Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Archive 8

message: I've said it a dozen times, but maybe one more; can we all agree that linking to personally identifying info should be treated the same as posting the info directly to Wikipedia, linking for harassment should be treated the same as on-wiki harassment, linking to personal attacks should be treated the same as quoting the personal attacks directly, et cetera? I've never understood why there would be any need to re-create every one of our behavioural guidelines from the ground up separately for 'external links'. It is all the same nonsense which we have been dealing with since day one... the fact that it is placed one click away makes no difference whatsoever. Just go back to our old bedrock consensus policies on user behaviour with the, fairly obvious IMO, understanding that these prohibitions apply to nasty things done with external links too. There is no appreciable difference between telling someone, "You're a jerk. A complete kneebiter" on Wikipedia vs giving them a link telling them that. We've got long-standing procedures for dealing with that. Why do we need different procedures if there is a click required before you get to the nastiness? --CBD 00:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except perhaps in the case of editors who are themselves notable public figures, I don't think there's much dispute how to deal with links that put the Wikipedia reader one click away from a page that harasses an editor. I think the broader disagreement is how to deal with links that put the user two or three clicks away. Newyorkbrad 01:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No. Many editors find restricting links in article space to be unacceptable even if it is one click away. JoshuaZ 01:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just deal with on a case-by-case basis?  You're never going to get a policy which governs all possible sites, or configurations of sites, or users, or situations.  Part of the context should be the intent behind the link; the THF/Michael Moore debacle comes to mind in this respect.  Many of the michaelmoore.com links which were removed had (1) nothing to do with the privacy violation and (2) were good-faith contributions to articles.  Only if they were immediately present to the personal attack would they be relevant enough to remove, and only possibly.  --Haemo 01:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm fine with dealing things on a case by case basis. I mean, the vast majority of the time, we deal with obvious trolling just fine. I've removed many links that trolls have put on talkpages or elsewhere. The bottom line is that we deal with trolling  effectively without this sort of policy. JoshuaZ 03:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Existing policies? 

message: To refocus the issue.  The main issue on THIS page is about the edit war we experienced today:
* A number of editors claimed that since there aren't ANY policies on this matter that have achieved consensus, NPA#EL, by virtue of its current inclusion on the page, is de facto policy, and therefore should remain in the NPA policy page.  
 
* A different group of editors argues that since policy pages must reflect consensus,  NPA#EL (which does not have consensus) should be removed from this page.      
That's the heart of the current dispute-- a behavioral question, rather than a policy one.   Is it appropriate to repeatedly reinsert text that lacks consensus into a policy page? 
Meanwhile, there's a whole second question: "What SHOULD a future policy look like?  The epicenter for that discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Linking to external harassment.  (with lots of splintering and overlap as usual).  --Alecmconroy 03:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did we ever get an uninvolved editor to make the determination of the consensus? Or was it just deleted because a couple of folks are opposed to it?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as I understand it, we are attempting to redirect the discussion/debate to WP:LINKLOVE, where it may do more good. Best,—AL FOCUS! 06:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Hear Hear. It's a shame that MONGO has removed the infobox asking editors to minimise disruption on this page, and returned the troublesome section. I don't believe the text should be there, and I believe the infobox I posted was fair, and uncontroversial. I support returning the page to 'my' version. Privatemusings 06:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That "other" page is simply different altogether...I haven't looked at it completely yet, but I still see no reason to completely eliminate the NPA standard about linking to malicious websites.--MONGO 06:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Well the other page deals in detail with Linking to external harassment, which really is the issue at hand here. I'm sure you'd agree that this page has been significantly disrupted - I believe that if we can shift disruption and debate to a more appropriate forum then that would be a good thing. Privatemusings 06:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I would also implore you to please please please stick to 1RR to avoid another silly escalation. (with one more please for good luck.) Privatemusings 06:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: To refocus:  What do you do with part of a policy that lacks consensus?

message: You know, something rather revolutionary occurs to me just now. 
Regardless of which policy proposals you favor-- why are we putting it in the middle of NPA anyway? 
BADSITES, its ilk, and Linking to external harassment don't even involve personal attacks.  Those proposals are about off-site campaigns of HARASSMENT-- outings, death-threats, cyber-stalking and the like.   Neither proposal is meant to address simple off-site personal attacks of the form  ("Jim is a big stupidhead and I hate his guts"). 
If we ever find a consensus policy and want to summarize it in the middle of an existing document, surely WP:HARASS is the place to link to it, not NPA.  Putting it in the middle of NPA is just ASKING   for people to blur the distinction between actual HARASSMENT and mere criticism, rude opinions, name-calling etc (even though we all recognize harassment is a different beast entirely, going far far beyond personal attacks).  --Alecmconroy 15:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with that. It was just a bit of dumb luck that I wasn't familiar with HARRASS before I forked the initial text into NPA, over MONGO's resolute objections at the time. No consensus then, either. Opps.—AL FOCUS! 15:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hey-- what do BADSITES have to do with 'personal attacks' anyway!?

message: OK, everything's fixed. Let's all go back to building an encyclopedia. -- 146.115.58.152 02:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Crap, typo! OK, now. I knew I was being overly optimistic. -- 146.115.58.152 02:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I kinda liked the more detailed version but I've already reverted once today on this page.  Why was it trimmed so?  Milto LOL pia 05:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: That's not exactly the kind of constructive criticism I had hoped for. Any comments on the content? -- 146.115.58.152 17:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's excellent, and have reverted to that version.  MONGO does not have the right to revert good faith and valuable edits from IP contributors just because they didn't include his Arbcom ruling.  There is no law that requires policy page contributors to be logged in to edit any pages. Consider this reversion an endorsement of the IP's edits. Neil ☎ 17:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  All set 

message: At this stage, I don't think any editors would disagree that this particular section has caused unnecessary disruption and problematic behaviour on all sides whilst on this page. A policy page of this importance deserves to be stable, with strong consensus. Passionate debate has led to an unstable policy page, and I would like to move the instability over to the policy proposal, where it may help craft a long term solution to this problem. Privatemusings 12:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: May I second that.  The text PM has up right now is completely neutral on the issue-- it  is neither Pro- nor- Anti badsites.  It makes no argument one way or the other, it's just a very calm, neutral, wise request for everyone to take this to the proposal page.  It would be a very very good thing if we could just keep something nice and bland and unobjectionable like this up, so we could devote all our energies to crafting a long term solution. --Alecmconroy 13:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not ideal to me but it's certainly something I can live with.  Pus it might free up some time for me elsewhere.  Milto LOL pia 17:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed section and plead for disruption to be focused elsewhere. 

message: I shall shortly make my 1 revert back to the version I sincerely believe to be in the best interests of a long term solution, and am now practically begging editors who wish to edit this important policy page to read at least the last few sections of the above, and engage here, rather than reverting with what seems to be to be at best a cursory explanation in the edit summary. Privatemusings 07:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply put, those revert warring to MONGO's version due only to ties with MONGO or sympathy for the same must cease at once if this is to go anywhere.  Any personally-oriented edits of ANY kind are disruptive.  Milto LOL pia 07:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Then please report him to WP:AN/3RR. Please avoid metadiscussions on the talkpage Alex Bakharev 07:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, it's not so much a metadiscussion, or an incident that requires reporting, more just kind of unhelpful behaviour. That's what I believe it to be in any case, I'd really encourage all editors to stick to 1RR. Privatemusings 08:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please engage here (or better yet, at the policy proposal page.) 

message: Protected again?    I have to say, this is growing tiresome.  Let's forget all about what kind of policy we SHOULD have here someday-- we can all admit this is a problem we haven't solved-- it's big dispute.  
I'm not an admin, I don't usually get too familiar with behavior issues, but it seems to me some neutral person of authority needs to sit down and have a heart-to-heart talk with the people who keep re-inserting the old text that we all know is highly disputed. 
Regardless of what you think the policy SHOULD be, it is NEVER okay to add text to a policy page that you know is highly disputed.  You shouldn't do it even once.  Knowingly altering a major policy page so that the policy text becomes highly disputed-- that's just never acceptable.  Policies reflect consensus-- if you take a rejected proposal and add it into a policy page-- you're being disruptive, and I've seen people blocked for less.  
Now, by my count-- MONGO has re-added text he knows is disputed something like 12 times recently.  Usually, his edit summaries have included personal attacks against the other editors here.  
How many times are we gonna let him do this, before we stop treating this if it were an just an article having a content dispute and start treating it as a disruptive attempt to edit war a rejected proposal into being a policy in order to circumvent consensus?   
Every second we spend dealing with the disruption of someone readding a rejected proposal into NPA just makes it all the harder to actually find a good solution to the question of Linking to External Harassment.  I hope the 10-day "cool off" will end the behavior. Personally, my patience in the matter starting to wear thin. It's well known the BADSITES/NPA#EL text is disputed, it's well known it doesn't have consensus after ample discussion.  Multiple warnings against readding it have been issued, but that doesn't hasn't seemed to stop a few very dedicated people from persisting in readding rejected proposal text into a policy page.  --Alecmconroy 19:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#POINTy revert warring by MONGO. Milto LOL pia 19:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not reverting to rejected policy, nor am I ignoring the talk page, nor am I actively making it worse, nor am I attacking others in edit summaries and endlessly bringing up irrelevant offsite drama; MONGO is doing all of the above.  Milto LOL pia 19:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree. You are reverting to rejected policy. Your very existance here brings up (ir)relevent offsite drama - your editing career at wikipedia began with some good honest stalking of MONGO by you, which I don't believe you've apologize for. MOASPN 19:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are going to disrupt this talk page with your refusal to discuss the issue rather than my character and previous, resolved issues then we are through.  Milto LOL pia 19:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is the lack of resolution of said issues that is creating this problem. MOASPN 19:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now it's your trolling of this page that is creating a problem.  If you have nothing more to say than "NO U" and "anything that reminds me of ED is bad now lets go over everyone's transgressions every time we disagree" then you need to excuse yourself from this topic.  Do NOT COMMENT ON ME PERSONALLY OR ON MY OFFSITE ACTIVITIES in this namespace.  If you're interested in getting a clue post to user talk:Miltopia and I'll take some time out of my day to give you a much needed enlightening.  Milto LOL pia 19:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to me that it's the link-ban-advocacy group that's constantly mentioning ED here, not their opponents.  And making a claim that another editor's "very existence here brings up (ir)relevent [sic] offsite drama" seems like an extreme personal attack. *Dan T.* 20:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: For the record, I don't see where Milo is "reverting to rejected policy." -- 146.115.58.152 20:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just the tactic; if I say "so-and-so is doing X", this single-purpose account is just going to say "No, you are doing X".  There's no substance to it at all.  Milto LOL pia 20:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The reinserting behavior problem

message: I feel that the lack of activity on this page is due to it having becoming apparent that we have rehashed this thing up to (and hopefully not too far beyond) its potential usefulness, and I'm pretty comfortable saying that there is a consensus to have the current prominent link to the proposed policy WP:LINKLOVE, and we can deal with the issue there, perhaps summarizing on NPA once that page is sorted out.  Milto LOL pia 19:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I, for one, have felt that my participation here has not been welcomed in good faith, and have felt discouraged from participating. - Crockspot 19:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that'll happen when your participation includes referring to other editors' input here as "jerking each other off".  I've still got ears for comments about the policy page.  Milto LOL pia 20:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I had one outburst here, which was in response to two editors mocking me, asking me if I still beat my wife, and high-fiving each other for it. Hardly enough to characterize my overall participation as "trolling and flame bait". - Crockspot 21:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: We'll see when the protection expires.  Cross your fingers!  Milto LOL pia 01:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if everyone follows Dan's sentiments down below, then it should be good. ViridaeTalk 01:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lack of discussion 

message: Unlike the Dixie Chicks, I've decided that the best way to proceed is to "make nice" and pledge to follow the spirit as well as the letter of the No Personal Attacks policy while discussing the future evolution of this policy and related policies.  I'm aware that my own past contributions to this debate have not always lived up to such standards, and I apologize for this and aim to do better in the future.  I hope others do the same, so that we all can be constructive and productive in working towards a consensus policy.  Here are the standards I plan on living up to:
* I will discuss proposals and the arguments for and against them according to the merits of the proposals, rather than by ad-hominem labeling or categorization of the people making them, such as trying to pigeonhole people into factions, camps, cliques, cabals, or partisan groups, or judging them based on their participation (actual or speculated, past or present) in other sites.
* I will give all views a fair and constructive hearing without regard to whether the people espousing them have been in conflict with me, either on or off wiki.  I will never use this debate as an opportunity to pursue grudge matches by defeating or belittling others I see as "enemies".
* I will support or oppose proposals and viewpoints based on what I honestly believe to be in the best interests of Wikipedia, putting aside other agendas, ideologies, or feelings when they conflict with this.
* I will not try to speculate as to the motives behind others supporting or opposing positions, but will judge and critique those positions independently on their own merits based on how they support or oppose the best interests of Wikipedia.
* I recognize that others may disagree with my viewpoints, and may also believe in good faith that their position is in the best interest of Wikipedia, and pledge to conduct such disagreements in a constructive way free of smears and namecalling.
* I am willing to praise people I've previously regarded as "enemies", should their conduct deserve it, and also to constructively criticize people I've regarded as "friends" if this is warranted.  I welcome constructive criticism of my own proposals, arguments, and behavior.
* If I ever regard my emotional state regarding the issues being debated as getting in the way of conducting a calm, rational discussion based on facts and logic, I will step back from the debate, either temporarily until I calm down or permanently if it does not seem I can ever gain the degree of detachment needed to be rational on the issue; in such situations it would be best to leave the discussion to people who are able to leave their emotions behind.
* If I get personally attacked by others, I pledge not to engage in tit-for-tat retaliation; keeping my cool and refraining from descending to that level is more important than venting my frustrations unconstructively.  If I conclude that action is warranted against another participant who has violated Wikipedia policy, I will pursue this through proper channels, but not use it to try to discredit opposing viewpoints and win "points" in the debate.
* I hope others also agree with and follow these guidelines, but my own adherence to them is unconditional, based on a desire to be a good, constructive participant in this discussion; it is not conditional on anybody else agreeing to or living up to this same set of guidelines.
Anybody who agrees to conduct their future participation in this discussion along these guidelines can indicate this by signing below.
* *Dan T.* 00:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm ready to make nice 

message: I prefer the WB original "Linking to external harassment is considered a personal attack. Harassment includes posting unpublished personal information and stalking."   if it's clear from the victim that a link wasn't meant as an attack, the community can adress that on a case by case basis.  I fear that discerning intent will give cover to abusers.  "Hey userX, just wanted to let you know that website Y called you a wanker link here " is not an acceptable link even if it was FYI.  I would rather treat that as a personal attack and let the victim or the community say that it wasn't rather than the presumption being that it wasn't a personal attack.  The victim should make the presumption, not the linker.  Those links should be discouraged anyway because it is rare that any of that information would be beneficial to the project.  --DHeyward 06:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But how can I prove that something is not a personal attack? Personal attacks are defined as comments adhering to the criteria we lay out. If there is no evidence that these criteria apply, then it should be enough of a defense to say that there is no reason to consider my comment a personal attack. If you want to change the definition of "personal attack", that's difference, but we can't logically make a presumption of guilt, if we want to be at all fair. -Amarkov moo! 06:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We judge what is or isn't a personal attack all of the time. As Viridae pointed out, there are sometimes cultural differences that may make something appear to be a personal attack, but which can be explained. Likewise, it's conceivable that someone could link to harassment unintentionally, etc. We don't need to spell it all out in this provision because every policy includes the implicit requirement to use good judgement.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever policy is proposed or addendum made, let's just be real real real real sure that it has consensus before adding it back into the page.  The "bold" phase of Bold-revert-discuss passed six months ago at least. I don't know if "This might be a good addition" is ever a proper justification for adding something to a policy page, but it's definitely not sufficient at one where we've had some much trouble coming to consensus.  --Alecmconroy 08:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone here disagree with "Linking to external attacks or harassment for the purpose of attacking another editor is regarded as a personal attack and faces the same restrictions as an on-wiki attack" ?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, that should be obvious. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I've got no problem with a policy that will let somebody remove something that is clearly aimed at him/her and is unwanted, especially from his/her own user talk page.  If it actually is a good-faith "have you seen this" thing with no attacking intention, then once the target of the remark removes it, it will be clear that he/she has seen it (or doesn't care to), so any attempts to reinsert it would be rude and probably intended as an attack and can be dealt with as such.  If it's being done by somebody with a history of fighting with that other editor, or who is currently in a nasty dispute of some sort, then the presumption will be stronger in the direction of it being an attack.  All of this is perfectly reasonable.  What I'm trying to avoid, however, is a policy that will be easy to "game" by people with an agenda to scrub all references to particular sites they dislike, even when there isn't the slightest attacking purpose behind them.  In the past, everything from links to article subjects' official sites to links to essays relevant to a discussion (and not about a particular person) have been removed as "attack sites". *Dan T.* 13:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you object to "Linking to external attacks or harassment for the purpose of attacking another editor is regarded as a personal attack and faces the same restrictions as an on-wiki attack"?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that seems fine. *Dan T.* 19:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, that's a reasonable statement: clearly true, and not too BEANSy. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks good to me. ViridaeTalk 21:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with the sentence, look forward to seeing the context. (thanks for your work, Will et al) Privatemusings 21:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I personally agree with that sentence as it currently reads--  it is  self-evidenct and a nice summary.  If it's accompanied by other text that expands that sentences reach, then I think I might well object to the whole lot.  But so long as we're talking about JUST that sentence, by itself-- I see no problems.  :) --Alecmconroy 02:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't object to it, but like I said I think the "for the purpose of attacking another editor" puts too much crystal ball loopholes in enforcing it.  I don't think we need and it will be the excuse used for all external harassment.  I would rather rely on the warning system without someone using this clause to add/re-add external harassment.  I would be more inclined to expressly say that an external link NPA warning must be issued rather than create large disputes over whether the continual readdition of an external link is 
"purposely attacking an editor."   I think that clause makes it toothless.  I would rather rely on admins and AGF rather than having to discern purpose.  --DHeyward 03:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This may not be an ideal solution, but let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Right now we have no text that describes the de facto prohibition on linking to external harassment. Let's move forward with this possibly imperfect provision. We have unlimited time to make it better.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you picture literally that sentence alone, or a link to the policy proposal, and that sentence, or something else? I'd prefer a link to the proposal (with the note about the disruption) and that sentence alone. Privatemusings 06:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a need to have a link to a proposal in a policy page. It may be more appropriate to put the link on this, the talk page. However the presence or absence of such a link doesn't affect the policy itself so it's not a big deal either way.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrary Section Break - A solution from Will emerges...... 

message: For months, a user has been insinuating that another user is a puppet, without ever filing a charge to that effect. It's been going on for about six months. E.g. The user refers to another user as "Fred aka George aka Harry" (names obviously changed to protect the innocent). In other words, he is continually insinuating that the other user is violating Wikipedia policy. In all this time he has never filed an official accusation to that effect. To me there is an element of Put up or Shut up. If he doesn't file a charge, he should stop the insinuations.
Is this a violation of NPA, a violation of civility, or nothing to worry about?
(I have no involvement with any of the parties. I came across this while on vandal patrol.) Sbowers3 19:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, to the first two.  R. Baley 20:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: yes.  post it to ANI with diffs.  someone will review it and warn them if appropriate.  --DHeyward 06:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it NPA to repeatedly insinuate that a user is a sockpuppet? 

message: Stability of the content is an issue with most forums, blogs, and self published web sites. That is one reason that we use them  sparingly per our content policies. For the same reason, during discussions or on article talk pages, I'm reluctant to link to any part of web sites that are known to go beyond criticism and allow content that bullies, harasses, and embarrasses Wikipedians. A link to any thread on the site is an invitation for a troublemaker to add problematic content to that discussion. This has happened regularly enough to know that it will happen again. Please take this idea into consideration when you are deciding which sites are appropriate for inclusion anywhere on Wikipedia. Take care, FloNight♥♥♥ 13:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stability of content is an issue for any external links.  On my own personal sites, where I link to lots of things, I've often suffered a problem of linkrot, where a link stops working or (worse) turns into something really awful, for instance when the former site owner lets a domain expire and it gets taken over by a porn site or a site that's trying to put spyware on your system, or something like that.  With blogs/forums/wikis there's also the problem you note of intentional trolling to put something distasteful on a page that's been innocently linked to.  These problems make it desirable to be careful about what you link to, and to re-check old links from time to time to see if they're still what you were intending to link to.  One shouldn't go overboard in panic about the possibility of this happening and retreat to a closed garden with no or few links at all, however; merely being attentive enough to notice when it happens and make a simple edit when it does is sufficient. *Dan T.* 19:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Dan T.*, you are confirming that linking to these sites are a problem but then implying that we are panicking if we design a policy that eliminates them most of the time. I'm sorry but this does not make sense to me. If the content of these sites are known to be a problem ( as you say) then we should rarely link to them, I think. Simply monitoring them is not enough because the damage is done by the time we find the offending content. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not really "confirming" any specific danger of linking to any particular set of sites, but saying that there's some risk of embarrassment coming from linking to any site, since all sites are capable of change, not always for the better.  I've suffered the embarrassment a few times of finding that my personal site was linking to porn where I had intended to link to some reasonable discussion of a technical issue, due to a domain expiration or hijacking.  Compared to that, finding that your link to an on-topic discussion thread that now happens to contain a comment unflattering to some particular Wikipedian is, I think, a pretty minor thing in the grand scheme of things, worthy more of a "Tsk, tsk, can't those guys ever conduct a discussion without veering into silly attacks" than a "Red Alert!  Go into Defcon 1 and scramble the fighter jets!" *Dan T.* 12:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dan T, please do not misrepresent my statement. No where have I expressed a concern about links to unflattering statements. My concerns is about stalking and harassment!! I do not suggest we go into a Red Alert. I suggest promptly and calmly removing these links. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: If the point of linking to the site is to cause an editor to drop out of an on wiki discussion, then linking to embarrassing content is not ok. That is a form of bullying and harassment. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never said otherwise.  Trying to bully somebody off the site (something I've been on the receiving end of a few times) is not acceptable behavior whether it's done with direct comments or more indirectly. *Dan T.* 12:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: A blog-link has been reinserted into the biography of Professor Robert Black with the intention of harassing a Wikipedia editor. There is significant reason to believe that the offending editor is a sockpuppet of User:Jon Awbrey who has a vendetta against the editor in question. --Privacyisall 00:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly can you point out the link in the history, a diff will do? Secondly is Professor Robert Black a wikipedia editor? Thirdly if it is a blog it is unlikely to be a reliable source, so just remove it as such. Unless it is Professor Robert Black's blog - in which case discuss it on the talk page. ViridaeTalk 00:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The editor User:Flawed And Irresponsible Research Tool, who I believe is banned editor User:Jon Awbrey has restored the blog link because it contains information designed to harass a Wikipedia editor.--Privacyisall 00:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd been very keen to properly establish the suitability (or otherwise) of the link on its own terms before considering the intention of the editor submitting it. If the link is genuinely unsuitable then there is no problem removing it at will. Do you have an opinion as to whether or not the link complies with WP:EL for example? Privatemusings 00:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Guidance on how to respond to personal attacks is in No personal attacks#Responding to personal attacks.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it is in the article namespace, i feel it would be better handled as editorial content, to see whether the link stands up on its own and is relevant to the article. Personally I feel inclusion is warranted as a reference for the mention of his blog, but nothing more than that. ViridaeTalk 01:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  Link removed as per WP:SPS. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See, that approach works. Creates far less drama too. On ya jossi. ViridaeTalk 01:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree - this matter can now move over to the article talk page, to be resolved as a content discussion. The more we can do that, the better. Privatemusings 02:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Blog used to harass Wikipedia Editor