Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites/Workshop

message: I think there is too much discussion on the workshop page, and not enough evidence.  Give the Arbs some more evidence to work with before filling up the workshop page, please.  GRBerry 02:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added some. *Dan T.* 03:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence versus discussion 

message: I don't know if its necessary, but it might be worthwhile to distinguish between "attack sites" and "attack pages".  At one point someone (and I forget who) purged all the links to Conservapedia because one of the talk pages contained an offhand comment about the real-life identity of a Wikipedia Admin.  While in the case of Wikitruth or someplace the whole "site" can be regarded as an attack, an offhand occurange in a website with 50K+ pages should not be poisoning the whole well, it's just silly.  The "New Yorker" was, at one point, an outing forum, and yet we still link there (although Essjay is now retired).  If I post a message about the real life identity of a Wikipedia in the readers' comments section of a globeandmail.com story, would that invalidate linking to the paper of record in Canada? WilyD 17:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The New Yorker was never and outing forum. An outing forum in the context of the BADSITES argument is one which publishes information (whether accurate or not) on the identity of a Wikipedian editor who is trying to remain anonymous. Essjay provided the information voluntarily. The New Yorker no more outed him than it would out Mindspillage and Morven by publishing that their names are Kat Walsh and Matthew Brown. Nobody who favours removing links to sites that attempt to give names of people trying to remain anonymous has ever tried to prevent links to sites that give Angela's surname or Anthere's real name. That is not to say that it's kind or sensitive to be happy with the amount of publicity that Essjay got when his bogus credentials were exposed, but he was not outed, and it is unfair on those who are trying to protect people who have not volunteered their private information to claim that the two cases are the same. ElinorD (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even so--  if in the future The New Yorker were to out a wikipedian, MONGO/BADSITES/NPA (as interpreted by some), would require us to purge all links to The NewYorker.  Clearly, such a policy is not compatible with NPOV. --Alecmconroy 18:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec)I agree with WilyD.  The phrase "attack sites" is being thrown around an awful lot, but I have yet to see a consensus definition of it.  It makes it tough to discuss an "attack site" when there are individuals who really are not sure what one is.  daveh4h 18:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Err, attacks can consist of more than just outing.  I misspoke, but in Essjay's case a lot of people could've made the case that the New Yorker was an attack forum at the very least.  Attack pages and Attack sites are very different - the Conservapedia example I gave was a talk page where the identity of an editor who doesn't seem to want her identity speculated on was discussed - I'm skeptical this should prevent a link to Conservapedia's homepage, since the chance of navigating from conservapedia's homepage to the page is question was essentially zero. WilyD 19:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "official definition", as included in BADSITES, came from the MONGO decision: "A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances." "Engages in the practice" could be interpreted as "has any cases", which is how these erasures of links to large sites with passing statements have been justified. Other kinds of attacks (e.g. name-calling) were never cited as justifications for these erasures, as far as I am aware, other than the rediculing of Wikipedia Review that was an early feature of the controversy. Certainly there was and is enough negative material in TNH's commentary on Wikipedia that some might call attacks, but the erasures ignored all this and concentrated on two or three single comments. Mangoe 19:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attack Sites versus Attack Pages 

message: I got into a bit of trouble for declaring rutabagas to be an "attack vegetable", but it turns out the essence of this whole controversy was actually anticipated by a greatly superior satirist to myself, hundreds of years ago. *Dan T.* 00:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attack Eggs! 

message: Personally, the more I watch the conflict between Will Beback and TNH, the less sympathy I have. As best as I can ascertain, there was minimal indication in Wikipedia that TNH had any beef with him until he started deleting links and telling people why he was deleting them. It's possible that they came into direct conflict when she was editing WIkipedia herself, but I haven't come across it.
The net result, whatever the intention, was to attack her for mistreating him. If it were me, and the attacks bothered me, the one thing I wouldn't do is announce to everyone that they were there so everyone could read them. If he had left well enough alone on Wikipedia and approached her privately, he might have achieved a resolution that didn't desseminate them further. There was no link to attacks upon him, until he created one. Now anyone who comes across the BADSITES controversy, if they have any curiosity, is likely to seek them out.
My gut reaction, re BADSITES, is to forbid anyone doing anything out of context to draw attention to attacks on anyone, including themselves. When the attacks are of note in the Real World, that's a different story that needs a different approach. But if what we are trying to do is avoid directing people to the attacks, BADSITES is clearly doing exactly the opposite. Mangoe 22:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are uninformed. Posting your opinion on topics that you haven't researched fully doesn't help. I engaged with TNH as an editor on Wikipedia, primarily in regard to Roger Elwood and Disemvowelling, and aside from mailing her to ask her to remove personal information I've never had any other interaction with her. While I have written (politely) that I doubt her expertise and neutrality on all publishing topics, I have never attacked her in any way. Removing links to a blog is not an attack on the blogger.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Regarding the wisdom of seeking out the webmaster of an offending site as a first step, that's exactly what I wrote at the time and in my evidence in this case. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites/Evidence#Regarding Making Light. I certainly agree that it would have been better to ask the webmaster first.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see how that is relevant to this case, and I think that further rehashing of the past will tend to reinflame a dispute which you worked to ameliorate. TNH is still an active editor on Wikipedia and if she'd like further explanation of my actions she is welcome to contact me.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Look everybody! She's being mean to me!"