Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Archive 6

message: So, the policy page is under protection until June 19, due to this debate over attack site links.  We should try to calmly hammer out a consensus version here, before then.  Before proposing a few alternatives, it'd be nice to get a sense of the consensus we're actually steering towards.  (It's easy to identify and count the vociferous minority participants, but there might be a big silent majority out there.)  So, please indicate below which position you agree with.  (As usual, this is a straw poll, not a "vote".  And, for now at least, please just list what you agree with, without launching into a recap of your rationale, since we don't need to restart any debates here.)
===Discussion===
*Comment Polling is premature as we are awaiting the start of formal mediation. Also this attempt to simplify the debate is not helpful or representative. There are some of us who want to abandon the word "attack" as it is subjective and I think this is too important a point ot be lost in the "other" setction.  Sophia 23:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If half the people in the debate decline to state a position, you're right, the poll won't be as useful.  But I'm willing to give it a few more days. —Steve Summit (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw poll 

message: *Comment Polling is premature as we are awaiting the start of formal mediation. Also this attempt to simplify the debate is not helpful or representative. There are some of us who want to abandon the word "attack" as it is subjective and I think this is too important a point ot be lost in the "other" setction.  Sophia 23:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If half the people in the debate decline to state a position, you're right, the poll won't be as useful.  But I'm willing to give it a few more days. —Steve Summit (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: This policy should restrict links which, by the context of their placement and the linked-to page content, constitute personal attacks.
Agree:
# Steve Summit (talk) 22:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  attack link restriction 

message: This policy should restrict all links to "attack sites".
Agree:
# —AldeBaer 23:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  attack site restriction 

message: Other positions (please explain briefly):
# I could argue for or against perhaps any side of this debate (with or without tongue in cheek!), but am mainly interested in working (in my own way) towards a resolution that would result in a sound, effective, reasonable and balanced policy that would not exacerbate the personal security problems it portends to solve. I realize this sentiment puts me ethically on the "no need to categorically define or prohibit 'attack sites' in NPA, instead prohibit any privacy-related personal attacks and allow for independent judgment and discretion when coming across links in practice" "side" of the debate. So far as knowledge of personal information contained on other sites goes, "the horses have long since left the barn," so I don't think there is a personal security consequence to either "side" prevailing, as far as I know,  except as "overt" containment strategies can lead to more widespread knowledge of this information.—AL FOCUS! 01:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  other 

message: What I oppose is putting the following sentence (chosen from a recent version), or its equivalent, into this policy:
:[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
That sentence advertises the fact that there are websites engaged in the practice of publishing private information on Wikipedians.  An arbitrary reader of this policy page is not likely to know that, much less to be thinking about it, before we tell them.  Let's not tell them.  Who is "them", by the way?  In this case, it's everyone who ever gets warned for making a personal attack.  We give them a link to WP:NPA.  You want to float a reminder that WR is out there to every disgruntled, tendentious, trollish boor that you send this way?  Think about it.  What would it take to convince supporters of this policy that we've already got the protection we require without spelling out quite so much in policy?  Answer here, by email, or by smoke-signal. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been rather clear that we don't need to mention the websites at all. We don't link to ED..the reasons to not link to WR are even better...WR doesn't claim they are a parody site....there is nothing to "laugh off" about WR. How many time do you have to tell me I am not listening (reading) or addressing your points? What are the points? That linking to WR and similar websites is somehow beneficial to our efforts to write or regulate this encyclopedic effort? I completely fail to see how that is possible.--MONGO 06:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  I'm not claiming that, and I've never claimed that.  Let me be very, very clear.  I do NOT support linking to the sites in question.  I only oppose giving out inappropriate details in policy.  That's all I've ever opposed about this.  You clearly still don't know what point I've been making, if you think that I'm arguing for linking.  It's like you haven't read a single word I've typed.  How many times do I have to say you're not listening?  As long as you claim that I'm arguing for linking, I guess.  I'm not.  You say "we don't need to mention the websites at all", but the version you've reverted to does mention them.  Are you starting to see what I'm arguing against? -GTBacchus(talk) 12:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who supports your proposed wording? Tom Harrison Talk 22:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Several people have said they do on this talk page.  What do you want, a list of names? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would probably be informative, but it will also be clear from who edits the page. Tom Harrison Talk 13:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And your point is...? -GTBacchus(talk) 13:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: No we don't need to name them. What is your point? We don't need to name which websites we are talking about in the policy. Look, the reaosn this needs to be spelled out in policy is because myself and others who remove links to these harassment websites shouldn't have to answer to every single whinning troll who complains about it. All we do is then point them here. Stop repeatedly accusing me of not reading your comments...I am sick of that.--MONGO 20:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I "accuse you of not reading my comments," because your responses don't indicate that you've understood what I've said.  You seem to think, for example, that I'm defending linking, or opposing removal of links, both of which are completely false.  You're sick of me saying you aren't reading my words; I'm sick of you putting words in my mouth.  How do you think it feels to have my words twisted over and over again into something I never said?  Do you even realize how many times you've called me undeserved names, and claimed that I was saying shit I would never say?  Yes, naming the sites in policy would be a bad idea.  Simply indicating that "there are websites devoted to collecting personal info on Wikipedians" is also a bad idea because it informs people that such websites exist.  Many people don't know that, but you seem determined to tell them.  As for answering every troll who complains, that's something we can talk about.  It's actually not that hard to reply in a way that makes them go away.  Spelling it out in policy won't particularly help, and it will hurt.  That is my point. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The reason we need not to have any such policy is so the tinpot authoritarian power-freak censors who go around suppressing links don't have a crutch to lean on... hopefully they'll finally go away, or go do something useful elsewhere. *Dan T.* 20:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  What about the wikitruth website? SakotGrimshine 20:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A very interesting case, indeed... that site has "outed" a number of Wikipedia editors, republished deleted articles with WP:BLP concerns, and other stuff that might be regarded as antithetical to Wikipedia and Wikipedians... and we still have an article on it, complete with an external link. *Dan T.* 20:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Odd...looking through the listed category about Wikipedians, I failed to find anything in which anyone's IP was being listed, their address...etc. Surely plenty of personal attacks...but I failed to see where anyone is being "outted" and that is the issue. Privacy rights.--MONGO 21:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On wikitruth, here's examples: (self-removal SakotGrimshine 22:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see some pretty egregious personal attacks, but I don't see any effort to post information that outs their identity that isn't already common knowledge. I'd rather not have the examples listed here at all...you could have just commented without those names. Again, they use their real names to edit, so its really not the same thing as collecting information in an effort to deliberately try and figure out the identity of someone who doesn't want to be public.--MONGO 21:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed them myself. There's in history if someone really wants to see.  The first example had someone's name prior to a name change and the other had someone's real name which isn't on their userpage. SakotGrimshine 22:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: MONGO you "don't see any effort to post information that outs their identity that isn't already common knowledge." Are you serious? It's possible that WikiTruth is the baddest BADSITE of them all. WikiTruth has actually succeeded where WR and ED have tried and failed. They have exposed name changes, gender changes, real names, sexual fetishes, and a predilection for net sexing hijinks. How does exposing such intimate facts about individuals not qualifying as outing someone? If you actually read what they said on WikiTruth, you'd have seen that they spent a great deal of time trawling the internet for information on their opponents, as they said "Wikitruthians started browsing Google and ferreting out little bits and batches of information. By the time they were done..." and "As they say in the press, we "ran with it"." Apparently some of their content was so out there, that even Wikipedia Review sent them a takedown request. So, why does WT get a free pass here? --MichaelLinnear 05:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just now checked out that site and I have to agree. I'd feel more comfortable with my personal information in Brandt's hands than on their servers. (Although they've got a diff of mine linked to on their main page, currently the fifth bluelink under the subheading The Wikitruth Hit and Run... Rare glory! )—AL FOCUS! 05:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're e-famous now. --MichaelLinnear 05:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All I wanted was to welcome Brandt and for him to appreciate the warm and loving community we have here.—AL FOCUS! 05:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AL now passes WP:NN.  daveh4h 06:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's all i need. Seriously though, when I posted that I thought I was going to be the first Wikipedian ever banned for posting a welcome message.—AL FOCUS! 06:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if you posted a custom welcome message with the image in the lolicon article in it, you'd still not be the first. There was another guy who used to post this big manifesto or whatever in welcome messages complaining about things on wikipedia and he got banned for it. SakotGrimshine 08:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh well, so much for notability. It seems I still have a lot to live up to!—AL FOCUS! 17:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why oppose the proposed policy?

message: Today, in accordance with the portions of this policy that everyone agrees upon, I requested oversight of an edit where I deleted the apparent "real life" name of an otherwise apparently pseudonymous WP editor.  There is a catch, though. It seems the person who posted the RL name got it from an email exchange that started with the poster clicking "email this editor" and the apparently pseudonymous editor responding.  It's not entirely clear from the original post whether the real name came from the email address or the email signature; given the circumstances (that the information was going to be oversighted), I didn't want to ask the person who posted the information.
It seems to me that if people want to be pseudonymous and receive protection of their real life identities, then they shouldn't be using email addresses and/or signatures that include their real life names or other personal identifiers.  For pity's sake, anyone can get a G-mail account! 
My question - why should Wikipedia take upon itself the responsibility of "protecting" the personal information of people who give it out when responding to Wikipedia-related emails, writing on the mailing list (archives are publicly available), and/or using IRC without an effective cloak?  These are all Wikipedia-related actions, even though they aren't directly posted onto user pages. 
I found this completely unexpected situation to be very frustrating, given that I have supported the notion of considering direct links to off-site "outing" information to be personal attacks. Anyone have any comments? Risker 23:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did the editor in question actually ask you to remove this information, or did you just take it on yourself to do it on your own initiative? *Dan T.* 00:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that the info has been oversighted, I will add that the personal information was posted on WP:RFAR; the only reason it caught my eye was that the real name was a redlink.  The editor whose name was given had not been notified of the RFAR at that point; I proceeded without notifying him.  Risker 00:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: That's the kind of thing that helped bring me to write Don't count on your anonymity. Mangoe 03:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people don't seem to think that editors' privacy trumps everything else... for instance, in the recent Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Armedblowfish, where an editor who uses an open proxy (out of a possibly excessive concern for privacy), and who has not been able to edit lately due to stricter enforcement of rules against such proxy editing, requested adminship because the "admin bit" happens to allow editing even through blocked proxy IPs.  While he got a good deal of support, his RfA was defeated by the votes of a faction that saw it as a dangerous precedent to allow anybody, even a good editor, to edit through a proxy where there is no possibility of accountability through Checkuser.  Curiously, that faction seemed to include some of the same people who are so insistent that a ban on linking to "attack sites" is necessary to protect editor privacy. *Dan T.* 03:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dan, there is a ban on linking to "attack sites".  We haven't been arguing about policy; we've been arguing about what to write down on the policy page.  Policy is what it is.  Until there's a good reason to link to ED or WR or WW, such links can be removed, and such removal will be supported by the community, in particular by the core members.  That's a de facto ban.  Policy is created by what the community does when we're acting with consensus in the interest of the project, not by some words on a page.  I think some of the strife we've seen here comes down to people thinking that they have to write policy down in order for it to be policy.  Policy is "do the right thing," and that's not changing.  Fred Bauder made this clear weeks ago, I thought, on the BADSITES talk page. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems like a really bad way of making policy.  If real-world law were made that way, then the police could decide, unilaterally by the actions of some prominent officers, that (say) red cars were illegal, not requiring any actual written law saying so; they would just have to start ticketing any red car they saw, and eventually ordering them towed to the impound lot if the owners kept driving them without getting them re-painted a different color; then, if they either get a judge to go along with enforcing the tickets or else intimidate the drivers into giving up without daring to fight the tickets in court, then the "pro-red-car-ban" side will have won without any action by the legislature necessary.  If, eventually, there were either a bill in the legislature or a referendum before the voters to codify the ban on red cars, then the pro-ban side would be insistent that, no matter which way the vote went, red cars were still banned and they would continue to ticket and tow them. *Dan T.* 10:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's been remarked numerous times that Wikipedia doesn't work in theory, only in practice. -GTBacchus(talk) 12:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a ban on linking to "attack sites".  We haven't been arguing about policy; we've been arguing about what to write down on the policy page.  That's what I've been saying since day one. --Mantanmoreland 13:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and what I've been fervently opposing since day one, so I've never been part of your so-called consensus. *Dan T.* 13:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then are you arguing that we've got legitimate reasons for linking to ED or WR?  Forgive me if I'm not already familiar with your argument; it's hard to keep up.  All I mean by "a de facto ban" is that, so far, there's been no link removal I know of that didn't make sense.  If there should be a good reason to link there, then the community would be bound to recognize that.  We're not that dumb, when you get right down to it. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See my essay on the subject, if you haven't already. *Dan T.* 15:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no policy on linking to sites (except spam) and there is no definition of "attack" sites in the NPA policy.  There isn't a policy, and arbitration decisions aren't wiki-wide policy.  We're here to develop a policy. CLA 23:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another situation - "Pseudonymous" editors using their real names in Wikipedia-related activities 

message: Per WP:BADSITES/this policy. That site actively defames and outs Wikipedians. Nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikitruth (4th nomination)Merrick3x 13:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha...you beat me to it.--MONGO 13:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? When were you going to? Tell the (per badsites) . Don't peacock, now! Merrick3x 13:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Assume you will endorse deletion, and keep editing to keep the links out, also? And renominate for AfD if it survives? Merrick3x 13:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehe...looks like we have ourselves a SPA, set up to create some wikidrama? I was actually just looking at the article and then saw you had nominated it for deletion.--MONGO 13:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, the safety of others is a joke? Is this policy change for real or just meant to suppress the harshest of crticism from linking? Merrick3x 13:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: NPOV anyone? (H) 13:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus can't allow for POV. If 100 Christian Fundamentalists edit warred to say Dinosaurs were made by God on the 6th day, with ID sourcing, we would revert it out as trash. And descriptive per admins is we remove this trash. Merrick3x 14:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: And if one SPA account wants an article deleted, well... you know the story. (H) 14:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I wasn't aware of the website. Don't wikistalk my edits please.--MONGO 19:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Back to the mediation idea, how about between you and GTBacchus? He seems reasonable, and a refereed discussion might lead to a civil resolution. (Well, one can hope!) Seriously, if you two agree to this I'll set up the mediation request.—AL FOCUS! 19:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see mediation as a waste of time. GTBaccus and I already communicate via email, so we don't need outsiders intruding anyway.--MONGO 19:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no real "outsiders" here, since everybody is affected by the policy that's under discussion. *Dan T.* 20:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd actually be open to mediation, but if MONGO isn't interested, it's a non-starter.  I'm nonplussed by the idea that mediation="intruding", and I'm not sure how much "communication" is accomplished any time MONGO and I talk to each other.  I wonder sometimes where he imagines I'm coming from.  I'd love to work more closely with MONGO, since we share the same goals, but he's never indicated an interest in doing that.  I don't think he trusts me. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links taken out of [[Wikitruth]], afd 

message: In addition to GTBacchus' previous listing, there is the non-absolutist faction that does not consider the term "Badsite" at all, but prefers to work to an wording of no linking to attacks/attack pages/attack content/attack material - there is no clear consensus of the wording since the proponents/supporters are more active in opposing the absolutist argument at present to devote time to defining the appropriate term - which only includes (some) sites home pages where appropriate. Whether this further clarification needs to be part of the mediation process is unclear, since it is perhaps the principles of whether there is to be total ban on linking or not that needs addressing and only after that the ways and means (if that is the outcome). However, if it is believed that there is a possibility that there would be no effective banning of links to attacks should the absolute ban be decided against then some will continue to stand firm where they may be more inclined to negotiate around what little that could be allowed of non-attack material from such sites.LessHeard vanU 20:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope it didn't seem above that I was embracing the term "badsite".  I was really just using it as a shorthand for "ED, WR and WW".  I certainly don't propose identifying any particular type of site in this policy. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all, but I was pointing out that the use of the term "site" has been a matter of controversy throughout this debate. I am certainly not comfortable with wording a Wiki policy to refer to specific sites (since Wiki policy should relate to all such wiki activity) but would support a wording that refers to attacks from any off-wiki site. It removes stigma and potential difficulties in application, is all. You noted your comment in your pre-amble that your list was not exhaustive so I added a fourth. LessHeard vanU 21:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I just can't tell the difference between this fourth position and mine, which I called (B) above. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the term site; many sites would "de facto" be unlinkable if the terms attack content or attack material were the preferred language, if that was all they could offer. However some pages of some sites would be linkable if the page was not of attack material, but were RS matters of concern. Also, if attack content/material was the defining quantity then it wouldn't matter if a site had not been previously declared off-limits since it would be what was being said and not by whom. Most people can recognise an attack when they see it, and can move promptly to remove links by invoking properly worded policy and censure those who added them. In the meanwhile links to non-attack content/material can be reviewed on the basis of WP:RS, or whatever the criteria, editors pointed toward the relevant policies. Of course, this will mean having to exercise the brain cells on a regular basis.... which might be why the absolutist option is favoured by some editors. LessHeard vanU 21:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah.  That's why I couldn't tell the difference.  I don't support using the word "site", and I'm sorry if I came across as I did.  I was just using the nearest word at hand to express my position.  I don't propose using the word "site" in this policy. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GTBacchus, I have to say I am finding your responses very confusing.  My understanding of your current position is that any kind of links to certain sites should be banned, but that we shouldn't use the word "sites" in the policy. Is this correct?  If it is, then it strikes me as rather disingenuous not to be honest with the volunteers in this project - if they are going to get hammered for linking to a site (regardless of what the link connects to), then we owe it to them to spell it out.  (Incidentally, that is another good reason for this whole "no links" stuff to be in another policy - why would someone who isn't making a personal attack even think of looking in this policy to see that rule?) Risker 04:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm.  I wouldn't say that links to certain sites "should be banned".  I'd say that certain sites are already de facto banned simply because there's nothing there we need to link to, and some reason not to link there.  I also don't support "hammering" anybody for anything.  Coming down on somebody like a ton of bricks for linking somewhere in good faith is a good way to drive away civil contributors.  Anything other than a good-faith link can be dealt with on its own terms; i.e., as a personal attack, a privacy violation, or what-have-you.  I also am firmly not of the opinion that contributors are expected to know "the rules" before contributing, or that anybody is to be punished for not knowing "the rules".  What I support is removing personal-attack links and removing privacy violations per existing policy, human decency, and common sense.  What I oppose is spelling out in policy a description of the content we don't want to link to.  It's great to say, "don't attack editors or try to violate their privacy".  It's dumb to say, "don't go find one of the websites where they're making a concerted effort to identify real-life identities of Wikipedia admins and drag links back here."  That would be a big BEANS violation, and a foolish written policy.  Does that clarify my position at all? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, LessHeard vanU; that seems to be closest to my perspective.  For me, attacks are attacks, no matter whether they are stated bluntly or deceptively or by quoting material from another site or linking directly to material from another site. All this silly deletion that has been happening has nothing at all to do with personal attacks, it has to do with control and censorship.  With limited exceptions, I doubt any of the WR/WT/ED/WW pages are suitable to be considered reliable sources for anything other than an article about the website, or someting like Criticism of Wikipedia.  On the other hand, I do note that on my most recent periodic survey of WR, there were several threads about problematic articles; interestingly, the information in all of those threads had been acted upon here on Wikipedia - so at least some people are reading what is there and taking it seriously.  It seems to me that linking to a thread like that would be suitable for the talk page of the related article, as in "Oh look, someone has pointed X out, what do others think?" But that is a discussion that is appropriate to the use of external links, not to a policy about personal attacks - nobody has demonstrated any cogent argument that there is a relationship between the two issues.  ("It's only a few clicks away" doesn't cut it, so is googling a user's name, and nobody is suggesting we ban Google.) I can quite assure everyone involved in this discussion that if all would recognize that these are two separate concepts and stick the banning of links to these sites into a more relevant policy (or its own policy) I'd be quite inclined to just shut up.    Risker 22:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fourth perspective 

message: Isn't suppressing links to attack sites a form of censorship, which Wikipedia is not?  Perhaps the links should be included in articles if they're relevant etc. regardless of any desire to censor them.  For example, it seems to me that if there's an article about a web page, e.g. Wikitruth, then it is very useful to readers of that article to have a link to that website in the External Links section.
It's a whole different issue that users should not post messages on talk pages which amount to personal attacks against other users, and therefore they should not post links in such comments for the apparent purpose of effectively making personal attacks while trying to circumvent the rules by not explicitly putting the attack right on the talk page.  However, the web is a web:  it should not be disallowed to post a link to a page just because following links from that page eventually leads to a personal attack -- unless that seems to be the purpose, e.g. don't post messages like "You can find my opinion of user so-and-so if you go to "this link" and click on "blog" then click on "comment 463"." --Coppertwig 16:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not if it is an internal editorial decision. Censorship applies to the limitations others place on you, not editorial decisions of the internal community. (H) 20:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah!  That's how I usually think of censorship!  But that isn't what Wikipedia's censorship policy is talking about.  --Coppertwig 23:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, says who that there is an internal community here? That seems to be the whole problem: that there is maybe one internal community, but it isn't the whole Wikipedia community. It's a group with access to real power, using it against a bunch of outsiders who not only lack access to power, but have been cut out through the acts of the people in the empowered group. Indeed, the argument right now is that the instigators don't need the permission of the greater community because they already have this arbcom finding even though it's also disputed whether the finding can even be used that way. It's classic censorship. Mangoe 13:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this mean you are saying attacks should be allowed? That brings up an important issue, namely that attacks do not solve anything in the first place and only serve to create disunity, factionizing, bad blood, malice, etc. There must be a strict prohibition of all personal attacks in all Wikipedia discussions. For those that support allowing personal attacks, they must be able to logically answer this question: What good do personal attacks serve? mike4ty4 08:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I'm saying that these erasures are in reality attacks themselves. Mangoe 12:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Policy is based on the consensus of the community, so if it becomes policy then there is consensus, if there is no consensus then it should not be policy. So ya, it would be an internal editorial decision. (H) 13:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but whether or not it's an internal editorial decision based on consensus has no bearing on its status as censorship.--G-Dett 21:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship 

message: Is writing something in the form of "a <censored by NPA> user like X" violation of this policy? I was pretty stressed out yesterday, at at one point typed it down (but did not submit). Later I have been thinking about it, couldn't conclude either way. --soum talk 12:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure, but it probably doesn't make you look good.  Without digging into the history, people can't even tell whether you wrote a real personal attack and got censored by somebody else, or self-censored without posting real attack language.  It's clearly intended as an attack, though a muted one.  It might be better to try to rephrase it more civilly. *Dan T.* 12:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thought so. Seems like its more of gaming the system. Dont worry, theres nothing serious going on here. It was meant to be light hearted. --soum talk 12:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's often a good idea to wait 24 hours to calm down before writing -- and possibly then waiting another 24 hours after wording your response before submitting it!  The way the human mind works, the targetrecipient of a remark is far more likely to construe it as an attack than the writer of the remark, or is likely to construe it as a harsher attack, so if you're wondering whether something you're writing is an attack or not -- in the opinion of the person receiving it, it probably is;  and that's what counts -- whether that person feels hurt, which then causes relations to deteriorate further. --Coppertwig 12:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPA Query 

message: It seems to me that this is really about three or four specific sites: Encyclopedia Dramatica, Wikitruth, Wikipedia Review, and maybe Daniel Brandt's hivemind pages (which haven't been up for some time). I'd almost settle for a by-name ban on new links to these, but there a few points need to be dealt with:
*Links in attacks: There seems to be near universal agreement that using links as part of attacks is bad. But it also seems to be that we don't have to write any new policy on this.
*The "one bad apple" problem: This is one of the things that is causing the most distruption. We need to acknowledge that people outside Wikipedia, and I think even wikipedians themselves in other fora, are not bound by Wikipedia's rules of discourse in the net at large.
*You accuse, you cite: Another issue that is coming up frequently is that people make claims about what is being said in one of the bad sites. These need to be cited; otherwise, they are unproven allegations. Indeed, it seems to me that the "ban" is being taken advantage of to make such allegations without fear of contradiction.
*Outsiders are fair game: Not. Forget the simple human decency aspect: making personal attacks on people who aren't here gives them powerful incentive to be here and respond, banned or not. And it encourages "attack site" behavior because the campaign to keep these people suppressed and to use Wikipedia as a platform for denouncing them forces them to try to game and subvert the system.
*Keep your outrage to yourself: Since the WWW is even less censored than Wikipedia, it is reasonable to expect people who wander about it to be responsible for their own sense of outrage. People are going to come across personal attacks, and it's up to them to not try to find things that offend them. Besides, the "they're saying bad things about us!" attacks in Wikipedia are terribly juvenile. Which is it: are the WR complainers a group of powerless malcontents, or a threatening conspiracy?
To sum up: I think this issue would go away if actual attacks within Wikipedia were dealt with in the ordinary way, and the rest of this left to drift on into archives and be forgotten. Instead, we get an outrage every so often because the proposal invites both mindless disruption and outright malice. And it is being used to protect a lot of personal attacks. If we could just forget the whole thing for a couple of months, I think the problem would just go away. Mangoe 14:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're the one keeping it going. If you'd stop going on about it at every opportunity in every venue, it would indeed go away, as I'm sure you know. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I disagree with that. The issue would go away if the erasures were to stop; you and the others have stated that you won't do that, so it won't be ending that way, it appears. But even if I personally were to give up on this, the disruptions would continue, because the erasures are disruptive. If the "attack sites" material gets written into policy, then there will continue to be free-lance censors going around and erasing any links that they decide are bad. Other people will notice and object. Some of the time they will be "wrong". but some of the time they will be "right" (that is, the linked sites won't fit the precise wording of the definition). Without listing the precise sites you wish to stigmatize, other sites which enough people will hold innocent will nonetheless be attacked under that policy. In the real world, people don't accept that it doesn't matter who editors are, so there will always be a supply of such identifications to censor anyway. So the issue is never going to really go away, and it is going flare up dramatically the next time someone is caught out with a major conflict between their Wikipedia persona and their real identity. Mangoe 05:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That same argument could be applied the other way around. If we don't make it policy to delink to websites that make it part of their mission to attack our contributors, then folks like yourself start ranting that we have no "authority" to remove those links. Seems to be a circular argument. Common sense prevails, as does action backed by precedent.--MONGO 06:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My "common sense" is very different from yours on this, so it may not be so "common" after all. *Dan T.* 11:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MONGO, this would be a better argument if that were how "attack sites" were being defined, though the inevitable subjectivity would in the end wreck that too, since one man's "criticism" is another's "attack". But since "attacks" are being equated with revelations of identity, people in the real world don't agree that those are necessarily attacks. Essjay's identity was revealed, and it was right and proper for it to happen; in the real world his abuse of anonymity made his real identity newsworthy. And therefore the policy has in practice been used against several different sites which had some Wikipedia criticism, not just those which had attacking as their "mission". I've said over and over again that such links used as attacks could be deleted, contrary to your assertion above. And having reviewed your erasures, I determined that most of the links were used in ways that were close enough to attacks to justify their removal without resort to your criterion. That's why, by and large, I haven't reverted them. So it is untrue that I oppose erasing any such links; what I'm saying is that the context of the links ought to be what is determinative. In the TNH case, article citations-- clearly not attacks-- were erased simply because she identified someone in an unrelated criticism of Wikipedia. Her site isn't dedicated to attacking Wikipedians; she just thinks that we're doing a bad job. And frankly, as a professional in the business, her word outweighs that of an anonymous editor here, admin or not. Be that as it may, such damage is the fruit of the way you want to do this. Mangoe 12:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another try at a clarification 

message: I'm really here in response to the post from GTBacchus, as he mentioned this in an e-mail. I do not intend to put my name down for mediation. I have a lot of commitments in the next few months, including three 6,000-word papers to finish writing. But for the mediation to work, I think it's important for people to know what exactly they're disagreeing on. Is this a disagreement with the ArbCom ruling, or is it a disagreement over whether or not that ruling should be mentioned in the policy page? What does the word "attack" mean in the context of this discussion? Can those in favour of linking to these pages accept that their opponents oppose it not because of some power-hungry wish to censor, or because they don't like "criticism", but because of violations of privacy, and real-life problems that have resulted and can result from these violations? Can those who want a "no links" policy accept that some (sadly not all) of those who oppose it do so because they think that explicitly mentioning it in the policy will draw more attention to the existence of these sites?
 
Another thing I'd like to mention is that while I see GTBacchus in disagreement with the "no links" people, I can state as a fact that his aims are the same as theirs — to prevent worsening of the harassment. It is possible to disagree in good faith on whether having the attack sites issue mentioned or not having it mentioned will bring about the best protection against harassment. There is a huge difference between opposing an explicit mention of the ban on linking to these sites because of WP:BEANS and opposing it because you think your right to link to anything you want is more important than the security of your fellow editors. Good luck with the mediation, and I may look in from time to time. Musical Linguist 23:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's my concern about mediation as well. I don't understand what is being mediated or what questions would be addressed. --Mantanmoreland 21:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks. So far, there seems to be a dearth of commitment from key participants in past conflicts for a mediation request to work right now. WIth this in mind, could I request all those intending to edit the NPA policy once it is unprotected please declare interest in pursuing mediation before reverting other people's contributions, so as to further avoid the NPA violation derby these debates have been so far? I agree with Musical Linguist that the questions we are debating should be further clarified, but I think have been making great progress in doing so over the past several days, so I would think by the time the page is unprotected we should be ready for mediation if everyone agrees to undertake it before further edit-warring. —AL FOCUS! 23:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Some good points have been made.  Yes, assuming good faith is a good thing to do, on all sides.  I do, however, believe that it's possible to support bad policies for good reasons, and good policies for bad reasons.  The lady in Georgia who wants to ban Harry Potter books might well be acting out of sincerely-held religious beliefs that lead her to believe that removing the books will help safeguard the children of her community from being sent down the wrong moral path; one doesn't have to assume her to be a power-tripper or publicity-seeker to think that what she wants is still misguided and needs to be strongly opposed.  Similarly, somebody might honestly think that by imposing restrictions on what sites can be linked to they are in some manner protecting Wikipedians from harm, but that doesn't necessarily mean that somebody else must acquiesce to such censorship if they find it needless and harmful.  By the same token, somebody else might be opposing it not out of noble pro-freedom views but simply out of base motives of wishing to have free rein to perpetrate and publicize attacks; however, this doesn't make all who hold views on the same side of the particular policy issue guilty by association. *Dan T.* 01:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is it with your extreme comparative analogies? Nazis, "the lady in Georgia"...come on man...this is about websites that are haunted by a bunch or trolls who have little better to do with their time but libel, slander and lie about our contributors...oh, yeah, and post personal info that is not allowed here or has been removed and even oversighted.--MONGO 06:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All content on those sites is from "bunches of trolls who have little better to do with their time but libel, slander, and lie...?"  If it were really that simple and true, then there wouldn't be a debate here.  That isn't the case though, as has been explained well in Dan T's essay on this subject and in numerous past discussions on this page.  Mischaracterizing it as a "good vs evil" debate is disingenuous and counterproductive. CLA 06:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More mischaracterizations...I never said "All", you did. But that is besides the point. I read that essay and it sure looked like a lot of time went into it simply to support the weak argument that we should link to websites that both fail RS and routinely post personal info that we don't post here.--MONGO 06:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think most people here agree, including me, that we shouldn't allow links directly to pages or threads on those or any other site that contain personal info on anonymous Wikipedians.  It's banning the entire site that is problematic, for the very good reasons explained in Dan T's essay.  One of the best reasons is that it would lead to people using the policy to wholesale delete links to websites that do have value to some degree.  In fact, that very thing happened recently when someone tried to delete all links to a science-fiction writers forum because one of the forum members said something disparaging about another Wikipedia editor.  I think this was discussed earlier on this page.  CLA 06:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I saw that. Personal attacks are bad enough...however, the issue is the public outting or people who don't want to be publicly outted. That is what this policy adjustment should reflect. I don't favor delinking to websites that make simply snide comments. That is a whole different matter than websites that permit efforts to publicly out our contributors.--MONGO 07:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they are still publicly outed, after all-- especially since Wikipedia's links are all "nofollow" and therefore do not, in the search engines, promote these outtings. Isn't it necessary to remove links that link to sites that have these attacks? And then the next level of indirection, and so forth? That's why I particularly dislike the "sites" language: it's really punitive, and not protective. In the real world there isn't necessarily any obligation to respect demands for anonymity, and plenty of reasons to ignore those demands when they are self-serving. People have abused their anonymity here, and therefore in the real world there will be justification for revealing editors. Mangoe 12:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Did you actually read the essay, or did you stop reading when you got to the part about Nazis, as you've claimed a couple of times? *Dan T.* 12:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If "outing" is not a form of personal attack, and possibly the worst kind, then would somebody please tell me what is? Also, if the debate we have been having is not about personal attacks per se, but about outing sites then why have we been taking up space of the NPA policy talkpage? LessHeard vanU 12:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions for mediation 

message: I think we need to be careful when dealing with offsite attacks. There are good faith reasons to link to attacks, such as posting on the user's talk page to let them know they're being slandered or posting to the help desk to bring it to Wikipedia's attentionin the hope we can fix it. To me, the critical factor is the intent of the person posting the link.
My opinion is that NPA should always be applied with common sense and flexibility, so adding definitions of attack site really isn't helpful. --h2g2bob (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with "common sense" but not "flexibility". "Common sense" is subjective enough for AGF debate. Since it is outside of Wikipedias capability (to say nothing of its remit) to determine what is written elsewhere there is no reason to link to an off-site attack, even if the linker is the victim. A statement of fact would suffice. The only exception allowing the attacked editor to link would be where it forms part of a complaint against another editor to illustrate a direct relationship. As argued, even then it may be more appropriate to provide details by email rather than the Wiki page. LessHeard vanU 12:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: References to "common sense" should probably be avoided, given how people on all sides seem to like to toss them in, always feeling that "common sense" is on their side and against their opponents'. *Dan T.* 19:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, the application of common sense has been far less controversial than the "appeals" to it. May I also say that your response contained a great deal of common sense... ow, stoppit! LessHeard vanU 21:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some thoughts on attack sites 

message: I started a draft of the formal mediation request here:User:Academy Leader/NPA formal mediation draft. Please edit; in particular links to on-WP areas this issue has been debated may be helpful, if perhaps overwhelming.—AL FOCUS! 03:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Draft Mediation Request

message: ..just checking in, and saw the above discussion, and also noticed that it may not directly relate to the policy page as it currently stands - i think it's actually pretty good - perhaps the attack site thing is in the past...? -- Purples 14:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current wording is perhaps a bit of a Rorschach inkblot test, in that it's nonspecific enough that people with all sorts of positions on the "attack site link" issue can read it and think that it supports their side.  Thus, it may be good to let the page stay in this state to end the unproductive edit-warring, but one shouldn't think that this will put a permanent end to all possible fighting over the issue; the fighting will begin again, like it never ended, just as soon as anybody either adds or removes a link and claims that doing so is in conformance with the policy as written. *Dan T.* 15:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing we write on a policy page will completly stop people who want to fight from fighting.  I think the current state is better than most past states I've seen.  Wikipedia is always a work in progress, and small steps forward are a Good Thing. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The current wording is the closest thing we've seen to a compromise since this imbroglio was initiated. I'm putting further work on the Med request on hold, thanks to all who indicated interest. Feel free to break open again in case of emergency.—AL FOCUS! 20:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Situation.... 

message: ...why I have such a distaste for the concept of banning links to particular sites on the basis of some kind of fighting going on between them and Wikipedia, see this blog post giving the story of a couple of people who were kicked out of an eBay conference for wearing Google shirts, apparently because this was "promoting a competitor" and there's currently bad blood between Google and eBay.  Any link bans on Wikipedia based on conflicts with other sites give off a feel and smell like that. *Dan T.* 16:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't want to know and I don't care. Why not move this self-serving rant to your user page?--Mantanmoreland 18:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It's probably an unavoidable outcome of people "identifying" with particular brands, in a tribal manner. It may be unfortunate, but it is interesting from a soc. science perspective.—AL FOCUS! 21:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't believe WP is in conflict with any site that may be subject to bans on links to attack material. WP does not advocate the closure (AFAIAA) of these sites, and does not request them to take down material that may cause links to be banned. That some editors believe these sites to be odious (and I include myself in that grouping) for their disregard for the privacy of individuals in the pursuit of their own agendas is not a reflection of any WP policy. I support the ability (not the requirement!) to be able to link to non-attack material on these sites since I acknowledge that there may perhaps be occasion where it is necessary, and it will thus benefit WP. My distaste for some, or most, of the content of such sites does not restrict me from using them if it serves the interest of WP.LessHeard vanU 21:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So we shall expect to see you linking to such sites when you consider it to be beneficial?--Mantanmoreland 22:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Providing it does not constitute a link to attack material and it is permitted in WP policy, specifically this one, then yes. Don't hold your breathe, though, since I will not be looking for such content... I support the ability (not the requirement) in as yet hypothetical situation. LessHeard vanU 23:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, you feel distaste for the material on the attack sites. However, some editors don't feel distaste for that material; in fact they embrace it. Some editors appear to be here for the express purpose of advancing the agenda of the attack sites. See, that is why I tend to come down on the side of an express prohibition of links to attack sites, not just "attacks". If you have ambiguity, it promotes wikilawyering by trolls and troublemakers.--Mantanmoreland 03:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So are you happy or unhappy with the current wording?—AL FOCUS! 03:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, now you have slipped on your "Wiki editor" hat? You just had on your "attack site troll" hat. You just self-reverted a personal attack on me that was not just the usual gratuitous trolling for which you are known, but also snidely pushed the agenda of one of the attack sites that is the subject of this thousands of words of discussion for many months. To make matters worse, you included a snide edit summary. You are not my "friend" and you are not a "friend" of Wikipedia. You are here to ridicule and belittle targets of attack sites, and snidely push their agenda every chance you get.--Mantanmoreland 05:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, yes, that is going to happen. It may happen to a lesser extent if there was an absolute ban to such sites, but is the drop in trolling and wikilawyering justified by the inability for the community to quickly review and act upon relevent information that is available on such sites? To go back to one of my earlier considerations, if it were recognised that WP:IAR would negate any ban in any such situation then it must be concluded that the basis of the ban is not sound. It would be so much harder however to denigrate a ban to attack material since it has not been concieved where a situation might arise where IAR could be applied. To attempt wikilawyering over a page which contains an attack is futile, whereas it may not be so as regards the site. The concern that a legitimate (per my preferred wording) link to a site generally may facilitate access to attack material disregards both RS (outside of articles on the subject and the exceptional case I have hypothesised) and the fact that such sites are easily accessible by anyone with a search engine outside of WP. LessHeard vanU 23:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: To make it fit the current debate perfectly, just change the dialogue in the first panel to:  "Daisy, why did I get in trouble for linking to that site?"  "Oh, Dudley.  There are lots of sites on the Web, and just a few that upset people.  You have to learn to express yourself without linking to them."  (The rest of the strip will work unchanged.) *Dan T.* 04:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is my impression of the approach to actual security around here.—AL FOCUS! 04:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we have a cartoon moratorium for a few days? --Mantanmoreland 05:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  If you want to know... 

message: In light of the very sad situation regarding User:H, I think we need more teeth in this policy to keep this from ever happening again. Blueboy96 13:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how much needs to be written into the policy page. GTBacchus has given excellent reasons why it might not be a good idea. (Hint: WP:BEANS.) I agree with him that there are disadvantages, but am not convinced that they outweigh the advantages. However, I would urge caution in the case of anyone wishing to put "more teeth" in the policy; it could be very counter-productive. What we really need is more administrators who take the "solidarity" ruling from MONGO's ArbCom case very seriously. We had a user a few months ago, who, whether in good faith or in bad faith, attempted to put "more teeth" in the policy. His actions turned out to be the most disastrous thing possible for victims of harassment. ElinorD (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ElinorD you obviously don't know that H was forced off wikipedia through deaths threats to his family how much more "disastrous" do you think it gets. As for WP:BEANS that is a weak argument, they are already doing what ever they want to wikipedians. (Hypnosadist) 16:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I, for one, don't know any of the details of the "H" situation, but it sounds horrible.  However, regrettably, anything that is done with Wikipedia policy will have absolutely no effect on outside harrassment or death threats, since pretty much by definition these are being done outside Wikipedia. The police may have to be brought in for such cases, but Wikipedia admins are powerless to do anything effective to protect the victims.  Now, regarding the "Solidarity" provision in the MONGO ArbCom ruling, that is just one of many things in the ruling I find somewhat troubling; it can easily be (ab)used to justify cliquish "ganging up" on anybody declared to be an "enemy" of somebody who's the alleged victim of an attack.  Showing friendly support for somebody who's under attack is one thing, but getting all the admins to circle their wagons in defense of somebody who might be committing acts of incivility him/herself is another. *Dan T.* 16:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: [ec] I'm quite certain that Elinor knows what happened.  But the point is, we cannot stop events like that one by using meaner words in WP:NPA.  We already say that far less serious actions can lead to blocks without warning for extended periods of time as well as to ArbCom sanction.  That is all the power we as Wikipedia editors have.  That's all we can do.  The kind of people who are willing to make death threats against editors' family members don't care what we write.  They don't care about being blocked, or having their IP banned.  We have absolutely nothing that can leverage their behavior.  Sure, we could say something like "Editors who are bitter about having an article deleted and so track down the deleting administrator in real life in order to send death threats to his or her family will be banned."  But why would we?  It adds nothing to the value of the policy.  It helps no one.  On the contrary, it risks suggesting that course of action, especially to people who are going to be banned anyway (that's the essence of WP:BEANS, after all).  And to the overwhelming majority of people reading Wikipedia policy, it either 1) makes us look insane or 2) makes editing the project appear so inherently unsafe as to be undesireable ("Oh my God ... they have to put that in writing in policy??"). I hope that the Foundation considers a more serious legal stance in issues like this, but that's not a policy-level determination.  I feel for H and his family, but rekindling the NPA edit war doesn't help them.  Serpent's Choice 16:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: You mean this indef-blocked user?  A ban is, by convention, an indef-block that no one will lift.  It would take, as conversations with him by admins have already stated, "UN-level diplomacy" to have any chance of that ever occurring.  He's gone.  I care about the lives of editors and their families, too.  I hope the Foundation assists H with legal action.  But that's out of our hands.  Our policy has been enforced.  What happened to H has nothing to do with policy — he was the victim of an offline criminal act.  It isn't defeatism to say that we cannot prevent that with a policy document; sadly, it's the real world. Serpent's Choice 17:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps someone familiar with the situation could explain what happened to him and how it could have been averted via a change in policy. That is not clear from his user page. --Mantanmoreland 18:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Short version, to the limits of my knowledge.  Some time ago, an editor (who is now essentially banned), posted H's personal details on an off-wiki website and harrassed him at his place of employment.  More recently, someone generally believed to be associated with an Internet trolling organization (whose article was, after much kerfluffle, deleted by H) made physical threats against his family.  We don't know the details, but the assumption has been that they were enabled by the previous outing.  In any case, other than the banning of the originally-involved editor, it has all taken place off-wiki.  Serpent's Choice 18:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: We are talking about the wording of a policy in regard to editing in WP space. I concur with Serpent's Choice that there is no remit here to stop people (who may have edited WP) doing anything outside of WP to people who are members of WP. It is beyond the ability of WP to stop the creation and population of sites containing attack material. The best we can do is to deny people the right to post links to any such material within WP, and permit the blocking (to facilitate the non-linking policy) of those editors who do so. Nobody here believes such material should be linked to, although some do not wish any ban to automatically apply to sites hosting such material. Would H have been harrassed had there been a stringent ban on all links to attack sites? Regretably, the answer is yes. The harrasser only needed a search engine and some basic information. Will it happen again? Again, regretably, yes. There is a lot of personal info out there. WP can make it extemely difficult to link to it (hopefully impossible where it is on an attack page) but cannot make the information disappear. Since that is the case then what we have here is a debate about a wording that provides the most reassurance of protection to the right of anonymity against the interests of the community as a whole. LessHeard vanU 19:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody here believes such material should be linked to. On the contrary there are editors who lap up the kool aid and revel in linking to attack sites. Some think it is a great big joke and behave like three-year-olds trying to test mommy's patience. (For all we know, of course, some of these editors might actually be</I> three year olds.) If there were no editors who behaved that way, there would be no purpose in having this discussion. I would like hear some concrete proposals from people on H's side before dismissing the suggestion that more can be done. Based on what I have heard I am not sure what could be proposed that hasn't already been proposed.--Mantanmoreland 21:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody here (i.e. this page/debate) believes...; If I meant Wikipedia I would have referred to it by name or abbreviation. LessHeard vanU 21:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some more teeth needed

message: I propose a rewording of the text in the nutshell. Comment on content, not on the contributor. doesn't really capture the essence of the whole page, in comparison to other policy pages (e.g. WP:NPOV, WP:SOCK). Maybe something other than just one line of text. Any suggestions? +spebi ~ 07:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nutshell reword 

message: Is there a policy for dealing with veiled personal attacks where a group of editors are attacked ie. based on their nationality? When someone crafts a post thats sole purpose is put down ones nation as a whole with a motive to wage an emotional war on those editors?--Alexia Death 12:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: May I advise you to stop forum-shopping in most improbable places on Wikipedia? As one Estonian said to my Italian friend in Tallinn, "Remember that a Russian's eyes may be blue, but his arse is black." Such attitudes are better covered by WP:CIVIL than by WP:NPOV. --Ghirla-трёп- 13:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Asking for advice is still not illegal in WP as far as I know. --Alexia Death 13:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Personal" attacks on groups? 

message: I just received an offensive email from User:Gprice, because I gave him a vanalism tag (he replaced a Petey Piranha image with something else) (the title of the email being called "Wikipedia e-mail"):
"Sorry, I made an honest mistake.  I promise I won't do it again.  In
the meantime you sanctimonious, teenage, Nintendo-playing, Australian
asshole, why don't you just suck my dick.
"Vandalism at Image:Petey.jpg
"Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you
did to Image:Petey.jpg. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been
reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.
Thank you. Hardcore gamer 48 10:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now you take it to WP:AN/I--Alexia Death 11:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. : ) Hardcore gamer 48 11:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone tell me what to do now? 

message: Seeing as there are two recent requests for help regarding receipt of personal attacks, should we have a template at the top of the page noting that this is policy discussion rather than a complaints venue? It might help if there was an indication where the complaint should be made. LessHeard vanU 12:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  Maybe something like at the top of Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. --Coppertwig 15:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we tag this page? 

message: What is "limited" removal of personal attacks, anyway?:
"There is no official policy regarding when or whether most personal attacks should be removed, although it has been a topic of substantial debate.[1] Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern. On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited."
Like, for example, if someone responds to your message with "<blah blah blah> You're a stupid, idiotic pathetic little weasel and troll that does not deserve a life <blah blah blah>", what would be "limited" removal? Would just removing the "You're a stupid idiotic pathetic little weasel and troll that does not deserve a life" part be too much, too little or just right? mike4ty4 07:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest that all apart from the <blah blah blah>, which I presume is the point/counterpoint the party is trying to make, should be removed. If someone is making a reasonable argument then it is only the unreasonable personal attack aspect that requires removing. LessHeard vanU 12:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limited removal? 

message: I can't believe the main page doesn't have a very clear link to reporting personal attacks page. Is reporting personal attacks being made more difficult for some reason? 24.6.65.83 02:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A simple solution is Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. DurovaCharge! 22:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to report Personal Attacks 

message: ... and you are a lousy person for having them!
This seems to be a frequent type of personal attack that isn't encompassed by the categories described on the policy page. I'm referring to the sort of comment that doesn't actually express a view or any information about the subject being discussed; it only expresses spite towards another editor because of the views they hold.
Here's a made-up example. Let's say that the article under discussion is, say, legal drinking age:
:There are a number of studies [1] [2] [3] that suggest that if the drinking age in the U.S. were lowered or eliminated, people would be more accustomed to the effects of alcohol and would be less likely to binge-drink. After all, in countries where teenagers are served wine at the family dinner table, binge drinking is much less common. We should cover this more in the article. Any suggestions? --Joe User
::You disgust me! How can you suggest that children should be allowed to get drunk?! That's just sick. I hope you never have children. --Bob Loser
Bob's comment does nothing to lead improvement of the article, and it only barely pertains to the subject at hand. It is simply an expression of rage at Joe. I suggest that comments that merely express rage at (what one believes are) another person's views, should qualify as personal attacks in the sense of WP:NPA. --FOo 02:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the appropriate response is for Joe to WP:IGNORE/WP:DENY Bob. Warning Bob for NPA invites a discussion (in which the words censorship and depravers of childhood(sic) are likely to feature) and wikidrama which is the probable intent of Bob anyway. Only if it escalates - i.e. it was not ignored - would a NPA warning be appropriate. LessHeard vanU 08:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a useful response of uninvolved editors is to remind Bob about NPA or to ask Bob to stick to productive remarks about the article content, not about editors.  Uninvolved editors can mention NPA, since they're not so likely to get drawn into a debate. The most productive, in my experience, is for editors who are expressing or have expressed agreement with Bob about article content on this point to remind Bob about NPA; or for someone to find something to criticize both editors about at the same time, and make sure both know the other is also being criticized, e.g. "I also left a message on so-and-so's talk page." In this example I can't see anything to criticize Joe User about, but if you wait a few minutes after the above exchange, the chance of him providing such is fairly high.  :-) --Coppertwig 15:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is Bob's response to a NPA warning? If it is to retreat then all and fine, but wouldn't ignoring Bob have had the same likely response. However, if Bob then declares that he is being censored for speaking his mind then the matter is conflated. NPA should not be a first response unless the language is so severe to potentially warrant a block - AGF being the reason why only a warning is issued to a new user. LessHeard vanU 15:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I know you are of nation X. Nation X is [insert usually groundless spiteful accusation]. Thus all you have to say must be wrong.
And this is exploited rather openly to aggravate opponents.--Alexia Death the Grey 16:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, this happens a lot in the case of longstanding national rivalries. However, this case is already covered by the examples in WP:NPA dealing with racial and ethnic remarks. --FOo 07:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But NPA IS not enforced on that level. Specially since the last sentence is often omitted and the whole goal is to just insult the opponents nationality.--Alexia Death the Grey 11:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am disgusted by your views ... 

message: :Links or references to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against Wikipedians are not permitted, and should be removed. Such removals are not subject to the three-revert rule, though administrators may disagree over whether or not a particular link qualifies for this exemption....
What's that supposed to mean?  If an administrator disagrees, it is subject to 3RR?  Whatever the implications of it is, should be spelled out. ←BenB4 23:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A rewording is needed to make the policy clearer, as well as to bring it in agreement with actual recent practice, which has pretty much without exception rebuffed attempts to remove links on the grounds of their being alleged "attack sites".  The revised policy should also take into account Jimbo's comments, which call for thoughtfulness about what we link to, taking into account what personal hurt might result, but balancing this with other concerns which will usually take precedence (NPOV is an obvious one). *Dan T.* 00:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It basically means that you can't dodge the 3RR by claiming you're removing attacks if you're not actually doing that. >Radiant< 09:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How does saying administrators may disagree imply that? ←BenB4 15:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *You are welcome to reword this page to make it clearer. The point is that if somebody removes a link of what he claims to be an attack site, and an admin investigates and disagrees with the contention that it is an attack site, said somebody is subject to 3RR as normal. >Radiant< 15:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Links or references to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against Wikipedians are not permitted, and should be removed. Such removals are not subject to the three-revert rule unless an administrator disagrees that the link is to an attack site....
? ←BenB4 16:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not. This would make the rule pretty much superfluous, as there are numerous administrators who philosophically disagree with the view that any site should not be linked.--Mantanmoreland 20:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um... there are administrators who disagree with i) what constitutes an attack site, and ii)disagree that a site rather than the attack material/page should not be linked to. There may be some who disagree with removing any links whatsover, but they are in a minority. LessHeard vanU 20:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I said.--Mantanmoreland 02:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "numerous..." does not usually signify a minority. LessHeard vanU 12:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Really, the whole idea of giving a 3RR exemption is a bad idea... it just encourages edit warring. *Dan T.* 04:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And, in fact, an edit war on this very issue is now in progress on Don Murphy, with a link-removing warrior already in violation of 3RR and proclaiming in the talk page that the past arbcom ruling (now under review in a new case) gives him the right to ignore this rule. *Dan T.* 12:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, then, we're better off totally rid of the whole link prohibition, since giving a 3RR exemption to one side in a dispute is just plain unfair. *Dan T.* 02:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: You don't have to exempt enforcement of a rule from 3RR to give it teeth. Even our Foundation policy of WP:NPOV does not provide for enforcement exempt from 3RR. -Amarkov moo! 01:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think the need to mention administrators may disagree part is necessary. Instead simply link to Wikipedia:Three-revert rule which lists all the exemptions and which also explains that editors should be aware that "it is only in the clearest cases that they will be considered exceptions to the rule". Nil Einne 14:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. The "administrators may disagree" part is confusing, and was added recently. Policies that cite other policies should do so through wikilinking, not through attempting to restate the policy in another place. Policies change, and keeping up with all the places where that policy might be cited is a big headache, and leads to confusion, and unwitting violations. Dean Wormer 16:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "administrators may disagree" 

message: An ArbCom case has been proposed on the "BADSITES" subject. *Dan T.* 01:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbcom case 

message: Could the disambig notice be moved below the banners? It looks weird at the moment. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it will be OK once the protection banner is removed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small request 

message: Can a sysop change the wording in the first paragraph of Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks#Off-wiki_personal_attacks, so that it says "The Wikimedia Foundation", instead of "Wikipedia"?  Bushcarrot Talk Please Sign! Let's go Lightning! 23:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the sentence should consistently say "Wikipedia," as this is an English Wikipedia specific policy, not a Foundation policy or a Meta policy.  English Wikipedia does not have control over the contents of, for example, the French Wikipedia.  Risker 02:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: - if you can get consensus for this change please replace the  template. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 18:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for edit 

message: Like profanity, insults are the product of an unsophisticated mind. Wikipedia only hurts itself by trying to control what people can and cannot say. The rampant Wikiality and censorship aside, people need to behave like adults by not resorting to name calling but also by not reacting to insults.
It goes both ways. I like to call people names, and people should have the mental fortitude to not cry about it. This is not an issue which users should be blocked for, as long as Wikipedia remains worksafe. This is why there is so much protest over this. People are being blocked for calling people stupid. Oh noes. Grow up, kids. Sticks and stones and so on.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demonesque (talk • contribs) 21:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's four tildes, not three. Three only gets your username, four gets it and the date. Picaroon (t) 02:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh God, please no. At least 3RR can be enforced with objectivity, by comparing the text of edits to count reverts.  There is just no bright line between fair criticism and an attack. ←BenB4 07:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A personal attack is very easy to determine.  It is criticism of an editor  instead of the edit, labeling a person instead of objecting to a particular behavior, or otherwise making a disagreement "personal" when it does not need to be.  If someone is blocked for 3RR or 3PA for a day it is not the end of the world.  If they continue to offend, attack and disrpt, that IS a problem.   When the environment here becomes toxic, reasonable people will leave.  That is far, far worse than the occasional over-zealous 24 hour block. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 00:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It can't be defined that simply though. Some editors have a pattern of disruptive behavior, and we shouldn't open the door for them to claim "OMG HE DO 3PA BLOCK NOW!!!!!!" when someone comments on that. -Amarkov moo! 00:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry,  I'm not understanding your point.  Commenting on disruptive behavior is different from commenting on the person making the disruption.  If someone comments on behavior by saying "stop being a jerk", that is a personal attack.  Compare these responses: "Your an idiot", "You don't know what you're talking about", "You clearly need to spend more time researching the topic",  "I'm certain that is not correct".  They all say the same thing.  The last comment clearly isn't a personal attack.  It seems there is always a way to comment without attacking the person you disagree with.  It will also be clear if people are trying to learn from their mistakes or game the system. When I've blocked people for 3RR, some of them go off the deep end, and some of them make a genuine effort to learn from their mistakes.  The editors who go off the deep end are probably not suited to this environment, and everyone is probably better off if they leave. The 3RR block often separates the wheat from the chaff.  Editors who adopt 1RR as their norm never have a problem with 3RR.  Editors who never make personal attacks would never have a problem with 3PA. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 19:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: well, as someone who has spent a considerable amount of time rewording comments to avoid the word "you"--and almost always managed to find a way--there is a grey zone, e.g. the continuum: you are an idiot/the author of the previous comment is an idiot / the author of the previous comment does not understand / some of the people who have commented earlier do not understand / perhaps not everyone understands  But at least some sort of definite statement like this will  work for the people who are too angry or thoughtless to consider what they are saying. That's a start. I have my own standard--anyone who right away apologizes without raising further difficulties, it wasnt a serious personal attack. It shows they either understand, or at the very least know the virtue of pretending to be polite. DGG (talk) 04:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Personal Attacks Doesn't Have Consensus 

message: We need a section which informs contributors that personal attacks are a known feature of the Wikipedia community, and that this policy can't be construed as any kind of statement that they won't be allowed to occur.Proabivouac 08:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure they will never be "allowed", but there is little that can be done until they occur. Perhaps you intend that it should be indicated that this policy is reactive rather than proactive? LessHeard vanU 20:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed new section

message: Right up front, this policy states: "Comment on content, not on the contributor."  Isn't that in conflict with Wikipedia's "Conflict of Interest" policy?  If content is good, it shouldn't matter who writes it, right? --Earthboat 16:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This conflicts with WP:COI