Wikipedia talk:Attack sites/Archive 1

message: I personally don't like the idea of flatly banning all links to any particular sites, without regard to context.  In particular, such bans have sometimes been enforced on talk and project pages, not just in article space, and can squelch free discussion about the sites in question and what's being said there. *Dan T.* 23:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is, where do we draw the line on allowing people to direct others to hate material and attack sites/privacy violations? I can't see a good reason for example to mention a troll attack site except to remove it completely when encountered... we gain no benefit from linking to it, and every circular chat about whether we should link to it can't ever supercede the fact that a given site may be leading to direct harm against us personally. Personal safety and the privacy safety of contributors here always has to trump all other considerations. - Denny (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you treating this like a policy when it isn't one? —  MichaelLinnear 02:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the essay represents concensus at this time as well as practice of the vast majority of editors here. - Denny (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't been here long enough to be deciding what the "consensus" is, Denny. I think you've worded this a little too broadly for it to be acceptable as policy. While I'd agree that the consensus is that anyone who links to Wikipedia Review's defamations of editors here is asking to be hit with the banstick, I don't think you'd find much agreement that any site that "facilitated" that or any other site is an "attack site" itself. Grace Note 06:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: And the essay didnt last long either. I agree with Grace you have nowhere near the experience to be formulating policy and the initial draft showed this (we were in danger of banning linking to ourselves). Denny you should wait at least 3 months before acting in the way you are. You cannot be an admin because of your lack of experience, and nor should you be wrtiting policy which you claimed was an essay and rapidly changed tack to a proposal. I strongly recommend this page be deleted, SqueakBox 19:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Feedback

message: Denny, your energy and enthusiasm and useful work for Wikipedia is much appreciated. But balance is needed. Sometimes in the form of "moderation in all things" as in the Middle way. Sometimes in alternating between opposites as in the song Turn! Turn! Turn! (song) and its Bibical source. Sometimes conceptually as in Yin and yang. Take for example the link to Daniel Brandt's version of events in his break up with Chip Berlet that you deleted. The link itself did not lead to any attack content even though there is attack content on that site. The site Chip Berlet posts at attacks or exposes people and organisations they feel should be attacked and exposed. This Wikipedia exposes the identities of sockpuppets who we feel need to be exposed in order to know whether to ban them or not. Brandt and WR expose the identities of those they feel should be exposed to improve accountability. Naturally we Wikipedians disagree with them about that feeling that we can achieve accountability though other means. So do we make wikipedia a battle ground? Do we refrain from ever ever using as a source any site that is fighting us? Do we declare all out war and take extreme measures to defeat the enemy? Or do we try to take a balanced view and realize the point is to improve the encyclopedia and not just defending wikipedians at all costs? The source from WR that I added (I think I remember adding it) that you deleted was an attempt at a balanced presentation of a very complex issue involving a banned person and a person (Chip) that enjoys wide latitute at Wikipedia in presenting his point of view. I thought it best that Brandt be given equality in linkage in presenting his side of the issue. If we are to implement blindly some rule then your edit was indeed correct. If we are to use editorial judgement in each individual case on a case by case basis then either your edit or mine has enough merits to be a good choice. All I'm saying is Wikipedia should be about thoughtful editing and not a rushed black-and-white good-versus-evil approach. Thanks again for your very hard work in making Wikipedia better. - User talk:WAS 4.250 4.250.201.103 03:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a grey line, yes... the trick I suppose is to draw the line at a site overall, because of the nature of it's content as a whole--do we gain as an encyclopedia by linking to x, to illustrate y? I think that the collateral fallout of z also is a major consideration. If a given website was the best authority EVER on a subject that is notable, and passed RS for that--but one or two clicks away was a section dedicated to defaming, libeling, or harassing people here--should we in good conscience link to or advertise/promote that site? Does doing so perpetuate and enable that harm to our fellow editors? "Do no harm." We are living persons, after all. - Denny (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's nearly true but if someone blogs about Danny Brandt and links his libels of SlimVirgin, you are in fact suggesting that anyone who links to that blog should be blocked. It's just too broad, Denny. And I also feel there's a lot of merit in WAS's comment above. We need to allow ourselves the discretion to judge the "collateral fallout" of who we link to. And where. Articles are necessarily different from talkpages. Grace Note 06:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Balance is needed

message: I mean, besides the fact that writing an essay doesn't authorize you to make wholesale policy-based changes.
The people over on one of the sites you are attempting to ban are crowing over this particular edit  which you made, because from their POV you've just authorized them to sue the Foundation. I'd post the link, but lest you get delete-happy I'll merely state that it's easy to find their response. Oh, and I've not only also restored the reference in question, but fixed the citation.
Even on the basis of our essay I can't say I'd agree that you're justified in removing what is no more than a citation to a bit of quoted material.Mangoe 04:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is your use of "them" similar to the "friend of a friend" euphemism? Are you making a legal threat?  In any case, it's hogwash to say that we could be sued over refusing to link to a site. --Gmaxwell 17:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of casting aspersions, why don't you go read what they (which is to say, those at the Infamous Site) said? They specifically raised the issue that, without the cites, the quotation is a copyright violation. I have no connection to them other than as someone who has read some of their posts; I haven't joined their forum and don't intend to. The guilty flee where no man pursues. Mangoe 17:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is anyone editing here in good faith acting as apologist for a site full of people who want to endanger us "IRL"? ;)  Then, lets remove all imported material from the attack site as well. ArbCom has endorsed that. No material, no need to cite it. - Denny (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Apologist" is way too polemic. I do not doubt that there may be members of that forum who may wish harm upon specific wikipedians. It seems to me, though, that you exaggerate. Mangoe 18:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you deny that they have multiple folders/threads dedicated to researching our real names? - Denny (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've not only seen them, I've read them. Didn't find out much of interest though. In fact, I'd say that while some of what Daniel Brandt posts there is ill-advised, overall they show a sense of proportion about this that you do not. It keeps coming down to the same point: you look to be carrying out a vendetta against them, which is pretty much what they are accusing you of, so you're just giving them more ammunition. If you could bring yourself to jsut ignore them, you would be doing WP a favor. Mangoe 19:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In your enthusiasm you have neglected to notice something 

message: The essay as written seems overly broad in several areas:
* The idea of an attack site being determined when "some of the web site content is dedicated to any of the above" is unworkable in the context of large web fora.  It's almost certain, for example, that, say, Slashdot contains defamatory content about a Wikipedia editor somewhere; does that make it an attack site, to be purged from Wikipedia?  (It would obviously be 
* More generally, this fails to make the rather important distinction between sites directed against Wikipedians as Wikipedians and sites directed against people who become Wikipedians incidentally.  This becomes increasingly important as parties in outside disputes start editing Wikipedia.  Particularly with the attempt to proscribe "defamation", we're going to get piles of sites that are quite notable in their own right but that would be considered "attack sites" because some of the people they were engaged against had wound up editing; see, for example, the Free Republic arbitration case.
In my view, we can't really define "attack sites" without examining intent, at least to some degree.  Sites that set out to attack editors because they've encountered them on Wikipedia are clearly attack sites in the sense we want to consider; but sites that attack known individuals who may incidentally be editors aren't such a clear-cut case. Kirill Lokshin 15:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And, not to mention that how are we to even rationally discuss some site, even for the purpose of determining whether it is an attack site under this definition, without sometimes citing, quoting, and linking to specific material on it, thus violating the proposed policy? *Dan T.* 16:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is there to discuss about an attack site but to determine, "Does this site, a group of their users/membership, or a component of their content, cause, or seek to cause, harm to Wikipedians?" If a site aims to harm people here in 'real life', why support them in any fashion, be it promotion or linking? We are volunteers. If the project can't even try to protect us on-wiki from off-wiki harassment, that is a major problem. - Denny (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The project cannot protect anyone from harm in "real life." If that is your chief concern, then I think perhaps more value would come from some form of notice when registering a user name or even hitting the "edit" button the first time.  Blocking these sites (and the editors who refer to them) does not remove their ability to try to figure out who wikipedians are in real life.  Risker 17:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And Denny, aren't you getting awfully close to a legal determination in that? Having actually looked at the site which you so helpfully directed me to, I can't say that I agree with you that they intend harm in the legal sense. An administrator might well wish to keep his identity secret, but it's hard to imagine a judge granting prior restraint against a forum's revelation of his true name and any other public data about him. And such revelations surely do fit into their overall program of criticizing Wikipedia process and politics. You're just making things worse for yourself, because you are conceding that you can't take the heat. And it's especially so when you are erasing links which have nothing to do with any kind of personal attack, the only genuine justification for action in all of this. Those deletions aren't effective, but merely punitive. Mangoe 17:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Contributors to the hate site you are alluding to have harassed admins and editors here in real life: telephoning employers; telephone ex-romantic acquantances, triangulating who they are,  who they are affiliated with, to discourage their anonymous participation here. What am I exaggerating? Do you disagree that Wikipedia should protect its editors at all costs on-wiki? Do you condone their actions to 'out' editors here? Post your real name, then, if you have no fear of "IRL" retaliation. - Denny (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I choose to remain pseudonymous, thank you. But then, I'm just a lowly editor here, so I don't imagine there's much demand for my identity. And while you allege all these things against the participants in that forum, I do not see these things in the posts I've read there, though of course they are speculating (fruitlessly, it appears) on your identity, but that is only to be expected. You are playing into their hands with your (in my opinion) high-handed attempts at administration here. But be that as it may, it simply stands to reason that actual attacks can be dealt with as they occur, rather than the kind of blanket censorship you propose. Mangoe 18:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you deny they are trying to out the IRL identity of anonymous administrators there? - Denny (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I, on the other hand, have always used my real name in my postings, and (thank goodness) have yet to be harrassed in "real life" about it. *Dan T.* 18:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overbroad 

message: The definitions left it clear that wikipedia would be considered an attack site as to our letting anyone edit there are many attacks against wikipedia editors, stalking, harrassment etc, that daily appear on our site. So I have made it clear wikipedia is not to be considered an attack site, SqueakBox 18:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia

message: We have a spam blacklist and this could never be policy without a Attack blacklist as otherwise it would be highly debatabl;e and a cause for massive conflict as to which sites are or are not attack sites. Leaving this in the hands of individual editors would not fit with our current blocking policies, and indeed to me in its current form it looks like a way to avoid the spam blacklist and target any sitye that any particular ediotr disliked. That is a recipe for disaster, SqueakBox 18:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a recipe to protect editors from being directed to off-site attacks, and makes clear what is already practice: anyone can and should remove links to off-site attacks/attack pages per the NPA policy. - Denny (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spam

message: Really, why? It's not like there are dozens of such sites, or that we get a new one every week. To the best of my knowledge there are less than a handful of "Wikipedia attack sites" out there, and we deal with linking or not linking to them quite well. An overly broad proposal like this will only create endless edit wars over what site can be defined as an attack site and what cannot. --Conti|✉ 18:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, Conti, and think this page should be archived/deleted, SqueakBox 18:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would we archive/delete a valid essay? - Denny (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a problem with this being an essay. But it reads more like a guideline at the moment, saying "you can do this and that" instead of presenting an opinion on attack sites. --Conti|✉ 19:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, as an essay it should go in your personal space. What I object to is it being in the WP: space where its kind of aching to become policy, and as policy IMO would be completely unacceptable for rerasons I hope I have explained already, SqueakBox 19:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately your reasons are contradictory to policy. Please explain why you defend the right to link to WR so insistently? - Denny (talk) 06:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Denny, that was uncalled for. You are very assertive, agressive and combative against well-meaning editors. Play nicer with others. WAS 4.250 07:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies, if you feel the tone was too firm. I feel, however, the question is a question of merit (tone notwithinstanding), and within bounds: why defend the one source so firmly? It as as valid as asking me why I seek to put it out, which I have answered, but I have yet to receive a clear understanding of why its inclusion is fought for. - Denny (talk) 13:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You misrepresent the views of others in a negative way by suggesting that they "defend the one source". You have had many answers both here and on the mailing list explaining why this essay would be a bad guideline. That you claim to nonetheless still not understand is not due to a lack of explanation, so more explanation seems futile. WAS 4.250 12:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this needed? 

message: I see merit in developing this as a guideline. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So do I. That's not to say that it's perfect as it stands, but there's certainly something there that should be worked on rather than trashed. ElinorD (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's work on it, then. It needs a lot of work... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: A good place to start is a) what is an "attack site" and b) whether an "attack site" can have merit.  Wikipedia Review is a useful reference in some areas, for instance.  Is a link to a page that isn't an attack okay on a site that hosts "attacks" on Wikipedians?  What about articles about sites that have "attacks" on Wikipedians - can we link to them?  This is enormously flawed and probably won't work, but we should really try to figure these questions out. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia review does not do much to stop editors there from posting personal information about wikipedians...threads there often start with efforts to figure out the real identities of Wikipedia editors...ie "Who is Jayjg?"...since they have chosen to continue this off-wiki harassment, they should not be linked to from this website. That not all threads there are about identifying the personal identities is immaterial...that they do this from time to time and fail to make much effort (if any) to remove the attacks, makes them an attack site overall.--MONGO 06:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed 

message: I'm conflicted on this essay, and a personal example may explain why. In the Criticism of Wikipedia article, an editor hung a fact tag on the assertion that some people have purposely inserted false material into WP to test the system. To properly source the assertion I inserted a nowiki reference to a site commonly considered an attack site.  This particular thread on the attack site didn't contain any material that compromised real-life identities of Wikipedians or was otherwise objectionable. The thread did contain an admission by a site member that he was inserting false material into WP to test the encyclopedia. The thread also contained some harsh criticism of that site member for his actions.
Later the link (which had been made live by another editor) was reverted by a Wikipedian who has been subjected to extensive personal attacks on the site.  I didn't have the heart to restore the link, even in nowiki form. But the assertion about testing Wikipedia is now unsupported.
So...long story short, I don't like a blanket prohibition of all material on attack sites. Sometimes this material can furnish valuable references. On the famous other hand, these sites do contain material which is unacceptable by any standard. If this essay becomes policy, I would prefer some reasonable wiggle room for very carefully chosen exceptions in nowiki-reference form. I'm not comfortable with ArbCom's no-exceptions prohibition of one attack site,  and I'm even less comfortable with extending the no-exceptions policy to any site which might be considered an attack site in the future. Casey Abell 22:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I, for one, don't like the wimp-out "solution" of "nowiki-ing" a link to make it not actually hyperlink; one should either link to a site or not link to it, but one shouldn't give an address and then purposely make it non-linking and think they're somehow taking a stand against linking "attack sites". *Dan T.* 23:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't bother to read my comments at all closely, because I'm not "somehow taking a stand against linking attack sites." In fact, I'm arguing that we should allow links to attack sites when the particular linked material is unobjectionable and valuable as a reference. I would use nowiki markup to distinguish attack site links from normal links. That's not a "wimp out"; it's just a method to mark such links. Casey Abell 23:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal example

message: As I understand it, the ARBCOM ruling is the de facto policy, so this policy page should follow (and summarize) that ruling, and be presented as such. There are probably a lot of ARB rulings that could use a summary (if they don't already exist). As for the Essjay situation, clearly the ARBCOM did not intend to restrict the use of reliable secondary sources who might publish names in a legitimate pursuit. ARBCOM could even sign off on a clarification of that point, but I don't think it's necessary. - Crockspot 00:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Arbcom does not make policy. WAS 4.250 08:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here, here. That is not their role, SqueakBox 18:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The arbcom case mentioned in this essay involving me only states as principles that attack sites should not be linked to...my understanding is that AGF is important with respect to those that post to attacks sites unknowingly...they should be shown the arbcom case and the importance of the findings there should be made clear. If they persist in posting to attack sites, then no doubt, they can be blocked from editing.--MONGO 08:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think this has potential 

message: When Denny failed to get consensus at Daniel brandt fro his allegation that WR was an attack site he rudhed off to the incidents page and tried to scrum up an alleged consensus there. Is the how we are to judge attack sites? SqueakBox 18:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter where consensus is decided. Editors of an article don't own it. - Denny (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What on earth does that mean? That editors now dont decide how an article is to be? Your comment makes no sense and show your lack of experience here, SqueakBox 19:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please AGF. The editors do decide, but why does it matter what page it occurs on? Also, note the inclusion of links to attack sites per previous Arbcom decisions and standard precedent has never been a content matter. The matter of personal attacks is not up for concensus debate. Defense of personal attack sites is distasteful. You edit publically, and detail your employers information on your talk page. Many, many of us require our anonymity for various reason. Why on Earth would we link to a site that tries to uncover who we are? Can you defend that? Please provide *ONE* good reason why we should link to WR, or this conversation is pointless. Thanks, - Denny (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Denny saying you lack experience is not an AGF issue. I do indeed assume you are coming from a good faith space but that does not mean I have to think you are right or know what you are talking about. By confusing my criticism of your lack of experience with a lack of good faith towards you on my part is precisely the type of comment that shows what an inexperienced user you are. Assuming bad faith and thinking another editor is wrong are not the same things at all whereas you are confusing them! SqueakBox 15:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, life-banned editor Nathanrdotcom was talking about his return to Wikipedia, I assume you would have to link to conduct any sort of investigation. —  MichaelLinnear 03:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, no. His conduct prior to his ban, a long period of time in which to believe he may have reformed and a tight leash are all that are needed to allow his return. Linking to WR to examine his behavior there is not really fair to him since that website follows different protocol than this one. The MONGO arbitration clearly stated that we cannot regulate what people do off wiki....but those in the know might use comments others make in other websites to petition the arbcom to disallow his (or anyones) return, or in the case someone was here on wiki still, their promotion to admin might be jepardized if it is known they are attacking others in an off wiki forum, but that still doesn't require a link to the website or comments. I don't think anyone mentioning encyclopedia dramatica or WR or stating on their userpages that they edit there is grounds for any punishment...but linking to the website knowingly should carry incremental penalties, based on the severity of the linked page and the substance contained in it, and if they repeat the offense if they have previously been told not to link there.--MONGO 04:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, since by the same standard Wikipedia can be construed as a site which is attacking them in return, I don't see where this is taking us. Mangoe 04:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have editorial oversight here and attacks can be edited out...we have no control over what is posted there. I don't attempt to say that people shouldn't be posting on ED or WR or elsewhere, only that since those sites in particular do little to remove harassment of others, then they shouldn't be linked to. If someone wants to post on their wiki userpage that they also blog at WR or edit ED, then that's up to them...so long as they don't link to it.--MONGO 05:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That can be sent directly to the foundation for their review via email...not needed to link it to anything on wikipedia actually.--MONGO 05:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think that is an acceptable answer, SqueakBox 19:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Exactly. There is no need to link/expose people to nonsense on-wiki. If we are not allowed to protect ourselves and our peers here, whats the point? The only reason I can see to not support the policy is if one is sympathetic with/willing to turn a blind eye to harassment. - Denny (talk) 06:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Denny, you are putting protecting ourselves ahead of the point of the project. Our involvement as editors is only for the purpose of advancing the goals of the project. Wikimedia Foundation and the English language Wikipedia project do not exist to serve our needs - instead, we edit here to serve the goals of the project. If you are here to put your needs above the goals of the project then you are of no more use to the project than those who come here for the purpose of advancing their site though spamming or their reputations though biased editing. In short you act as if you have a conflict of interest in editing wikipedia because you are willing to sacrifice the goal of becoming the best encyclopedioa we can to the goal of protecting yourself and other editors at all costs. Balance is essential and "at all cost" is the opposite of balance and shows that your WP:COI is affecting your editing here at wikipedia. Maybe you should start over with a new user name so wikipedia review does not scare you so much. Or maybe just stop editing the policy pages that your COI involves. WAS 4.250 08:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point of the project is to build an encyclopedia. Is it COI of interest to ensure that a simple clarification exists of what counts as an attack, hate, or outing site, which by practice we already can remove links to immediately? I don't care if there is an outing thread for me... but would you care if there was a "Who is WAS 4.250?" Do we not have a responsibility to do the little things to keep our peers safe? - Denny (talk) 13:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are the "bad sites" going to go away if we don't link to them?  Is anybody going to stop Google from linking to them, too, given that this most likely brings more people to the sites than an obscure little link in a talk page here?  For that matter, as others have noted, the very fact that we're having a heated debate about linking to the "attack sites" has actually brought more publicity, interest, and traffic to those sites than would a simple link to them. *Dan T.* 14:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That would count as one of the instances where links to such sites serve a useful function, yes, and the reason why several people including myself are opposed to making flat, arbitrary rules and enforcing them with zero-tolerance zeal.  One can also argue that it's a bad idea to censor those links after the fact, as was done on the arbcom case; our tradition of openness usually argues in favor of preserving the evidence so others can understand the case and the reasons behind the decision later. *Dan T.* 14:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I just read on WR an editor there claiming they are there to defend their principles. Zero tolerance towards the principles and beliefs of those we disagree with is surely completely counter to the open principles of wikipedia, SqueakBox 16:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wholehearted agree. Plus, it's somewhat intriguing that the fiercest and (in my opinion) apparently most sincere criticism seems to be directed at a relatively small portion of users. Whatever that means... —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: What is clear is that those users allegedly being attacked on WR include people pro this page such as Denny and also those against it such as Dan and myself, SqueakBox 16:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strike that last stupid remark of mine. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Which are the attack site?

message: (copied this comment of mine over from DennyColt's talk page and tweaked it a bit for frame of reference)
What if a reliable source published the real name of a user, or the name of an attack site?
Purely hypothetical as of yet, but it's not too farfetched and may happen any minute now, considering the media attention the Essjay story received. Wikipedia has become prominent, and prominent users may gain sufficient mainstream attention. I'm asking this question because if and when such an article appears, the information published in that article would be suitable for citation, effectively circumventing any attack site policy. Then we'd have a whole new conflict at our hands: We could not censor a reliable source, but the article would still pose a threat to the mentioned user/s - either through linking to an attack site or by publishing real names (or talking about agendas and whatnot). Again: Yes, it's still hypothetical, but it could happen real soon now and I believe we should be prepared for the impact - and hope it never comes to this. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beware: Hypothetical situation 

message: Regarding this edit: Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Censorship still mentions the site by name. Should it be censored changed to comply with this proposed policy? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be rich, to censor the part of Wikipedia that talks about censorship on Wikipedia.  It would be a form of irony similar to the case where the government of Singapore responded to critics alleging that that government suppressed criticism through abuse of the legal system, by suing the critics. *Dan T.* 16:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's pretty much my point, but we need some consistency. WP:BLOCK#Personal_attacks_that_place_users_in_danger forbids linking to attack sites, even if it's not a live link. I'm pretty sure that's meant to include writing out the name of an attack site, like it appears here. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to WR 

message: I think the intentions behind this essay are good, but how exactly will the blocking of these links benefit anyone? The websites will still exist. .V. [Talk|Email] 17:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say such a paternalistic controlling policy proposal needs strongly opposing. As we live for the most part in a world where freedom of speech is sacred we can no more stop these sites than people from these sites can delete articles they dont like, such as Daniel Brandt. If these sites commit libel individuals can of course sue them but as they exist off wikipedia the only thing we as a site can inssist on is not linking to them, assuming thios page ever makes policy (which lets hope not in its current form where the definition of an attack site is so vague that any site could be blacklisted in an entirely opaque way), SqueakBox 17:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've got a point about this needing to be WAY more specific. Perhaps it should read only links to specific harassment? For example, if www.example.com had no harassment, but www.example.com/harassment.html did, the second would be restricted but not the first. .V. [Talk|Email] 18:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see anything in the essay or in current policy that requires a  ban "even if there was one attack on Wikipedia." What is your basis for saying that? Maybe I missed something in the fine print.--Mantanmoreland 18:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You missed SqueakBox's point: One person may register with any Wikipedia-related forum, post attacks there and thereby change the site into an attack site, despite all the valuable opinions presented there by other people. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understood his point completely, and don't get how he came to that conclusion. I don't see anything in existing or proposed policy that would allow such a thing. Do you? More importantly, are you aware of any site being banned (or seriously requested to be banned), under the circumstances you mention?--Mantanmoreland 19:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: WR does not remove attacks made on Wikipedians. The routinely permit postings that provide information on the personal identites of a number of people. Their attempts to "out" people is well known and transparent. I could care less what they say about me, most of it is drivel made by banned editors. Thety don't know my personal information...but for others who have had their identities reveiled, WR permits and some of the contributors there do feed off of those postings. No one is saying that they don't have a few comments which might be of benefit to wikipedia as an outside analysis, but those posts are fewer than the others where people are being attacked.--MONGO 21:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WR is one such site that is rightfully labelled as an attack site because of several instances of outing identities etc. At the same time, while inevitable, it is also unfortunate to label the whole site an attack site, because it also contains some valuable contributions. Ambivalence is the word. Regarding current blocking policy: Criticism_of_wikipedia#Censorship still mentions the full name of WR and it should be removed according to the people who want this proposal as policy. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Squeakbox, what we seem to have here are objections on principle to a policy dealing with a real, not theoretical, problem. I don't see the harm. This is not Guantanamo. We're not talking about putting people in prison, just not mentioning/linking to their sites. I can't imagine any negative impact on the project. Since this policy has been followed for some time, perhaps you or someone else can cite the actual damage that has been done by that.--Mantanmoreland 22:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well no harm has been done by this proposed policy yet but I believe it would harm the project were this to become policy. I am not criticising things that are already policy merely this entirely unnecessary edition, SqueakBox 22:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess that what I'm having trouble understanding, which is how this is a departure from current policy. I don't see it that way. It strikes me as a reasonable interpretation of the status quo.--Mantanmoreland 22:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, but it's also a form of censorship, isn't it? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personal safety of users isn't censorship. - Denny (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That's pretty much the point: We have BLP, and we have NPA, an additional guideline is simply not needed. We already remove those links without this page per existing policy. --Conti|✉ 21:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you are saying per existing policy and precedent I can use a search like this to remove every reference to an offensive site that endangers the privacy of editors here? - Denny (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per existing policy you can remove links that contain unsourced negative or personal material about living people (WP:BIO). But that doesn't mean you can remove every single link to a website that, somewhere, contains such material, and that's a good thing, IMHO. --Conti|✉ 21:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Denny: Censorship doesn't serve the personal safety of users. It's two distinct aspects. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What benefit is gained from linking to those sites? Also that criticism section is atrociously sourced. The Wikitruth source doesn't mention WR at all, and the other source is an anonymous blog. Removing those there per RS/ATT. - Denny (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec)If linking to a site gains no benefit tot he project that site wouldn't be linked to anyway. Why would wee need a policy for that? SqueakBox 21:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because people DO keep linking to attack sites, and some defend that linking with explaining the benefit gained. - Denny (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: What benefit? Well, from what I can see, there's some substantial criticism there which is worth considering as I said above. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, when they stop endorsing/supporting/allowing rampant personal attacks and 'outing' they won't be an attack site. :) - Denny (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Done five minutes ago per RS/ATT and attack site precedents. - Denny (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK then. Thanks. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we really need such a paternalistic system? 

message: "I would say such a paternalistic controlling policy proposal needs strongly opposing."
About those... BLP anyone? NPA? This policy is basically BLP/NPA for editors here in a sense. Why should editors not have protections defined? - Denny (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but it's also a form of censorship, isn't it? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personal safety of users isn't censorship. - Denny (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That's pretty much the point: We have BLP, and we have NPA, an additional guideline is simply not needed. We already remove those links without this page per existing policy. --Conti|✉ 21:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you are saying per existing policy and precedent I can use a search like this to remove every reference to an offensive site that endangers the privacy of editors here? - Denny (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per existing policy you can remove links that contain unsourced negative or personal material about living people (WP:BIO). But that doesn't mean you can remove every single link to a website that, somewhere, contains such material, and that's a good thing, IMHO. --Conti|✉ 21:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Denny: Censorship doesn't serve the personal safety of users. It's two distinct aspects. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What benefit is gained from linking to those sites? Also that criticism section is atrociously sourced. The Wikitruth source doesn't mention WR at all, and the other source is an anonymous blog. Removing those there per RS/ATT. - Denny (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec)If linking to a site gains no benefit tot he project that site wouldn't be linked to anyway. Why would wee need a policy for that? SqueakBox 21:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because people DO keep linking to attack sites, and some defend that linking with explaining the benefit gained. - Denny (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: What benefit? Well, from what I can see, there's some substantial criticism there which is worth considering as I said above. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, when they stop endorsing/supporting/allowing rampant personal attacks and 'outing' they won't be an attack site. :) - Denny (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Done five minutes ago per RS/ATT and attack site precedents. - Denny (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK then. Thanks. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: paternalistic is not bad

message: In relation to this, a question for the 'opposers': the current NPA and other policies already empower anyone to without recourse remove links to attack sites. Is your problem with that aspect, that removal/dismissal of the information, or that this proposed policy is attempting to set standards for what is the objectionable material? Because if  you object to the definition but not the removal (which I suspect) then this policy is good because it would keep people from abusing the duty to remove hate/attack content and links. Only actual hate/attack content could be reasonably removed under this. - Denny (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point is correct and I think that your definition of "attack sites" is well drafted. If there is a flaw to it, I haven't seen it pointed out, and it adheres to existing consensus.--Mantanmoreland 23:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to agree with that. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you oppose the inclusion of 'new' links to attack sites per existing (stable) policy such as NPA/harassment? Do you object to a working definition of attack sites? If so, why, on the latter? - Denny (talk) 23:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: So your main objection is the definition itself? OK. What about the removal of such links, the ban on promoting/advertising them, and the ban of importing material from them? All of which as I wrote this was either done/supported in the past, and is intended so that editors here are not ideally exposed to any harassment on-wiki. - Denny (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec)But which sites? And who decides? I personally think you need to distinguish between sites controlled by a webmaster and those which arent. WW is the former and WR is the latter. I am happy with your removing WR as not RS but not as an alleged attack site. If this were to be policy I would have thought a community decision (an ASFD?) on each alleged attack site would be the minimum necessary to label a site as such. I also think we need tot alk about talk pages because removing m,aterial from there needs a special section here if this page is to become policy, SqueakBox 00:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Any link or quote from a site should be judged on a case-by-case basis depending on its context and purpose, not just dealt with prejudicially based on an inflexible rule. *Dan T.* 00:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Better to have a consensus reaching page everyone can contribute to rathert han a strict policy page written and discussed by a handful of individuals, SqueakBox 00:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we have to differentiate the different type of pages on wikipedia. Removing well defined attack sites from user pages is acceptable, removing them from the main space may be acceptable dependiong on who and how is defining the attack site. But to remove any link made in good faith and on topic to an article talk page is, IMO, simply unacceptable in every case, SqueakBox 00:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question for opposers 

message: Like many legislators who have only good thoughts when they come up with new laws (in other words, the Real World equivalent of Wikipedia policies), the difficulty is in foreseeing how those laws can be used when put into place.  I believe this proposal opens the door to being used for many purposes for which it is not intended; some of these purposes are harmful to the encyclopedia.  
Let us first look at definitions.  
Wikipedian - A Wikipedian is someone who participates in the various Wikipedia-related projects to any extent. Anyone who has made so much as a single edit is, by this definition, a Wikipedian.  Those edits could be made using an IP, a pseudonym or a real name; but since a Wikipedian has to be a person, only the actual person behind the IP, pseudonym or real name is a Wikipedian. Our belief in this is the foundation of our sockpuppet policy. 
Defamation is a legal term.  While the word is often used in the vernacular, there is no Wikipedia policy or definition relating to it, only an article describing its use in law. Of note, in that article is a discussion of the finding of the California Supreme Court, which ruled that the applicable US law does not permit web sites to be be sued for libel that was written by other parties. This is very important, as Wikipedia could well use this ruling to defend against a defamation lawsuit in the future.  Creating a policy that contradicts this ruling can put this defense out of reach of the encyclopedia, exposing it to considerable harm.  
Let's look at some possible application problems:
*At least a few artists who have edited here have a policy of permitting personal information that contradicts their "official" biographies to be posted on their official websites. At Wikipedia, posting personal information is defined as harassment; thus the official website of the artist would be an attack website.  
*For that matter, Wikipedia permits the sourced posting of personal information on its subjects.  Some of those subjects are Wikipedians.  That would make Wikipedia an attack website.
*Some Wikipedians have, in their real lives, been the subject of legal threats. Particularly if the Wikipedian in question is editing under his real name, any links to websites describing these legal threats would be leading to an attack site.  
Now, you may say "no, no, we would never do that!"  But that would be our policy, and would give the opportunity for any editor to delete otherwise valuable references and external links if they could find a single post or article on them that might possibly fit the description of an attack website.  There is no way to avoid this if we have a formal policy on attack sites, because there is no way to write this policy that will exclude this possibility.  The potential for harm to this project is, for this reason, significant.
Perhaps most seriously though, is the possibility that some Wikipedians may think this proposed policy will protect them from harassment, legal threats and defamation.  This is completely false.  This policy will have no effect on Wikipedia Watch trying to ferret out the real life identities of admins.  It will not prevent Wikipedia Review from poking fun at any editors.  It will not change the fact that Wikitruth will still have its rumour-laden articles.  All of those things will still be there, they will still continue, and nobody here will be allowed to talk about them on-wiki.  Wikipedia cannot protect anyone from internet stalking or harassment or legal threats anywhere but on Wikipedia - and it's questionable how effective Wikipedia itself could be, even on its own site.  Let us not pretend that this policy would create a safe haven for editors.  Risker 03:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My arbcom case has already disallowed all links to Encyclopedia Dramatica, it isn't much of an extension to simply disallow links to other sites that attack wikipedians by posting personal information about them. We routinely remove such postings anyway, but with a guideline in place, it makes it clear that the right to do so has clear support. Like any policy or guideline, there is always grey areas and I wouldn't support this if it was going to be misused to start banning every single site that has a critical analysis of Wikipedia, or news sources that are published and are reliable sources. We are of course talking about ED and WR and a very few other sites, that post harmful and in many cases erroneous misrepresentations about individual people and make overt attempts to "out" people by coordinating efforts to identify who they are in real life. I still feel that Wikipedians should know they can come here and edit in an environment that is as harassment free as we can make it. I have seen way too many people leave wiki simply because of onwiki harassmet, so no need to make ths situation worse by condoning the importation via links to harassment they have to endure outside this website.--MONGO 04:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a reason why ArbComm decisions are not considered policy, Mongo. It is because difficult cases make for bad law.  I have read that case, and it saddens me to see the extent of the personal abuse you sustained. Each editor draws his own line in the sand as to how much of himself to put on the line for Wikipedia - it is clear to me that your line in the sand was a heck of a lot farther away than most of us would ever imagine.  Risker 05:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks...but it shouldn't be that way. If we can offer them protection with a guideline or even a policy that will help to ensure they don't have to be harassed by links to websites that attack them, then we make wikipedia better for editors, not worse. I'm not trying to be a censor here or brownshirt this issue, just I think it would be best if we did what we can to ensure what I endured is minimized for others.--MONGO 05:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think that before anyone makes their first edit, a big screen should come up telling them that posting anywhere on the internet makes them vulnerable, and that Wikipedia is no different. I don't think that blacklisting these sites will protect anyone; making it clear to people that there are sites out there who do indeed dissect the every edit of those they consider "editors of interest" may do more to protect people than just hushing up their existence. There is a rather famous case here in Canada, I think it is called Jane Doe vs. Toronto Police, where a woman who was sexually assaulted successfully sued the police for failing to advise the community of the fact there was a known rapist attacking women in a certain area who met a certain description. I think that might be a more useful precedent to use on any internet site, including Wikipedia, than trying - and failing - to protect people from others outside of our control. Risker 05:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  There are many problems with turning this essay into policy 

message: If such a hard line is being drawn on this shouldn't WikiTruth be included? I haven't seen it mentioned here. —  MichaelLinnear 05:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have only glanced at that website...are there coordinated efforts there to try and "out" people's real identities as there are on wikipedia review or ED? I can't imagine why that website would be a reliable source anyway...but who knows.--MONGO 05:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there is FCYTravis and Kelly Martin on that site, and some of it is pretty cruel. —  MichaelLinnear 05:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't seem to out people, just post about people. The stuff they gathered against FCYTravis seems to be all public knowledge for example (like the whole diaper blog and stuff.) .V. [Talk|Email] 05:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe the idea is to completely ban even mentioning sites that are clearly attack sites (with outing and stuff). At least, that's where I'd draw the line. While the merit of linking to other sites maybe not be immediately visible, there is a difference between (i) seriously attacking and endangering editors by exposing them and (ii) including some critical rants etc. Personally, I believe Myspace is also widely without encyclopaedic merits, but we don't need to ban it, so as a matter of course we don't. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question