, and someone makes a post that says, "Serpent's Choice, keep up the policy talk, and people are gonna start to Wikihate you...", then that is and should be a personal attack.  If someone wants to discuss the website in an appropriate manner in Criticism of Wikipedia then that is not "in this manner."  Is this still a concern you feel is valid?  Likewise, the opinions of other contributors would be valued here -- nothing we do is likely to please everyone, but I'm willing to stick with this talk page as long as needed to get a working compromise and consensus.  Serpent's Choice 15:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can support the reversion to the version of 17 april. I can not and do not suport the addition of ("Links and references to websites that host or condone personal attacks against Wikipedians need not be to a specific attack when they are employed in such a manner.") or anythign like it. This is IMO far too likely to be used to support the kind of black&white "All links or refernces to site X must go" editing that soem have advocated here, but that iMO clearly does not have consensus support. DES (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Hear, hear! However, I don't see a way to police against that either, unless you want to put these pages on your watchlist and contest each and every removal someone makes. It all looks like WP:SNOW, in every direction, if you ask me.—ACADEMY LEADER FOCUS! 20:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed (un)change #4 

message: Anyone following the controversy over Digg's removal of user-posted software code that unlocks copy-protected DVDs? Here's an LA Times story on it   —ACADEMY LEADER FOCUS! 23:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Digg Controversy

message: Here is a modified version of Sophia's proposal, perhaps we can all agree on this.
Wikipedia supports an editor's right to remain anonymous. Links to web pages on which personal identifing information of wikipedia editors is published against the will of those editors should be removed. Such removals are not covered by the three-revert rule and repeated posting of such links may result in a temporary or, in extreme cases, an indefinite block. Links to sites that host such pages, or that encourage others to publish such information, are discouraged. If such links apparently exist for the primary purpose of publicizing the private information, they should be removed. Only if a reasonable justification is made why such links serve the goals of the Wikiopedia project should they remain in place. If a site hosting such information has an article on wikipedia, or is more than trivially mentioned in an article, a single link to the main page of that site would be appropriate from such an article.
*It seems to me that this draws a good line between legitimate and illegitimate links. Can anyone suggest improved wording? what are your thoughts? DES (talk) 13:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See above - this is not about "attacks" but is about editor security. Call me any name you want on a web page but don't print personal information as I wish to be anonymous. I don't see how more simple this can get. We have to ban whole sites that indulge in this bullying otherwise we get the silly situation where they can have links from their front page to the material but as the personal information is not actually on that page it then becomes OK to link to it. Freedom of information is not about doing whatever you feel like with no regard to the consequences. Personal security does trump all else.  Sophia 23:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've partly answered this below in my response to ElinorD. As far as consequences are concerned we take risks as soon as we go online. At what point does the attempt to mitigate the risk render the process unworkable, or (and excuse me if this sounds blunt, as it is not intended to be) when protecting the vulnerable disallows access for the wider community? You have the right to contribute without fear, and I have the right to contribute without constraint (or the fear of constraint). I am perfectly agreeable to having some of my freedom reduced to provide you with a degree of security, but perhaps not to the extent that my freedom is compromised. I know this sounds selfish, but it allows a majority to selfishly enjoy the benefits of WP while you need to be as vigilant as possible to reduce the risk to yourself. I wish I could find a way of squaring the circle, and I really do sympathise with you (having been trolled elsewhere), but there is risk to all aspects of life. All we can do is find something which gives most, if not all, most of what they want/deserve. LessHeard vanU 23:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This proposal looks very reasonable to me. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is definitely a right to privacy.  Personally, I believe there is a right to anonymity, or ought to be.  I think the in the wiki nature of wikipedia the actual identity of an editor is irrelevant.  What matters is compliance with policies, including NOR and V and NPOV, not the credentials of an editor, for example.  Sometimes I wonder whether having registered users at all - and I know, I registered a long time ago - is a good thing.  Sometimes I prefer to see Wikipedia as the work of a host of URL's nothing more.  The only qualification I can see is that these rights stop where ArbCom's needs to enforce a decision, especially in the case of sock-puppetry, begin. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is most definitely a right to try to stop people from revealing who you are. And Wikipedia policy should most definitely try, as far as possible, to protect its volunteer editors from any avoidable risk of real life harassment resulting from Wikipedia involvement. The police will certainly get involved if a naked body is found in a field, but are unlikely to put a lot of money and resources into dealing with complaints from admins that vulnerable family members have received weird and creepy phonecalls. They will deal with very serious stalking cases, but not with the kind that can cause severe disruption to someone's life without clearly endangering the person's life. We hear cases in the news of men who had stalked and terrorised their victims for eight years before being prosecuted, so any argument that allows linking to sites that identify anonymous editors and then says, "Hey, if they're stalked as a result, the police can deal with it. Nothing to do with us" is misguided at best and irresponsible at worst. ElinorD (talk) 06:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem is, "outing attempts" and other personal security violations taking place "anywhere" are more likely to get widespread notice if we mention them explicitly in policy... keeping a tacit understanding of what to do would allow for the discrete response that actual personal security violations would seem to call for.—ACADEMY LEADER FOCUS! 04:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal by DES

message: Please comment, critique, condemn, etc—ACADEMY LEADER FOCUS! 07:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed a guideline on [[WP:PSPS| personal security practices]]

message: My apologies for having been away from the discussion for a couple of days.  Discussion seems to be moving toward reverting to the 17 April state.  I'd like to suggest two small adjustments to that 17 April page, in a final effort to resolve this issue (hopefully) without further controversy.
1) Amend the next-to-last bullet point to read:
Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. This includes revealing or threatening to reveal sensitive personal information about Wikipedia editors. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time, which may be applied immediately by any administrator upon discovery. Admins applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Arbitration Committee of what they have done and why.
2) Amend the final bullet point:
Links or references to external sources fitting the commonly accepted threshold for a personal attack against a Wikipedia contributor, in a manner that incorporates the substance or purpose of that attack into Wikipedia.
The first addition clarifies the unacceptability of stalking/outing, which has been a major cited concern.  The second codifies the core of the external attack policy.  This wording does not explicitly take a stance regarding indirect linking.  However, it also is not restricted to direct links; the sole determination is about the "substance or purpose" of the reference.  Indirect attacks still convey the "purpose".  Project-appropriate links to sites might not (although clearly the level of scrutiny for certain sites will be high, but that is an editorial determination beyond the scope of NPA).
How's it look, folks?  Serpent's Choice 09:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "threats or actions ... any others" clause has been in NPA for, well, longer than I have been interacting with the policy page.  To my knowledge, it has never presented a problem.  Stalking and harassment are to a real extent covered in this already as "persecution by ... any others".  I've suggested the next sentence be added solely to clarify that; it is intentional that "sensitive personal information" is left vague.  Any effort to have an exhaustive inclusive list is prone to failure and presents other problems.  I would hope that the community is able to trust that administrators (and other editors, for that matter!) are able to judge what is "sensitive" enough to present a problem.  Serpent's Choice 02:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would still be happier with this wording: Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to harassment, or political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I am beyond caring about the outcome at this point, "sensitive information" could be clarified to mean personally identifiable information. There already is a guideline against  harassment, however, and prohibiting "actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to harassment" would seem to also preclude placing text in a policy page that suggests off-wiki sites dedicated to such purposes exist. Prohibiting links to them points them out...rather prominently I might add.—ACADEMY LEADER FOCUS! 04:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with your proposal, Serpent's Choice. I suggest that we revert to the April 17th version, add the additional line, and remove the "disputed" section.  Risker 03:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert plus tweaking by [[User:Serpent's Choice|Serpent's Choice]] 

message: It seems to be consensus that the 17 April version is preferred to what we have now, although there is still some legitimate discussion about the details of some wordings.  In an effort to be BOLD and prevent this discussion from gradually drifting astray, I have made this reversion.
Additionally, I have included the copyediting change SlimVirgin introduced on 7 May and the modifications I had most recently suggested to the bulletpoint list (including Academy Leader's proposed clarification.
I am certain that there are still some finer points to work out in discussion, but I am hopeful that this action, while bold, reflects consensus and will help to resolve the wider concerns.
For my part, I might suggest the two sentences beginning with "Violation of this sort..." from the next-to-last bullet point might be better served in the Consequence of Personal Attacks section, both to keep similar topics together and to make the list more readable.  However, I have not done this at the moment -- only so much boldness at once is a good thing, after all.  Serpent's Choice 04:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These changes have been largely reverted.  I have opened dialogue with the editor performing the action in lieu of giving the impression of an edit war over this issue.  Interested parties should feel free to comment in the discussion on this page, or to leave me a message if related directly to my role in this policy development.  Serpent's Choice 04:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This is clearly the only thing that has anything close to agreement. SchmuckyTheCat 06:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boldness 

message: An anon edited this policy page with a very foul and abusive edit summary. It showed up on my watchlist. It seemed inconceivable that such an edit would not have been vandalism. I pressed undo, and actually saved the undo without waiting to see the content of the edit. I then saw that the anon's edit had simply reverted to Serpent's Choice, making my revert a content revert rather than a vandalism revert.
I'm nowhere near 3RR, but with edit summaries that very very strongly indicate vandalism, I think I would nearly always revert first and look second. In any case, I don't intend to self revert now, because since I prefer SlimVirgin's version, I think it would be a bit silly to revert it, even though I hadn't planned on reverting to it. ElinorD (talk) 10:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've given the user a strong warning. One more stunt like that and it's blocking-time. (Er, no, not referring to Elinor.) Bishonen | talk 10:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting a non-abusive edit which has an abusive edit summary 

message: Can we please stop revert warring and edit warring on the policy page, and continue discussion on the talk page instead? DES (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've requested page protection and am now running away. My the last reverter win! -- Kendrick7talk 00:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert war again. 

message: The following text has been added to the policy page recently: The ArbCom has ruled that "[a] website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances," [2] and that "[l]inks to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking." 
I think it is clear from the discussion above that there is NOT consensu for this insertion. Note that 1) The arbcom does not make policy, and 2) other arbcom statements (which i will find the link to if anyoen needs it) have siad that the above is not to be taken as a general precedant. Is ther any reason that the above text should not be removed forthwith and in toto? DES (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Specifically, I propose returning to this version until there is a consensu for a further change one way or another. DES (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no consensus to revert back to that version either. The arbcom fndings in that case have been used and cited for reasons to exclude attacks on our editors...we my as well have the obvious made policy since we already do it anyway. Having it spelled out seems to be a necessary "evil".--MONGO 19:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That version had consensus in mid april, before the edit warring stsrted here. It also had the support of several editors on 'both sides" of the dispute above, if I am readign the discussion corretly. it did not have full consensus, no. but it is a) the nearest thing to a compromise that I see to date (if it is not your prefered version, neither is it mine), and b) the stable version from before the stsrt of this debate. Therefore it seems a reasonable place to return to as a holdign position, pending a broader consensus on the page. otherwise, thre is just as much justification for me or anotehr editor to revert or edit to a preffered version, since the current version was changed to in the celr absence of consensus, while discussion was underway. Not that unlike some, I am discussing my intentiosn prior top editing the policy page, and I am proposing a comproimise version as a temporary measure,  not simply moving to my prefered version (which obviously does not have broad consensus either, at this time). DES (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The April 17th version, with the one-sentence add by Serpent's Choice, was entirely appropriate and addresses the issues without cutting off Wikipedia's nose to spite its face.  Frankly, this whole ArbCom addition is inappropriate - it was a finding, not a remedy, that is being quoted; and ArbCom reversed itself at the next opportunity. ArbCom does not make policy, its role is to interpret it; and they have not been consistent in their interpretation. In respect of this, I have re-added the disputed tag to that section of the policy, and also added the link to the reversal. If one ArbCom ruling is quoted, then both should be.  Risker 04:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing the support of two editors, and no only one editor's expressed opposition, in close to two days after my annouced intention, plus the support of a number of editors for the April 17 version previously, I am about to make the revert. DES (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this as well. Frise 15:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose. I think a lot of editors have been burned out by the endless discussion, which is why you don't "see" any opposition. The version to which you reverted is neither "stable" not is it "consensus."--Mantanmoreland 16:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I also oppose, but have been rather busy lately. I notice that the revert reinstated the false claim that "an editor may not be directly penalized for off-wiki attacks", although I had explained above that that is not the case. ElinorD (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems like an empirical question.  Have editors been directly penalized for off-Wiki attacks in the past?  If so, then this policy should reflect that fact.  If not, then we should say that. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: And the one you reverted to is? Frise 17:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It's quite possible that the burnout has taken its toll on both sides of the debate; I, for one, am mostly burned out regarding the issue and no longer find much point in responding to every single thread that comes up regarding it, although I haven't changed my position of opposing a complete link ban. *Dan T.* 17:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: My feelings as well. This is turning into "consensus by exhaustion". It's clear that there is no consensus for this, and that continued discussion isn't creating any. It's just creating people who are tired of having to reiterate their opposition. It's time to scratch it and move on. Mangoe 18:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no consensus for linking to attacks sites. We have been routinely removing such links for some time, so it might as well be written in policy since some don't seem to understand that we're not here to help the google ranking of a website that sponsors and or endorses harassment of our editors.--MONGO 19:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people have been routinely removing all such links for some time. That does not make it policy. There is also no consensus that all such links should always be removed. Enshrining the statment in a policy document would make it appear that there is a widely accepted consnesus for this, which is simply incorrect. Frankly the April 17 version is the one that most correctly describes thos points on which there is a widely accepted consensus. DES (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: (ec) MONGO, you're not even reacting to carefully made arguments about why it's a bad idea to write this principle into policy. Nobody's suggesting that we link to so-called "attack sites". (You won't drop the rhetoric, even when it undermines your position, will you? Is it more fun to shoot yourself in the foot than to think? Is it more fun to feed beans to trolls than to provide effective protection, which is what I've been arguing for?) Nobody's suggesting that we link to these sites. Nobody. We're suggesting, very carefully and thoughtfully, that making the policy explicit where it should be discreet is a terrible idea that will increase harassment. Do you want that? Are you even going to try to respond to this point?  Do you have a response to it? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GTBaccus, your condescenion is noted. It appears that you are the one with a problem with rhetoric. I have pointed the finger at no one in particular, yet you now, and have been, attacking me on a personal level...you need to cease doing this immediately...I completely disagree that not linking to WR or ED or WW is a terrible idea. I think linking to them ever is a bad idea. Whatever they have to say that might in some extreme circumstance be needed, it can be emailed to those needing the info. This is a really simple point.--MONGO 20:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MONGO, I have never attacked you on a personal level, nor do I wish to do so.  I consider you an utterly blameless child of God, full stop.  I love and honor you as a human being.  Please understand this.  When you say "I completely disagree that not linking to WP or ED or WW is a terrible idea," I am a bit perplexed because I did not say that linking to them is ever a good idea.  We are in agreement on that point.  Linking to those sites is a terrible idea.  Linking to those sites is a terrible idea.  Linking those sites is a terrible idea.  I think that making our policy explicit rather than discreet on that point is also a terrible idea; please read my words more carefully before putting ideas in my mouth that are not mine.  Now, I'm not being condescending when I ask that you reply to the argument that making the policy explicit is a bad idea because of WP:BEANS violations.  Do you have a response to this point?  I haven't seen it. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: (to MONGO)I agree with DES' point, you can only see those actions which remove the links. There is no way of telling how many people have viewed the article and not seen fit to remove them.  Therefore practice does not create consensus. LessHeard vanU 20:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LessHeard vanU is quite correct, not removing a link leaves no record, which makes determination of consnesus on the basis of actions (rahter than discussions) hard. GTBacchus is not quire correct. I am suggesting that in some cases links to sites such as WikipediaReview and WikipediaWatch (which some people chose to label "attack sites") are legitimate and should be made, but only in very limited circumstances. For example, there was recently a Signpost article on the unblocking of Daniel Brandt, and a link was properly inserted ther and improperly removed. For another example, mentions of those sites in the Essjay controversy and Seigenthaler incident articles might well be legitimate, given the roles played by users of thsoe sites in thsoe events. That is the sort of situation where I think such links, to pages that do not include anyoen's persona data, ought to be allowed. RfC evidence sections might be another occasion. DES (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent changes 

message: Does anyone have objections to the above "Simplifciation" proposal?  As this discussion has sat idly for several days now, and the policy page is no longer protected, I'd like to be able to promote the compromise version.  If there are further objections or requested revisions, though, I'd rather approach them first, rather than precipitate another edit war in policyspace.
Thanks!  Serpent's Choice 12:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the new wording is good. My only concern is that we haven't heard anything from the "delete them anyway" faction. Mangoe 13:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I can support the "simplified" proposal in its current form. DES (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd support it. I recommend doing a  policy RFC on it to see how people not involved in this debate may respond to it.—ACADEMY LEADER FOCUS! 16:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The RfC is a good idea - I drifted off as there was no more to be said. The views of a wider range of editors will be interesting.  Sophia 06:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  This topic is now listed there.  Serpent's Choice 09:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yup. let's wait and see what others think.--MONGO 18:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sophia, I'm puzzled by "no more to be said".  I wonder if you could please address my question about why we should have language in this policy advertising the fact that there are sites out there hosting non-public personal information on Wikipedians.  That strikes me as a bad idea, but I haven't been able to get any supporter of the "attack sites" language to respond on this point.  I think it would be much smarter to keep this policy more discreet.  There will be people reading this policy who have no previous idea that outing sites exist.  When we let them know that, a certain percentage of those people will be curious, and go to look for these taboo sites.  Why are we directing them there? -GTBacchus(talk) 08:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That question deserves an answer, GTBacchus, and I'll give one when I get time. I haven't lost interest in this page. ElinorD (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess my response would be that "advertising that there are attack sites out there" is not a terrible thing in this context.--Mantanmoreland 20:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The "Simplification" proposal avoids the use of this phrase.  Serpent's Choice 08:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, and it's not clear whether those supporting the current wording support the "simplificiation" proposal as well.  I'd just love to see a discussion from more than one point of view on the question.  It seems the two "sides" of this debate would cast the debate in completely different terms, which I don't find very encouraging. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's been no objection so far (finger crossed).  I've tried to work with representatives of the differing viewpoints along the way; this proposal is by no means wholly my work nor that of one aspect to this debate.  Here's hoping its good enough.  Serpent's Choice 09:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Elinor, thanks for replying. To answer your question right off the bat, whether I recognize that you have a point: I absolutely do. I happen to think my point carries more weight, and I'll explain why, but I'm certainly willing to have the discussion with an open mind.  Thank you for recognizing that I'm working in good faith. As for the arguments being made by others who oppose the policy... I'm not too impressed with much of that, nor do I think it's very productive to talk about what anyone's motives might be. We do better when we keep our eyes on the prize.  On point, I think I understand what you're saying: You believe an explicit rule will cause fewer people to put up a fight, becuase they'll accept what a written rule says. I don't think that people who are looking for trouble are very concerned with what the rule says. People acting in good faith should be pretty easy to talk with, should they question the removal of some link or material.  Maybe I have more faith than you in the willingness and ability of our administrators to handle such situations without escalation.  I know this hasn't always been the case, but I like to think this community has learned from watching enough people spread fires around by attempting to stamp them out. I guess a lot of it was before you joined, but the community has had some experience with these cases, after which we saw some people adjust their behavior, and others hand in their mops.  We're learning; I hope that our learning will be reflected in how we word this policy, and how we apply it.  We're talking about different kinds of disadvantages.  I'm seeing a constant low-level disadvantage that we can't really do anything about.  You're talking about a possible occasional serious disadvantage that can be avoided by applying good conflict resolution skills, and which the policy will not clearly obviate.  I think we can work with such a circumstance by making sure that we have a pool of people with such skills who can be contacted in a hurry, and by making sure that users are educated regarding where to go for help.  (This last area is probably the one most in need of people's energy, much more than keeping "attack sites" language in this policy.)  I would also argue that poor dispute-handling skills can lead to lawyering, drama and controversy whether or not they're backed up by explicit policy.  Belligerent reversals aren't a problem for someone who knows how to de-escalate belligerent users.  In summary, I think the disadvantage you describe is real, but can be obviated by smart management.  I see no way to obviate the disadvantage I describe, which is eventually a numbers game - after enough time, such an explicit policy will direct ill-intentioned individuals to sites hosting privacy-violating information.  It's not an all-or-nothing proposition; there's room for talking about how to make the wording of the policy less explicitly informative, while retaining something reasonable that people can point to.  Whatever happened to the in-between version we were considering?  The recent edit war seems to be between two extremes, or am I reading the history incorrectly? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objections to promoting? 

message: I see that people are edit warring on the policy page again. This is a poor idea, IMO. DES (talk) 00:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't look like edit warring to me... so far the only reverts have been of trolling. Fingers crossed, knock on wood, etc—ACADEMY LEADER FOCUS! 02:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The current version is internally inconsistent. I will not revert again on principle but you really shouldn't ask for restraint minutes after the page has been reverted to your preferred version.  Sophia 12:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current version is not my preferred version, such as I have one.  I prefer whatever version will remain stable; that is my primary motivation in participating here.  I am hoping that might be this version, discussed above, which is formatted differently, and does not include explicit references to "pages" or "sites" (largely by wording around the issue through a focus on context rather than directly on content).  I apologize if I was unclear in this regard.  Serpent's Choice 12:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Made an entry at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) regarding these issues.—ACADEMY LEADER FOCUS! 19:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The debate there is interesting. Maybe we should run everyone involved with this debate for adminship in order to keep up traction on the issue. I'll nominate you, Dtobias. You seem like a fine, upstanding Wikipedian.—ACADEMY LEADER FOCUS! 17:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well... my not everybody on the non-absolutist side of the debate all co-nominate everyone else who isn't already an Admin...? If the "other side" do the same, and most and if not all get promoted, we can up this debate from edit warring to wheel warring! LessHeard vanU 12:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now had two people over the last day suggest me for Admin nomination.  I would accept such a nomination (but don't give myself much chance of passing, given some of the politically contentious things I've said and the enemies I've accumulated by getting into controversies), but, if it passed, would definitely not get into wheel-warring in pursuit of my beliefs or philosophies.  It would be wrong to use admin powers to try to get my way on something that is in conflict with policy; rather, I would wish to continue to use peaceful means within the system to try to get policy to agree with my beliefs, not forcibly confront it in a vigilante-like way. *Dan T.* 13:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's it. You've lost my vote:-)—ACADEMY LEADER FOCUS! 18:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I was trying for irony, but it seems I am a little rusty. I would really like for one of the blanket banners to try for admin. I would likely support, and make it very, very clear that I was not allowing the issue to cloud my judgement... LessHeard vanU 20:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit wars again 

message: This guy made a serious personal attack against me. Go to the link at the top of the talk page, read the last three comments on the longest section, then return to the user talk page. I'm not sure what type of warning should be given, if any, or if we should just go ahead and block him. Would someone with a bit more knowledge of this sight please do something?
Supernerd 10 20:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this does not involve personally identifiable information, I'm going to be bold and request you provide a diff  with the personal attack on it so the rest of us know what it is you are talking about. Otherwise, email an admin per WP:PARANOIA—ACADEMY LEADER FOCUS! 21:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See [[User Talk:RITZ]] 

message: Anyone? Joie de Vivre 23:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What happened to the note about abusive edit summaries?

message: I've put together an essay expressing my views on this contentious issue here:
:User:Dtobias/Why BADSITES is bad policy
*Dan T.* 23:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New user essay on the "BADSITES" issue 

message: Serpent's Choice, I do appreciate that you've been trying to reduce an edit war, and to reach a compromise. I think that what we really need is a wording that balances strength with discretion. It has to be as strong and clear as possible, because people who remove links to websites that speculate the identity and location of editors need to have something clear to point to, as others may belligerently revert and start wikilawyering. It also should ideally be as discreet as possible because of the WP:BEANS problem, which GTBacchus has pointed out. Obviously, we can't publish lists of names of forbidden websites, because that would allow editors to link to new privacy-violating sites, and it would give undesirable people all the information they needed to enter into a search engine.
You have suggested this wording:
:Links that serve as personal attacks against Wikipedia contributors, whether due to the content linked or to the context in which the link is referenced, are not acceptable.
I think I could accept:
:Links that serve as personal attacks against Wikipedia contributors, especially by violating their privacy, whether due to the content linked or to the context in which the link is referenced, are not acceptable.
Of course that does make it known that such links exist, but perhaps in a reasonably discreet way — a way that may not particularly attract attention and make people think of looking for such websites. It would also help to add that such links can be removed without regard to 3RR, and that users who knowingly post such links may be blocked.
A problem for me all along has been that the word "attack" is too broad. It can be interpreted to include sites that just engage in constructive criticism with an occasional bit of nasty gossip, and it's not explicit enough to show that the real problems are sites where people try to "find out who someone is", where people post their speculations and research, and where administrators do nothing to remove these posts or block these stalkers. ElinorD (talk) 12:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the kind words.  The strength (or lack thereof) of this statement was admittedly a concern I had about the simplification proposal.  I have no meaningful objection to this addition.  I might word the new clause "..., especially through violations of their privacy,..." but that's just quibbling over syntax, really (I think "serve ... through" sounds better than "serve ... by").  Serpent's Choice 13:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Serve . . through violations" is indeed more elegant than my proposed "Serve . . . by violating". My main concern, of course, is to find a wording that will give as much protection as possible to victims, but that won't prohibit links to sites that just criticise without attempting to "out" people. ElinorD (talk) 14:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like this wording as well, ElinorD - it addresses my concerns about previous iterations of this proposal (unintended promotion of some of the sites in question, potentially over-broad application).     JavaTenor 17:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I can support that wording. LessHeard vanU 18:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like ElinorD's new wording as it avoids too broad an interpretation of the word "attack". It does need the "exempt from 3RR" statement to give it teeth though. Good ork Elinor.  Sophia 18:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am updating the proposal page to reflect the new clause, but not the 3RR immunity.  While I agree that removal of links relating to personally identifying material (although perhaps not all links to personal attacks) should be immune to 3RR, I would also suggest that the place to make that change is at WP:3RR, where the list of exceptions is maintained.  Where possible, policy pages should be self-sufficient.  It is poor practice for there to be exceptions to 3RR that are not documented at the 3RR page. Serpent's Choice 02:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Which link did Jimbo ask for?  I think I missed that in the earlier discussion. *Dan T.* 23:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I realise you are trying to be helpful, but sometimes honesty can get in the way of progress. :~/  I think we are trying to agree a formula in the order of "100% ban on attack pages, on sites which which would be banned 99.99999% of the time anyway, but recognising that there may be the slightest possibility of a link to non-attack content on such sites." LessHeard vanU 23:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But, you see, the policy has been abused in the past, without even officially existing.  I'm simply asking if the proposal would define those abuses as legitimate.  If it would, then the proposal is bad because it's too prone to abuse.  If it won't, then fine.  If the proposal makes it deliberately ambiguous, that will have the same effect in practice as defining the abuses as legitimate. Ken Arromdee 01:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serpent's Choice's proposed simplification 

message: ... per mini consesus above - and particularly given that this is now causing more damage and concern than good.... Purples 02:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This insertion has never really had community consensus, and is now actively harming the encyclopedia. It also severely misinterprets how Arbcom works (we don't do "binding precedents" on Wikipedia, and Arbcom does not have jurisdiction over article content). I have removed it per the discussion above and the reasons just listed. I hope that this will result in further discussion, not a revert war. *** Crotalus *** 02:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Section 

message: This time the target is Teresa Nielsen Hayden, or rather, her blog. There are, or were, or may be numerous references to her blog as citations for various matters related to science fiction publishing. User:Will Beback, with whom she appears to have some strong differences of opinion, has gone on a program of erasing the references to her blog on the basis of the non-policy "attack sites", referring directly to the now all too familiar arbcom case. This washed up in AN/I here. Here we have a case where the "why would anyone want to link to it" rhetorical question has a definite answer: because TNH is unquestionably an important source, and in one article is the primary source. I haven't checked all the cases to see whether the references are utterly necessary. Frankly, I'm getting tired of having to do so much patrolling. But of the few cases I checked, the references are standard web cites in ordinary articles. They simply are not part of personal attacks, and frankly, the whole thing smells of retribution on for a comment in TNH's blog in which she links to Encyclopedia Dramatica's "revelation" of Will Beback's identity.
Meanwhile, it seems to have become the ritual in AfD [I think this was meant as RfA, see below --Malyctenar 09:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further aggravating this incident is the fact that Beback made his deletion immediately after I asked him to please stop Wikistalking me. He has previously threatened me with the possibility of him gutting the entries on science fiction editors in bulk. TNH & PNH work with my husband at Tor Books. So this seems to me a clear-cut case of retaliation against me for telling him to get lost and against her for hurting his feelings. Any definition of "attack site" that conceivably includes Making Light needs to be disposed of. Pleasantville 11:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Overview of the (dubious) origin and justification of this rule is in the essay User:Dtobias/Why BADSITES is bad policy#How did we end up with a "bad-sites ban" anyway? I find it very useful for the rules discussion. --Malyctenar 13:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yet another round of "attack site" nonsense

message: As of now, it appears that opinion is about equally split between keeping the section and removing it. That's almost a textbook definition of no consensus. Since policy (except core Foundation issues) must have community consensus behind it, it is not appropriate to keep reinserting it when that consensus is lacking. I was through this same issue before at WT:MOSNUM, where one or two truculent editors were claiming that an old guideline with no current consensus couldn't be changed or removed unless there was consensus to get rid of it. After a discussion on WP:VP/P, that interpretation was rejected by most of the Wikipedia community. *** Crotalus *** 03:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Add me as another to say it should be removed. It's ridiculously bad policy, and we can see firsthand how it ends up being used in censorship and personal conflicts by editors who put their own egos ahead of what's best for the project. DreamGuy 12:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Arbitration Committee does not make policy, although it decisions may be incorporated into policy by the community. With respect to the MONGO decision the essence of the decision is that you shouldn't engage in hurtful behavior toward another user. Whether our decision is incorporated into Wikipedia:No personal attacks or not that principle remains valid and enforceable. It is the principle which lies behind Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Fred Bauder 12:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that, which has nothing to do with the topic at hand. This is about other sites, where they aren't Wikipedia users. The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee does not make rules for other websites and should not participate or endorse, even inadvertantly, in censorship or retailiation against other sites. I don't know what you think your response here was supposed to mean, but it seems very misplaced... unless you seriously are arguing now that ArbCom makes rules for other sites now too. DreamGuy 13:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ohhhh, I see... by MONGO decision you mean the ArbCom case where you made your spectacularly bad ruling. Boy, you guys on ArbCom have a perfectly bizarre idea of how the world should work... but then, yeah, I remember you, Fred, trying to invent policy all by your lonesome out of nowhere to punish editors who didn't break any guidelines other than not doing things the way you wanted, despite the fact that everyone else on ArbCom at the time closed the case as pointless. No personal attacks rules are for Wikipedia, not for other sites. Period. You can try to claim otherwise, but when push comes to shove you'll have to give in. Your entire stated strategy here is what dictatorships try to use, an it never works for them in the logn run either. DreamGuy 13:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you rambling about now? No one said we were trying to regulate what others say on other wesbites. The issue is that we not going to import their personal attacks and efforts to out the reallife identities of our editors.--MONGO 18:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: DreamGuy, I agree with MONGO - I find it difficult to follow your argument here.  Who is trying to regulate other sites?  Fred Bauder said "the essence of the decision is that you shouldn't engage in hurtful behavior toward another user".  Are you disagreeing with that priciple? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Current status

message: MONGO and especially Slim, if what I say has any credibility with you, please don't suspect Purples of nefarious motives in using a particular account to edit this issue. To be honest, I don't exactly know what his reasoning is for doing that, I haven't asked. But I do know the person, and think him a user with a strong integrity and honesty. For myself, I'm comfortable taking it on trust that they're good motives. I haven't been asked to post this, but I feel impelled to. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 00:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bish, if you're vouching for this person, that's good enough for me. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Slim. Bishonen | talk 00:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Purples

message: I really do see Serpent as presenting a very good option - and I think we may be getting closer to understanding each other, you see (MONGO) - i don't think many editors disagree with many of your link removals, I think we just feel that you don't need this explicit policy to have the authority to do this. The sites Will Beback was removing as attack sites certainly didn't qualify, but i believe there was a thread (maybe two, I haven't checked) on them discussing who he was. If you apply common sense there, it's pretty clear that those sites (Making Light et al) aren't attack sites, so shouldn't be removed, but on the other hand they kind of technically fit the criteria suggested here = paradox = problem. The problem lies with the prescriptive criteria in my opinion.
To give a genuine personal example, when you and other editors were a bit annoyed at me, a thread started on AN/I with people asking could he be this guy? or that guy? - understandable at the time, but surely falling afoul of these criteria, no? - best, Purples 06:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A response... 

message: As has been amply demonstrated these past few days, the whole idea of "attack sites" is controversial, prone to confusion and not adding anything worthwhile to Wikipedia policy. Why not omit this whole idea from ths policy and replace it with a simple "link to off-Wikipedia attacks on Wikipedia editors are not allowed anywhere"? That keeps the essence of what we all would like to keep in the policy (no personal attacks) without dragging in irrelevant sideissues. --Martin Wisse 17:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might be interested in taking a look at Serpent's Choice's proposed version, which may address some of your concerns. JavaTenor 17:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is, personal attacks aren't tolerated in society, let alone Wikipedia. Therefore, there shouldn't be any excuses to link sites specifically written to give personal attacks to a user. As for the wording, just be concise. (since Wikilawyering is frown upon by many.)--Kylohk 22:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "personal attacks aren't tolerated in society" - but they are quoted in wikipedia articles, even biographies, if those "attacks" come from reliable sources. Also, what does wikipedia do if a wikipedian (I assume this means an active editor, as editors who "voluntarily retire" or get banned are fair game for personal attacks after Conan the Wikipedian has conquered his enemies and heard the lamentations of their women) is also the subject of a biography, wherein he/she is "personally attacked" by a linked site? Is that an attack site? If that's the case, I can think of several BLP subjects I'd like to contact and tell them to sign up for wikipedia accounts so their BLP's can have personal attacks removed. This isn't wikilawyering - this kind of thing leads to real lawyering. Kind of like Wikipedia's policy of letting anyone in the world write <public figure here> is <slander> and have it stand on a site that dominates google search results for days or months. This is serious stuff, kids. This is also why subjects of BLP's aren't going to give a damn that pseudonym editors on wikipedia think they have a right to privacy while editing articles about them that dominate google searches. There are going to be more "attack" sites on the net if attack sites are sites that "out" wikipedia editors. As wikipedia grows in fame for better or worse, there will be more Essjays and they will probably be a lot worse. Essjay didn't have any enemies at major media outlets. I feel sorry for any current wikipedians who do.Piperdown 04:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It is only dedicated attack sites that admins remove links to as a rule, and that's what was being referred to by the ArbCom: sites that practise outing and defamation, not a site that happens to do that once, but that does other things most of the time. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By remove, do you mean simply deleting the link, but it still shows in the article history, or do you mean oversighting, making the edit disappear completely? Cla68 03:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: but is there any merit in the line of thinking which says that removing clear cut attack links would be supported without this explicit clause, and that further, there's already ample evidence that this clause is immediately abused (even if in good faith) - causing harm to the encyclopedia? - maybe this isn't a "what's right and what's wrong" discussion as much as a "what causes the least damage?" - Purples 01:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps I have missed something.  When did WillBeBack resign his adminship?  And where in the disputed section of the policy does it say only admins may delete links to what they consider to be dedicated attack sites?  Risker 01:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Will Beback is still an administrator, and it didn't say that anywhere. --MichaelLinnear 01:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Attack sites again

message: There is a thread on the front page of Fark in which several people have sought out and uncovered the identity of a Wikipedia editor. They have posted his real name, links to his place of employment, and pictures taken from his school webspace. How should this be handled, and who's going to do it? Frise 08:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you posting this here?  Tell a modmin and they will delete it. Kotepho 09:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fark 

message: Why where the links and wording to ArbCom rulings related to off-wiki attacks removed from that section? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  See section below --Martin Wisse 15:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of precedent rulings? 

message: The essence of "no attack section" here is simply "links to personal attacks on Wikipedians are not tolerated just like personal attacks on Wikipedia are not tolerated"; I've reworded the section to reflect this and hopefully cut out the politics this way. Feel free to shout at me (politely) if this is wrong. --Martin Wisse 15:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a nice try, but I think it isn't going to stick. Mangoe 16:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can support this version. DES (talk) 16:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My edit summary was cut off. I think this is OK, but I added Sophia's proposal, which was posted earlier on this talk page, to assuage the many concerns that have been raised and to incorporate current practice.--Mantanmoreland 16:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: To address the concerns of some who have argued that this policy could be used against the New Yorker in the Essjay controversy, etc., I've added a sentence that this policy does not apply to bona fide news organizations.--Mantanmoreland 16:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I put back Martin's version, because that is the Lowest Common Denominator of where consensus is.  Everyone agrees linking to off-site attacks is prohibited.  Not everyone - and clearly not even a majority - can agree on adding attack sites. I've (currently) no opinion on the anonymity issue. SchmuckyTheCat 17:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose I can live with it, although the 3RR stuff really doesn't make a lot of sense - an attack is an attack and should be treated exactly the same way wherever it comes from.  The link to the Privacy Policy is on the bottom of every single Wikipedia page, and anyone using "privacy" as a reason for this addition to the policy would (I believe) find insight in reading it.  Risker 17:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Risker and stand corrected on the privacy thing. I just took Sophia's proposal word for word, as it had received substantial support. I was trying to reach a compromise. There is absolutely no consensus for removing the attack sites section. --Mantanmoreland 17:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Mantanmoreland, I think perhaps my post was a little tersely worded.  The privacy thing came up earlier in the discussion, but it's entirely possible you weren't involved then so wouldn't have been aware of that conversation.  It is amazing how many electrons have been tied up on this issue ;-)   Risker 17:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Mantanmoreland, what do you think of the "attack sites" language in Serpent's Choice's proposed version? For reference, the sentences I'm referring to are: "Links that serve as personal attacks against Wikipedia contributors, whether due to the content linked or to the context in which the link is referenced, are not acceptable. Especially when pertaining to habitual or collaborative efforts to violate Wikipedia contributors' privacy, these links may be removed." It strikes me that "habitual or collaborative efforts" covers the sites most agree should fall under the "attack sites" definition. Basically, one should never link to an attack/outing page on any site, and one should never link to a site where such content is a major focus (as per SlimVirgin, this probably applies to a relatively limited number of sites). JavaTenor 17:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a reasonable attempt to define an "attack site," but the wording is a bit vague. "Habitual and collaborative efforts" is good, for starters, but may not be sufficient. The problem comes when you attempt to "define" such sites, which is why "Badsites" was such a bad idea (in retrospect) and why I would prefer to not have a definition and leave it to the good judgment of administrators on a case-by-case basis.--Mantanmoreland 18:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's weird that there seems to have been a role-reversal in the two sides lately.  Originally (a month or two ago), the battle lines seemed to be that the "anti-link-ban" side was arguing for deciding things on a case-by-case basis with discretion and good sense, while the "pro-link-ban" people were going all-out with fire and brimstone to insist on a draconian, zero-tolerance approach without any opportunity for "wiggle room".  Now, it seems, the latter group is now calling for case-by-case good judgment and common sense, and the former group has turned to wanting a tightly-worded definition to prevent potentially harmful excesses in "discretion" in future cases.  Weird, huh? *Dan T.* 19:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you assume good faith, which is unclear from your post, that should be welcome, not "weird." This is not a political debate. Hopefully editors are not rigid, have an open mind and can change their minds as a debate goes on. That is why you find that people of all viewpoints hold their nose when "Badsites" is mentioned. --Mantanmoreland 20:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I still think that we are better off not mentioning it at all, but it seems that the predominant urge is to write something. Mangoe 19:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well said, Dan. I went from "judge everything on its own merits" position into what was in effect a very narrow definition of what could be allowed (i.e. that which would be overturned by use of WP:IAR in the event of a total ban). I think if the editors still trying to progress this concept realise that we have gone passed each other, without noticing, in an effort to accommodate the others concerns then there is the very real possibility that consensus is not an unattainable goal. Might be worth a sub-heading of itself? LessHeard vanU 21:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree...good summary...perhaps the footnote to the MONGO arbcom case is better than having links in the body of the policy text.--MONGO 20:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and it is so specific as to make my "exception for bona fide news media" exemption unnecessary.--Mantanmoreland 20:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's getting much better now... I particularly like the use of the Arbcom ruling as a footnoted reference, where it's clearly informational regarding the history and background of the issue rather than being claimed to be part of the policy itself. *Dan T.* 21:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What if a website gives evidence of a conflict of interest taking place with an editor on Wikipedia?  Looking through the COI noticeboard, I see people heavily using off-site evidence to try to prove their case that an editor has a conflict of interest.  I can see how someone could use the "defamation" clause in the above definition to try to ban such evidence from being presented in Wikipedia forums on the grounds that it comes from an "attack" site. Cla68 23:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't imagine a situation where evidence that was only on an attack site would be taken seriously, but in any event, links can be e-mailed to interested parties. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it depends on your interpretation of what an attack site is.  To me, a site that presents verifiable evidence of a COI issue on Wikipedia isn't attacking, but highlighting an issue that needs to be corrected.  If the community consensus or the Wikimedia board policy is that these types of issues should be discussed by email instead of openly in one of the forums, like the COI forum, then that's how it should be done.  The Gracenotes RFA donnybrook, however, appears to me to indicate that there isn't such a consensus. CLA 00:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a definition up above. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why, oh why, do you want to advertise the existence of outing sites?  Can't we find a way to phrase the policy that doesn't inform readers that such sites exist, when this will inevitably lead to those sites being seen by more people?  SlimVirgin, MONGO, can you please address this? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SlimVirgin, any chance of an answer on this point?  As far as I can tell, you have not responded to this important argument, that explicitly mentioning "attack sites" in our policy constitutes an advertisement for them.  I don't know whether you disagree, don't care, or what, but you keep re-inserting the BEANS-y language. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't see this earlier. I don't agree that it constitutes an advertisement. Following that line of reasoning, we should never mention the word "vandalism," in case it gives someone the idea. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not quite the same logic, no, but I'm glad you've finally replied.  Allow me to explain.  We can word this policy more, or less, explicitly.  We can write this policy in a way that informs every reader that there exist specific sites investing energy in the revelation of personal info about Wikipedians.  Or, we could write the policy in a way that's just as effective, but doesn't alert readers to the existence of sites they might not have known about.  If we mention that there exist "outing sites", then a certain percentage of readers will have their curiosity piqued, and go look for such sites.  A certain percentage of those people will be people you don't want seeing Wikipedians' personal info, but you'll have sent them directly to it.  Let's avoid that situation.  Arbitrators have agreed that the offending links can be removed without writing an explicit mention into policy.  Let's do that, because it's smarter and safer. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: One note per the contention above: links can be e-mailed to interested parties. Not all wikipedians use email. If this is going to create cases where editors must have email to be an effective member of the community, this really is WP:CREEP. -- Kendrick7talk 00:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reworded no attack site section