Wikipedia talk:Attack sites/Archive 2

message: This should be discussed on the talk page of WP:EL, not on a separate page. >Radiant< 14:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, but this is a specific issue, not really one that is about El only.--MONGO 15:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:EL is essentially about article cites, and that's not the issue here. But this is WP:CREEP all right, at best. Mangoe 15:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really creep, a needed definition of what sites are harmful to link to. - Denny (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I would not call it "censored". As a Wikipedian, I would expect the community to have safeguards in place to protect me from harassment. As the project grows in importance and recognition, the ability of Wikipedia to attract and retain contributors will depend to having such a safeguard in place. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This proposal doesn't protect anyone from any harassment. My protection against the abusive material on ED or WR is not to read it, which is already within my power. Anything that is genuinely hazardous that they can do, they can do without having a link to it from Wikipedia. Mangoe 21:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, SqueakBox 21:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm puzzled. If having your identity and contact details made public could lead to harm in the real world, how can not reading it protect you? That's like saying that if the Daily Mail publishes Maxine Carr's new identity and location, her best protection would be not to buy a copy of the Daily Mail. She doesn't need to worry that other people now know who and where she is — as long as she doesn't read that paper! I don't intend to be sarcastic; I'm genuinely puzzled. If the problem were just that some website was publishing jokes about certain Wikipedians, with the intention of annoying them and getting a reaction, I could see the point. If the trolling consists just of insults, and not attempts to "out" somebody, and if the only harm the trolls could do was the harm of annoying you, then not allowing yourself to get annoyed (which for most people probably means not reading it) would be a protection from their "attacks". But good heavens! If someone sets up a website with full names and photos of me, my husband, my children, addresses of workplace, schools, and home, home phone number, employer's phone number, etc. linking all this to my username and my edits here, how on earth could anyone think that telling me not to visit that website would be a better protection for my family than immediately removing links to the site, and blocking people who posted them? Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't there been cases of users and especially administrators being severely harassed in real life, with threats against their families, and phonecalls or letters to their employers, as a result of their real life identities becoming known? And isn't it possible that some lunatic stalker, engaged in a dispute with a user, or blocked by an admin, might just happen to see a link to a stalking website posted on Wikipedia, which he might not have known otherwise? It's obvious that removing links doesn't give full protection, since the sites will still exist. But it certainly gives better protection than simply having the victim refraining from visiting the site. ElinorD (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually not linking doesnt give any real protection at all as said sites still exist and are easily accessible using a search engine. If people engage in criminal activity that is a matter for the police. if sites arent engaging in illegal acts are they a threat anyway? And surely the issue would be to address these sites themselves not these sites as they appear on wikipedia. Anyway wikipedia is not designed for children. Why do we need a nanny wikipedia to protect us from   epople who harent doing anything illegal. Even google dont ban sites critical of them , SqueakBox 22:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what you mean by saying that not linking doesn't give any "real protection". If you mean it doesn't give full protection, I agree; if you mean it doesn't give any protection, I disagree. Locking your front door when you go out doesn't give full protection against burglars, but I bet you still do it. I'm sure you wouldn't argue that it doesn't give "any real protection", so there's no point. If it's true that Wikipedian editors have been stalked in real life as a result of their identities being discovered and publicised against their wishes, then giving some protection (similar to locking a door or having a burglar alarm — helpful even if not 100% effective) should be something that we all want. ElinorD (talk) 13:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It protects by not disseminating it ON Wikipedia. There is NO legal or moral obligation to include anything on Wikipedia, and includes outbound links to crap harassment websites. If consensus and practice is to remove those links, then, well, practice is policy as Slim said. - Denny (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you are missing at least three important points. First, by linking from WP into the attack site we are further promoting that site, which is a form of attack by itself. For example, instead of saying "you are a convicted criminal", I can link to your criminal record somewhere, and do the same thing. If the source I link to is questionable, it still conveys the message that I think you are a criminal, and I want everyone to see it. Second, there is a clear rule of "don't feed the trolls". Trolls thrive on attention - stop the attention and they wither and die (or go elsewhere). In this case, when we link and promote their comments from within WP, we are encouraging them and feeding them, perpetuating the abuse. Third, Google is very efficient at scraping WP, much more so (in my experience) than other sites. So by mentioning the links here, we are promoting their Google-ranking, making them more prominent. If you are the one being attacked, that's clearly detrimental. In addition to all of that, there is no good reason to quote or mention an attack site in the first place, since we are here to write an encyclopedia, and those sites would rarely if ever qualify as a reliable source. It is exactly because such comments by people saying "so what's the big deal in linking there", and not aware of the ArbCom rulings, that we need this guideline or policy in place. Crum375 21:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well said. - Denny (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:CREEP]] 

message: The idea that anonymous ediTOrs get special rights over non-anonymous ediotrs is not acceptable as policy, IMO, SqueakBox 15:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How does this proposal do that? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh see this edit for an explanation of my comment, so its what the proposal proposed (and my edit hasnt been reverted so it doesnt any more), SqueakBox 19:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, okay. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 19:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anonymity

message: "For the purposes of this proposal, an attack site is a site outside Wikipedia that engages in [...], or condones [...] by failing to remove [...] legal threats toward Wikipedians."
OK, I would interpret this as a threat intended to discourage those active on other sites from taking legal action against anyone editing on Wikipedia. To take an object case, that of Daniel Brandt against SlimVirgin, this seems to be an admittedly fairly lame threat against the former taking the latter to court for whatever personal attacks she may make upon him in the forum of Wikipedia in the course their ongoing dispute. It does seem to me that such attacks are being made (and that indeed the substance of this proposal is an attack), but in any case, we're back to the issue of whether she and the various other instigators of this policy are acting in agency of the foundation. If they are (which I personally hold to be the case) then approving this is just an act of communal hypocrisy. But if not, then it puts the community in the position of trying to interfere with whatever legal action he may choose to take. I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, of course. Mangoe 21:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you a Wikipedia Review regular contributor...? ;) Your arguments unfortunately seem to be along the lines of "This might be bad" or "it's hypocritical". Unfortunately, none of them are grounded in actual practice... or examples. - Denny (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Our off-wiki lives are not relevant here, according to policy. Trying to out WR editors would be the same as trying to out wikipedia editors, IMO, SqueakBox 00:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Are you now, or have you ever been a communist Wikipedia Review contributor? *Dan T.* 22:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As was said earlier in all of this, DennyColt, the only thing that brought WR to my attention was your attempt to excise it from WP:EXR's talk page. Before that I had never heard of it. As far as being a regular contributor to it, frankly, this exchange is making that sound like a good idea. Mangoe 23:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Mangoe: You said: we're back to the issue of whether she and the various other instigators of this policy are acting in agency of the foundation.  What? What? I am not acting in agency of anyone. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor am I. - Denny (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I had let this one pass, but it has since occurred to me that what I said has been the victim of what appears to be a rather paranoid misunderstanding. I didn't mean to imply that the admins involved here are acting at the explicit direction of the foundation; the point is rather that since the adminstrators are acting on the behalf of and subject to the foundation, it is reasonable to attribute responsibility to the foundation for supervising them. Mangoe 12:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone who believes in the goals of this project and wants it to succeed, would want to ensure that our editors have a safe and enjoyable working environment, and that they not be attacked or harassed from within WP itself. This has nothing to do with being an admin, or representing the Foundation. No admin here gets paid a dime, and all rational editors and admins have the exact same motivation. Crum375 12:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another problem clause 

message: hi folks - sorry, but this proposal really seems to have the aura of 'not a good idea' to me.....
1. The title 'Attack Sites' - of course every right thinking person would be against these, but one man's attack site is another man's freedom-forum - the name of the proposal already seems to belie an agenda....
2. Overly Vague - generally speaking, I believe the on-wiki standards of harassment are not up to scratch - it's a very common wolf-cry. To take essjay as an example - it's certainly clear that he felt harrassed, but I found it hard to agree with him - who gets to decide?
3. The IRC issue - without opening a can of worms - is this proposal intended to remove links to the IRC channels, which seem to have well documented transgressions of these guidelines?
4. The 'Legal Threat' Bubble - legal threats are terrible for community building and collaborative editing, i guess that's why they've always been slammed so hard - however, they are.. er... 'legal!' - in taking this step, the wiki seems to be going a step further, and saying that not only are legal threats bad on-wiki, but they're bad period. The wiki has to live and breathe in the real world, not the world the way it would like it to be - and this step seems to be a further retreat into a bit of a bubble.....
..there're my thoughts for now.....
alot of this may well be solved by being less prescriptive, replacing rules and reg.s with discouragement etc. - i may have a go later! - thanks, Purples 22:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've made 24 edits to articles in just under two years, so you'll forgive us for not taking your views seriously. Please post with your main account instead. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Not sure what that whole 24 edit thing is supposed to be about, but that IRC comment is something I hadn't considered. Is this policy limited to websites, or does it extend to IRC and mailing lists and the like? I don't think anyone can deny there's been some nasty stuff on IRC. Frise 23:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposal talks only about websites and discussion groups. IRC isn't meant to be logged and linked to. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By linking to IRC, we link to a place where harassment of Wikipedia editors takes place. If the purpose of this policy is to shield editors from sites where off-wiki attacks take place, then we should figure out how IRC fits into all of this. Frise 23:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarified. - Denny (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and already reverted. Frise 05:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know whether it's aggressive or just to the point. If you really have made only 24 edits to the encyclopedia in nearly two years, you lack the experience of the website and its problems with attack sites to comment. If you're a more experienced user and this is a sockpuppet account, it raises the question of why you don't post with your main account. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Purples has been here for over two years and may not comment on policy, but DennyColt can be here for 2.5 months and propose policy? I'm not sure I follow that reasoning. I think we should focus on the content, not the contributor. That is what we are about, after all. Frise 23:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote an essay on what seemed like practice and the right way to do things. Others promoted it. - Denny (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And you are right to do so, and purples is right to comment on it. Frise 23:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That simply isnt true , SqueakBox 23:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, you did try to promote it yourself  Frise 23:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And it was reversed, and I left it at that. :) I did not replace that, more experienced and knowledgeable Wikipedians did with the best interests of the project at heart. - Denny (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, no, actually it hasn't been replaced. But that's beside the point, which is you should be able to propose policy; purples should be able to comment on it. Commenting on the contributor adds nothing to the discussion, especially when he or she has raised valid points. Frise 23:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Replaced with proposed, semantics... and you're right, anyone can contribute, as long as they are not obvious sock puppets that violate those rules. - Denny (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Frise, someone with 24 article edits over two years is an obvious sockpuppet account. There's no need to pay attention to the opinions about a policy proposal from someone who's violating policy elsewhere. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well whatever, YOU promoted it as nobody did before you. Please do make sure you remain as accuarate as possible about your input into the article, SqueakBox 23:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said before its not an article, article space 'rules' for V, OR, etc., don't apply. It's a discussion. - Denny (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: And people can call "censorship" by any euphemism they want... it's still censorship. *Dan T.* 23:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are missing the point... we cannot address/police legal threats off-wiki, but we certainly can address/police the use of WP pages to promote or advertise these sites. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I am not missing the point, I assure you. That is precisely why we are here (your point) and I for one dont have time to waste, SqueakBox 00:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you disagree that we cannot address legal threats to Wikipedia (i.e. "I will sue Wikipedia or THAT editor!") on-Wiki? That is the role of the legal counsel, not admins or editors. - Denny (talk) 01:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  some concerns..... 

message: Can we get some detailed listings here of more? I added one from a Blu Aardvark ArbCom that seemed very relevant. What others are there? - Denny (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's one at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba. Not sure if its "attack sites" though... --KZTalk• Contribs 00:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Robert Priddy's homepage critical of the public figure Sathya Sai Baba and the website wwww.exbaba.com that I am affiliated with contains critical information with regards to an influential public figure. I think that lumping it together with wikipedia review under the label "attack site" is neither fair nor accurate. If you disagree, then please be consistent please also label all websites critical of George W. Bush as "attack sites". Andries 18:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just listed all the sites that have to do with external links, from ArbCom...they aren't an accurate picture of what is an attack site. --KzTalk• Contribs 02:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previous precedent, ArbCom, etc. 

message: This "for the safety and well-being of all Wikipedia users" should be removed as it makes the statement that blocking these sites will help saftey of users which I for one see no evidence of. If these sites are out there we should not pretend that not linking to them will protect our editors as this simply isnt true, SqueakBox 23:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Safety

message: Is spam related to this or not? Because this page seems to be on the basis of stopping it. --KZTalk• Contribs 00:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spam2

message: It's not very wiki to have 'big-stick' rules.
This proposal would restrict discussion - presumably were it active 3 months ago, I could have been be banned for referring to a Wikipedia Review claim that essjay wasn't a professor?
It's unnecessary.
It reflects very badly on Wikipedia's maturity as an organisation - we can handle gossip.
I don't believe Wikipedia Review, Wikitruth, or any of the others can be sensibly catagorised as hate sites - it does us no credit to say that they're anything other than cheeky, inaccurate, aggressive, mischievous, etc. etc. (pick your own)
...this one has got me pondering a little more about the problems of creating a wiki-world removed from the real-world - anyways, that's my take on everything at the moment... Purples 03:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If sites are engaged in speculating on WP editors' personal lives, in trying to out them, and in endagering their safety, the promotion of such sites within WP space is harming those editors. There is no valid reason to promote those sites here. We are here to write an encylopedia, not to engage in speculation about each other, and not to attack each other. Such sites are essentially useless as sources for articles, and create real safety hazards and harassment for our editors. Promoting them here is tantamount to furthering their aim in harming the project by attacking its contributors. Crum375 03:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And why would you link any of those in an article, unless you are talking about the criticism of Wikipedia? Even then, those sources would be unreliable due to their biases against Wikipedia. --KZTalk• Contribs 03:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Oppositon in a nutshell.... 

message: We already have a policy addressing the issue of legal threats. There is no benefit to duplicating.  
As to defamation, this is something that requires a finding by a court; Wikipedia cannot make its own determination.  Further, one can only defame a real person; it is not possible to defame an IP address or a pseudonym, unless the pseudonym is known to be linked to a specific real person.  And the only person who can pursue the matter in civil court is the person who is allegedly defamed.  I really can't see Wikipedia paying anyone's legal bills because they don't like the way they're portrayed on another website.  Risker 03:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not asking WP to pay anyone's legal bills. But we are asking editors not to promote attack sites, which attack our contributors, within Wikipedia's space. There is no reason to promote such sites here - it does not contribute to encyclopedia building in any useful way. Crum375 03:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me add to my edit summary, that WP:NLT does not directly cover the point of this policy. This policy declares a site which attacks WP editors, including legal threats and/or defamation, as an 'attack site', which may not be linked or promoted here. WP:NLT prohibits making such attacks directly on WP space itself. Crum375 03:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I am severely disappointed that you have reverted this edit with a disingenuous summary.  You refer only to the "legal threats" part, which should properly be a "see also" link to that policy.  But more importantly you have returned the "defamation" line without explaining in any way why you feel it should be there. Only a real person can be defamed. Pseudonyms cannot be defamed, because they cannot be materially injured.  This term should never have been added in the first place, has been removed with a justification, and now reinserted without any reason whatsoever.  Please explain your actions.  Risker 03:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You still have not explained your removal of "defamation."  Please do so. Alternately, someone else can explain why they think "defamation" should be in there, responding to the points that I have identified above.  Risker 03:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Assume you have an editor who chooses to remain anonymous, and works here for years and contributes heavily to the project under a given handle. Assume further that an external site defames the reputation of that editor under the known handle. The harm to that editor can be considerable, no less in certain ways than that of a person being named under his/her real name. The defamation also contributes to harassment, making the work environment for that editor less pleasant. Overall, the defamation amounts to an attack on a real human being  who volunteers his time and energy to this project. We should not promote or condone this defamation and harassment in any way by linking to such a site. Crum375 03:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will simply say that defamation - which incidentally nobody has bothered to define in the article, and I have defined above as a concept for courtrooms not wikis - involves only real people, not people carrying out tasks pseudonymously.  There are many good reasons for editing under a pseudonym - I could not safely edit here without one - but when using a pseudonym one also loses the protection of one's own good name. Our friend *Dan T.* would have grounds to claim defamation under the circumstances you describe. I wouldn't, and neither would you (or most of the other people who have posted in this thread). Risker 05:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't seem to be addressing my points above. Are you saying that my example editor would not be harassed by this defamation? If you agree that this is a type of harassment, then a site that engages in defamation is a harassment site. If you disagree and you feel that such an editor is not attacked or harassed by his longtime online Wikipedia identity being defamed, I suspect many such editors would disagree with you. Crum375 05:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing to address.  I wasn't talking about harassment, I was talking about defamation.  And whether or not your example editor was harassed, he was not defamed.  He cannot be defamed unless he is using his own name. Our pseudonyms have no existence outside of Wikipedia, which is where defamation takes place. Risker 05:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't know whether pseudonym's can be libeled, and in any event that's not the point. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome to think as you will, but now you have changed the word to libel from defamation, and I will change it thus in the proposal. In fact, I have taken the opportunity to ask two different lawyers, in two different jurisdictions, and both reassured me that pseudonyms cannot be libeled, after they finished laughing at me.  I understand from them that it is difficult for non-human entities (like corporations) to prove libel in many jurisdictions.  Risker 05:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If your two lawyer friends laughed, they've not read up on the latest on that issue. What was the purpose of your changing it from defamation to libel? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I know the definitions of libel and slander; I was only wondering why you changed it from defamation. It makes no difference, so no worries. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Legal threats and Defamation 

message: It's rather sexist to just have boys in the section titles, isn't it?  :-) *Dan T.* 04:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So..umm...What are we going to talk about here? --KZTalk• Contribs 04:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  girl oh girl! 

message: Check this out, looking in particular at Oppose #70... somebody cited and linked to a thread in an Unmentionable Site to show the words and actions of the person nominated for adminship.  One of the responses found it to be "the first real compelling argument" in the RFA, and SlimVirgin was one of the later commenters to find that citation to have shed some light on the character of the nominee.  But I guess we can't do that anymore?  (Not that I really want Wikipedians to get punished for their words on other sites, in the way that some other sites punish you for your words over here, but when somebody is up for adminship, their character is relevant wherever they show it.) *Dan T.* 04:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... Good argument. I suppose we have to reword the guideline/essay, so that their is a suitable excuse for linking that. One problem with the link is that it seems to be an isolated incident as, normally, people don't edit Wikipedia and that website often. --KZTalk• Contribs 05:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I my opinion, having re-read that entire RfA discussion, the actual link was not really needed. Much of the discussion that ensued followed from SV's explanation of the candidate's behavior. Crum375 05:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And that sort of thing didn't need a direct link anyway...only an explanation of where to find it. However, I think that pointing fingers at people for what they say or do off wiki is generally a bad thing, so long as they "put on their wiki hats" while here, that is all that matters. But, no doubt, those that do edit circumspect websites and make harassing comments or support such are likely to have this impact the respect they might otherwise enjoy here.--MONGO 05:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here's a case of a useful link to a site folks here want to ban... 

message: ...i'm re-stating the example I gave above here because i don't think it's been addressed really. This is a 'not really a big deal at all' example - which might mean it's quite useful to discuss - no-one's been that upset, and hopefully no-one will be!.......
KNcyu38 posted this.... 
A couple of edits later, Crum removed it 
I'd say that this was a mistake, and shouldn't be encouraged under current, or proposed policy, because not only was the link removed, but the entire point was, and the discussion effectively closed.
Slim makes the point that ArbCom have said it's ok / encouraged to remove such links - I'm not sure if she therefore feels Crum's edit was mistake-free or not?
My final point is that this policy seems to actively support this kind of edit, and i don't think that's a good thing.
best - Purples 05:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its a fine idea to practice the proposed policy here, since it's actually already policy by definition and practice. In other words, this is policy from what I understand--this is now just formalizing the wording on it. - Denny (talk) 07:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly what Denny said... --KZTalk• Contribs 07:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, it's policy and SlimVirgin appropriately answered the question I was really asking with a blocking warning on my talk page. Accordingly, I thanked her for it, because thereby, she answered my question. That's about all there is to it for me. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still share the opinion that the specific page I had linked to was not aimed at any certain user, and contained no attack as far as I could see, but the point is already moot. It's policy not to link to that site. I just have to and do accept that for now. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 10:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You shouldn't just accept it, and it's not policy right now... it's precisely what is being debated about being made policy, and by making such deletions, the policy's proponents have given a clear-as-a-bell reason why it's bad policy, by using it to muzzle opponents. *Dan T.* 11:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't just accept it, but resorting to any kind of personal attacks / bad faith allegations cannot be the answer and does nothing to advance this debate. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I don't agree. SlimVirgin was acting in accordance with an ArbCom decision. One may argue that she didn't warn user:Mantanmoreland who linked to that page in an RfA a while ago . But I don't want to be a dick about it. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a fair point. My linking to WR was a mistake. However, I would gently point out that my error was unintentional whereas yours struck me as just a tad WP:POINT. --Mantanmoreland 14:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said above: I don't want to be a dick about it. Do you? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be less inclined to think you were being a whatever if you recognized that it was a bit of a cheap shot.--Mantanmoreland 16:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: By the way, I did not think you were being a ...whatever. I think you were acting in good faith overall.--Mantanmoreland 16:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never assumed anything else. I believe we all agree that we should wrap this policy up as quickly and peacefully as possible. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course, since we are linking to a site to show that it isn't that kind of site, your analogy is fallacious. And haven't we just gotten to the website equivalent of Godwins law? Mangoe 17:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I am not aware that wikipedia discusses child pornography sites which are in any case highly illegal in contrast to alleged attack sites which are not illegal. How would we even know if a site was an attack site without linking to it. Censorship of legal activity on wikipedia that helps enhance the encyclopedia should always be acceptable, and we absolutely should not take someone else's word (especially if they arent being 100% transparent) that a particular site is an alleged attack site, SqueakBox 17:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was this misuse? 

message: It seems that attack site is being interpreted as any site which may or may not have harassing content, but the fact that it exists within the site somewhere is being used as a reason to remove. I'm thinking in particular of You-Know-Who. Shouldn't it be to specific harassment? For example, links to specific threads in a forum which are harassing should be banned, not links to the whole forum or to different parts of it which may have nothing to do with harassment. .V. [Talk|Email] 12:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If a site does not provide useful or acceptable sources for WP articles, and otherwise includes harassment and attacks against WP editors, there is no reason to promote it by linking to it, and there are good reasons not to do so. Linking to it anyway, can only be interpreted as assisting the attacks and harassment. Crum375 12:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not like they're going to disappear by ignoring them... .V. [Talk|Email] 12:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all. But there is a world of difference between repeating or promoting the attacks on WP space vs. leaving them outside. See also my response to this point here (under "I think you are missing"). Crum375 13:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we differ on the promotion aspect of this. I personally don't believe that this will promote these sites. The sites can be reached by simply googling "Wikipedia." For an analogy, it would be like someone saying "We shouldn't post links to Microsoft because it'll promote them." In both cases, they have a great deal of promotion as it is. I'm also not sure that linking to something, by definition, promotes it. .V. [Talk|Email] 15:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Microsoft doesn't attack or harass our editors, and 'promotion' means we further their aims. To Wikipedia editors it's one thing getting attacked from the outside by assorted flakes, it's quite another to be attacked from the inside by their fellow editors, and as I noted elsewhere, by merely linking to an attack site, you are effectively attacking too. Crum375 15:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to believe everybody got that by now. Do you care to know why I linked to that exact subpage? It was meant to illustrate that not all of that site consists of attacks. We're dealing with protection of Wikipedia users vs. censorship. Simple as that. Of course, our priority is to protect ourselves from attack sites, but we should not brush the accompanying fact of censorship under the carpet. And the notion that everything besides the (truly appalling!) attacks is without any merits is but a personal point of view of some users, which I do not share, as illustrated by the link I provided. I understand policy, SV has appropriately warned me, I won't ever link to that or a similar site again. But it's censorship, and I'd like to have debate and consensus about that aspect of this proposed policy. If I had to decide between some censorship and exposing fellow users to attacks, I'd censor as many sites as needed without flinching. But I'd prefer doing so in the face of that very decision, which is: To sacrifice some (in my humble opinion) interesting text for the sake of user protection. To make myself perfectly clear: I prefer shouting "ATTACK-uh-CENSORSHIP -uh-uh- A T T A C K" whereas some others only shout ATTACK or CENSORSHIP. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *I suppose you can still link to a Google search with innocuous keywords that highlight the exact page you're looking for. There's a million ways to effectively circumvent this, but we must not allow direct links to such pages. It would mean recognizing them as somehow acceptable, which they are not. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A direct link does not recognize something as acceptable, and I'm not sure why that would be the case. Wikipedia links to Stormfront (a hardliner White Nationalist website), for example, and that's not an endorsement of the site's contents at all. There are countless other examples as well. .V. [Talk|Email] 17:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a significant difference. Stormfront is a fascist platform that spreads hate into many directions. "Attack sites" contain material that is beyond controversial, such as outing the identity of a Wikipedia user. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Other than a certain tenured professor of theology at a private university, what users have been outed? .V. [Talk|Email] 01:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  We need to really get precise here. 

message: The "Split within the PIR" subsection of Daniel Brandt formerly had a WR link to Brandt's description of his viewpoint concerning the split within the PIR. Now it does not as per this diff. Is this something we want to discuss? WAS 4.250 13:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's out of line, of course. Mangoe 13:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The removal of the link is exactly why this is a poor idea for a policy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I simply don't sufficiently understand all involved policy issues, so please correct me if I'm mistaken, but as far as I dare to judge the situation, it's not an original idea of a policy. It's just a proposal to concisely formulate some aspects of existing policy on a seperate page. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's my understanding too. Just an enunciation of current policy, sort of fleshing it out.--Mantanmoreland 16:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, what policy? Once we get past the conflict of interest part, this seems to be about whether the arbcom finding in question should be elevated to policy. The opposition here (of which I count myself a member) seems to agree in objecting that this proposal is overbroad and seems intended to ban or at least hamper discussion which we see as harmless or even beneficial. Mangoe 17:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This should be being discussed on the DB talk page as this page is for talk to discuss a policy proposal and not the page to discuss the DB article. Quoting this project page as policy is a bad idea as it would mislead people, SqueakBox 17:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "It's just a proposal to concisely formulate some aspects of existing policy" Exactly where was this policy adopted by community consensus? On what page was the poll or consensus discussion please? The ArbCom cannot make policy, as they themselves have said.  I suppsoe this could be policy by Jimbo's decree, but if so, show me the diff where he so stated, please. DES (talk) 23:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Split within the PIR" subsection of [[Daniel Brandt]]

message: So, just how do we wrap this thing up?  Are we supposed to start a straw poll of some sort (yes, I know, "voting is evil") to find a consensus rather than just let a few vocal people on both sides keep arguing indefinitely? *Dan T.* 17:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Calm down firstly. There is no need to wrap anything up yet and I question your recent attempt to have this essay deleted. Give it another week and maybe the WR and ED partisans will finally come to recognize that we aren't going to link to those websites whether they like it or not. Once they come to their senses, we can make this a guideline. I am not in favor yet of this becoming policy as it still has a few too many kinks.--MONGO 17:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, rather than cooperate in any attempt to find out where the actual community consensus lies on this, and abide by it, you would rather declare by fiat that all opponents of your view are "partisans" rather than people with legitimate viewpoints, and then try to get this policy / guideline / whatever put into effect at some future time when the opposing side has been worn out and goes away to spend their time on something more productive elsewhere, so you can then run across the goal line unopposed because the other team went home. *Dan T.* 18:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is grossly uncivil. Please stop. - Denny (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not grossly uncivil. Hyperbole and ad hominems are not how policy is made, Denny. Or at least they shouldn't be. Frise 19:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You are more than welcome to MfD any page, if you desire. Note that MfD isn't used for policy decision. If you'll recall, I made that same novice mistake with the ATT Poll. :( - Denny (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I am neither a novice or very good with these type of pages. I think an Mfd or whatever is premature right now, SqueakBox 18:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Nominating it now, only 5 days after it was last nominated would be disruptive.--MONGO 18:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not. If the Mfd had been allowed to run you would be right but it was closed far too quickly and so re-nominating would not be disruptive, SqueakBox 18:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MfD isn't used for policy decision. - Denny (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what is used for policy decision?  Just wait for the opponents to tire out and go away, then declare victory, as was advocated above? *Dan T.* 19:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did wonder myself when I was pondering whther to put some kind of fd on this project page. I would suggest you try to clarify this point somehwere else, SqueakBox 19:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrapping it up