Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Archive 9

message: It appears that the text  "but some types of comments are never acceptable: [...] Linking to external attacks or harassment for the purpose of attacking another editor."  has consensus, since many people from diverse points of view have endorsed it, and I don't believe there have been any strong objections to it.  So in the spirit of Only Nixon could go to China, I've  added it.  (if anyone feels I've jumped the gun and the text doesn't have consensus, by all means please revert me)
I'm sure we'll still dispute individual cases, but this is a big big step, and congratulations all round. --Alecmconroy 22:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to everyone who helped take this small step towards improving our policies and reducing persaonl attacks and harassment.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Seconded. <exhale deep breath> Privatemusings 12:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: War is over, if you want it

message: The Wikipedia community is being played like a violin. All it takes is two trolls to edit war over a link and respected Wikipedians jump into the fray drawing huge attention to a link and its contents. Sometimes it can be done with only one troll if the link is pre-existing. WAS 4.250 20:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the respected Wikipedians could stop allowing ourselves to be played? Like, by not freaking out and going off on people as "trolls" just because they invite us to? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Some of the extremely antoi attack sites people do not know the meaning of subtelty, so drama follows them around wherever they go. ViridaeTalk 20:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen the argument made that, if we don't call trolls "spades" while blocking them, then we're being somehow less than honest. I wrote an essay in response to that idea. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hit the nail on the head there. ViridaeTalk 21:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: My feeling is that it is more being banged like a drum, and not by me. The professional dialog in disagreement I feel we have broadly maintained here is sadly atypical. Privatemusings 20:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Wikipedia community is being played like a violin. 

message: Instead of adding the "not acceptable" phrasing, could the section be moved to the "never acceptable" section up top? I am not 100% sure the dispute is over but from reading all the comments here, we pretty much all agree that linking to something for the sole purpose of harassing/outing/attacking another is not acceptable. The rest of it is the debatable part. spryde | talk 16:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well, it is there. 

message: I'm forced to ask the question: What makes harassment by external links different from all other kinds of harassment? Why is it different from on-wiki harassment, harassment by email, harassment by post or by projecting comprimising images of the person on to the moon with lasers? Why is it so different that the usual NO HARASSING PEOPLE becomes insufficient in this one context? WilyD 16:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've had problems with harassment in the past, despite our "no harassment" policy, and people have lawyered, arguing that it isn't harassment because the policy doesn't specify that harassment by links is banned, so there's a perception that we should edit the policy to strengthen it and help prevent further such harassment. The idea is that people can be sent packing more effectively and quickly if their behavior is specifically forbidden.  I hope I've just done that argument justice. Since I don't find it convincing, I'm not sure how convincingly I laid it out... -GTBacchus(talk) 05:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, and failure to enforse this properly in the past may have been an issue.  Of course, the undisputed text Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking another editor. now exists in the policy, so what's left? WilyD 15:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links, Redux 

message: 
Hi, i just want to suggest a small change, that is that in the "What is considered a personal attack?", first bullet point, such as against disabled people ought to be rewritten as such as against people with disabilities because some people with disabilites may find it offensive, because it suggests they are defined by their disability. Thanks--Jac16888 (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made your suggested edit; thanks for pointing that out. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 07:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor Change

message: I've unprotected this.  Reading the debate there seems to be a decent amount of common ground and a spirit of co-operation.  Let's try not to reignite the dispute. Guy (Help!) 17:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected 

message: Knowing this may not be kosher with some people, I am proposing to move the new section from the "Responding to Personal Attacks" section to the "What is considered a personal attack" and tacking it on to the end of Will's proposed version. I propose this as this section does not deal with how to respond to a personal attack but clarifies what is a personal attack. I would claim WP:BOLD and do it but this is a hot topic and I would rather not touch off another edit (and less importantly become a hypocrite for criticizing another user at the same time for a similar action). spryde | talk 17:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a reasonable suggestion to me. Others? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure I follow.  Could you use better descriptions of the text?  Are you referring to the "External links" section? What is "Will's proposal"? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I plan on moving section 2.5 in its entirety without modification to be an extension of the existing sentence "Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking another editor." as the text does not deal directly with how to respond to personal attacks. In the place of where 2.5 currently resides, I plan to offer an excerpt from the more stable sections of WP:LINKLOVE (probably the nutshell and some supporting paragraphs) and eventually link there if/once the proposed text is ratified. Does that make it clear? spryde | talk 21:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't object to the move. I object to moving over text from Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment, which is a contentious proposal with no consensus written largely by sock puppets.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood. I guess the next discussion is going to be over any text (if any) that should be included in that section. spryde | talk 21:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved. I will comment further below. spryde | talk 04:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section move proposal 

message: I concur with the version regarding external links as shown in this version. So long as this remains in place, I see no reason for my further involvement on this policy.--MONGO (talk) 02:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concur 

message: Should we change from the single sentence version to  the new section version? (diff)
 
* I concur with the version regarding external links as shown in this version. So long as this remains in place, I see no reason for my further involvement on this policy.--MONGO (talk) 02:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strictly speaking, Alex, neither the current version nor the proposed version would prevent linking to attack sites.  Both wordings allow links, so long as they're not added for the PURPOSE of harassment.   The question is whether the new version has a better wording, but both policies are equivalent.  --Alecmconroy (talk) 03:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What you say sounds as if one could link to an attack, as long as one could come up with a good enough excuse why the purpose is not to harass. I think it is more a prohibition on links to attacks, per se, and not a prohibition on links to entire sites. - Crockspot (talk) 03:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's what you want-- a prohibition on all links to attacks, I'd say you need to propose a text that makes that clear.  The proposed version I read only prohibits links added for the purposes of attacks --Alecmconroy (talk) 04:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That seems like a bit of a loophole that should be closed, no? An attack is an attack. How do we determine the purpose of an edit without being able to read the editor's mind? That seems very gameable. - Crockspot (talk) 04:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all. If someone links to harassment in good faith, and if in our sound editorial judgment, we decide to remove the link, then we'll remove it. If they wish to re-add it, they have to overcome sound editorial judgment - a much fairer standard than perceived good intentions. By the way... why are we whispering? -GTBacchus(talk) 08:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Just to clarify, do you prefer the version Mongo has proposed, or do you wish the issue of links to external sites to be only in a separate section?  Thanks.  Risker (talk) 04:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I'm confused. Is MONGO's proposed version the same as the one labelled "New section version"? That was my assumption. - Crockspot (talk) 04:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Once WP:LINKLOVE get stable again and receives consensus, I envision some sort of summary and link to it in the previous 2.5 section area. By keeping the text where it was, it does not fit the context around it as it is not how to respond but what we do not find acceptable.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spryde (talk • contribs) 00:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll

message: I have removed the semi-protection from this page. I don't see the point in blocking new users from editing when the edit warring was done by established users. No anon edits in the last month. 1 != 2 16:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing semi-protection