Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Archive 7

message: *There is widespread support for limiting the harassment of Wikipedia editors. Linking to off-site harassment is an extension of making on-site personal attacks.  The current ArbCom case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites, finds that there is support for a policy which prohibits such links. While a potential replacement policy is being drafted at Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment, that proposal is not mature and has not been approved. Until a better policy is approved, we should retain the current prohibition on linking to external harassment.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *The scorched-earth, unperson, suppressive person policy towards any ideas believed to originate with a banned user is unbecoming of a community devoted to free inquiry. *Dan T.* 00:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: * Also, the names were somewhat arbitrary, based just on who had the last edit of the version cited.  I don't know if BenB4 is the one who wrote the policy that bears his name or not.  WillBeBack didn't write the WillBeBack version, for example. --Alecmconroy 00:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Right, in fact, the version excerpted above wasn't even present when BenB4 made the linked edit.  It was the next edit by Privatemusings which is called "the BenB4 version" above.  No big deal except for the banning part. Rdp45 01:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: *Are you seriously claiming that links to information that hurts some people's feelings is in any way comparable to poisoning them with arsenic? *Dan T.* 23:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *No, of course not. But I might well reply by asking you if you really think that exposing people to threats of physical violence, sexual harassment, and attempts to get them fired from their jobs is the same as merely "hurting people's feelings". I am claiming that if something is likely to harm people, we try to prevent that harm, even if the person who did that something didn't intend harm, and that I used the example to help some people who seem to have extraordinary trouble in understanding that. I wonder do you really think that trying to get someone fired from their job is on the same level morally, and on the same level with regard to the damage done, as telling them that you think their nose is too big. ElinorD (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *And of course I don't favor getting anybody fired from their job or exposing them to physical or sexual harm... and I don't care about the size of anybody's nose.  I do, however, believe that claims about links from here to any site actually causing any of these sorts of harm to occur are grossly exaggerated. *Dan T.* 00:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: *And you say that having any consideration of good faith, etc., is prone to abuse... but having a draconian no-links-under-any-circumstances policy has proven to be abundantly prone to abuse, as shown on the evidence page of the arbcom case. *Dan T.* 20:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *ElinorD, you'll never be able to engineer Wikipedia process in such a way that no troll can ever try to take advantage of it.  That's what trolls do.  That's why people sort those who claim to have good intent out into good editors and troublemakers.  Considering a person's good faith is definitely and obviously important, and nothing in the version you're reverting away from doesn't say anything about leaving bad links in anyway.  Milto LOL pia 21:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: *That principle is a double-edged sword, since it wouldn't give much favor to people on either side of the issue who make big fusses about adding, removing, retaining, suppressing, or doing anything else pro or con regarding links, for any reason other than an encyclopedic one. *Dan T.* 17:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you and the others who keep pushing to link to everything here to write an encyclopedia? All your time seems to be dedicated to trying to permit linking to websites that attack our editors. If that is all you have to offer this project, then I suggest you find some other website to play on.--MONGO 19:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that a (gasp) personal attack, on the talk page of the policy against personal attacks?  Oh, the irony... *Dan T.* 19:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did I "out" you? Seriously...do you have a purpose anymore aside from this neverending battle to be able to link to some of these capricious websites?--MONGO 19:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody can "out" me since I use my real name openly.  My stats show 5058 edits in main article space out of a total of 8547, so I'm still in a state of having done more edits directly in the encyclopedia than in peripheral stuff to it, though I'm sure my percentage has suffered in recent months due to my getting drawn into this silly debate to stop needless censorship. *Dan T.* 19:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: * I guess the next poll question needs to be about just what provision(s) should be in the section, if it's decided from this question that there should be such a section at all.  And there also ought to be some attempt made to get broader participation than just The Usual Suspects, who are so far dominating the debate.  Where's the silent majority? *Dan T.* 20:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Views in favor of retaining the prohibition on linking to external harassment

message: * Any sort of link ban, however worded, has been used as an invitation to overreaction on the part of some editors and admins, and the 3RR exception is an invitation for edit warring.  The milder wording above is unobjectionable to me on its face, but doesn't seem to be able to stick before somebody insists on putting "more teeth" into it.  Some sort of principle against using links for the purpose of harrassing somebody is fine (we don't want harassment anywhere, any way... on a boat, with a goat, here, there, anywhere, or with a link), but it seems impossible to express this as part of policy without it being extended and misinterpreted in all sorts of ways that suppress legitimate commentary and criticism, so we're best off without any such explicit provision.  Genuine, serious harassment can always be dealt with no matter what the policy says. *Dan T.* 23:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Views in favor of deleting the prohibition on linking to external harassment

message: * The principle that editors shouldn't harass each other by posting links either is good, but the implementation is questionable. Using a paragraph that starts with equivocation like "many editors agree" but ends with immunity to the three-revert-rule and banning? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: I've changed the text above to what was there before the undiscussed changes on October 1 , which I'd missed. This may change the views of you or AnonEMouse.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I support Miltopia's version above. Cla68 02:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But we've essentially agreed that Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment doesn't actually have any purpose beyond what's already covered in existing policies. Why replace a useful policy with an pointless one?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have to replace the BADSITES wording here because it doesn't have consensus, has never had consensus, and I presume never will have consensus.  Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment may not have everything everyone wants in it, but those things it does have in it probably are going to be supported by consensus, I suspect. --Alecmconroy 02:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would concur with that. In retrospect, I think moving the original intent and purpose of BADSITES over to NPA was a tremendously bad idea, but as I've stated before, I attempted in doing so to preserve its intent rather than let my own concerns overide it. Still, I fully expected the text I inserted to be edited vigorously, and I did not expect the controversy to last this long. An initial argument against BADSITES was that existing policy already covered it, which I thought was true. Subsequent arguments pro-moral imperatives against "attack sites" appear to me to be a reinvention or resurgence of the prior arguments in favor of removing personal attacks as texts, as opposed to links.—AL FOCUS! 03:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth, I originally forked the  BADSITES text into NPA expecting it to be struck down or modified for consistency with WP:NPA#Removal of text. I proposed this  some hours before I went ahead and did it, but other than User:MONGO  no one else involved in the discussion at the time objected. Now, while it seems obvious to me that doing this was a bad idea, some version of it should probably stay for the time being while the ArbCom case works out and as the discussions on the alternative policy proposal continue.—AL FOCUS! 21:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To that effect, I also support Miltopia's version.—AL FOCUS! 22:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: None of the above

message: Without making too big a deal about it, I might point out that the multiple
removals of the mere MENTION of ED that occurred today.  The deletion of the mere MENTION of a website is precisely why we need to clarify this page and specify that BADSITES is NOT policy.   
As we see-- the slippery slope truly is rather slippery in this case.  --Alecmconroy 23:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the apparent point was that using it in that way, in a section header complete with exclamation points, had an unnecessarily inflammatory feel to it.  The various mentions of the "unspeakable" site in the main body text have been left alone.  Incidentally, any time I run into the initials "ED" elsewhere, like in spam e-mails regarding Erectile Dysfunction, or discussions regarding organizations' Executive Directors, it makes me momentarily wonder just what that Attack Site has to do with whatever they're discussing! *Dan T.* 23:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No doubt it has an unnecessary inflammatory feel to it...that is precisely Miltopia's goal...better known as trolling.--MONGO 05:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please-- don't accuse anyone of being a troll or ED partisans for the duration of this discussion.  If you can't abide by NPA, you can't substantively help us figure out how to make changes to it. --Alecmconroy 06:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, MONGO this page is not intended for you to be making personal remarks regardless of how well-grounded you believe your grudges against me are.  For the last time, I and I'm sure everyone else active on this page would appreciate if you would cease your personal remarks about me and finally move on to discussing the policy page you have edit warred over.  Milto LOL pia 06:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unspeakable Name

message: In the Italic text at the top of the page, it says “ares”, not “areas”. I can’t change it, because the page is protected. — H92 (t · c · no) 12:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fixed; thanks for pointing it out. -GTBacchus(talk) 12:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem!  — H92 (t · c · no) 16:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo 

message: ::::That Wordbomb guy may be a scoundrel, but he's got a very good point... it is indeed quite unbecoming of a top-10 site to be issuing ArbCom edicts cracking down on a tiny blog. *Dan T.* 23:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To the extent that size matters in reliability, a "tiny blog" is not going to rate high. We shouldn't be using any tiny blogs as sources, especially those that engage in the active harassment of Wikipedia editors.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dan isn't saying that a tiny blog is a good source, his point is that "it is indeed quite unbecoming of a top-10 site to be issuing ArbCom edicts cracking down on a tiny blog". Privatemusings 00:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is anyone proposing using it as a source?  All the discussion as far as I know has been around using the link as a supplemental related site or as a subject for discussion, as the New York Times did when it published an article on the controversy around it. *Dan T.* 00:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is is being used as a reference by Privatemusings on this very page, as a proposed guide for our decision-making. As for tiny blogs, we crack down on all sorts of tiny websites that are spam or unreliable sources. I delete a few every day. I see absolutely nothing unbecoming in removing links to "petty and vindictive" sites that don't have reliable information for our encyclopedia.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And nobody else sees something unbecoming in not linking to useless slites. These strawman arguments that we support linking to things that otherwise would be removed because they're attack sites got old... oh, about six months ago. -Amarkov moo! 00:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, I lost you in all of those negatives. Is there another way of saying that?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Armakov's point  is that the claim is not that we should link to "useless" sites. That's the issue. These sites do have uses and meet WP:EL under certain circumstances. The question is whether under those circumstances. No one is saying that we should link willynilly to useless sites. JoshuaZ 14:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: People who oppose a ban on linking to attack sites do not necessarily support linking to such sites. Arguments that assume we want to regularly link to such sites are rather pointless. -Amarkov moo! 05:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so. One of the main opponents of a ban has himself linked to one of the more notorious sites. See the beginning of this thread.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I don't condone that in any way. But it isn't an argument for a blanket ban. -Amarkov moo! 06:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a refutation of the assertion that "People who oppose a ban on linking to attack sites do not necessarily support linking to such sites." Yes, some do support linking to them and actually do link to them. I'm not proposing a blanket ban. I'm proposing a change in the exceptions to the general ban on using self-published sources. The self-published sites of individuals who are in a conflcit with serious conlfict with Wikipedia should not be regarded as reliable sources for articles, and should not be included in external links either. My proposal does not address talk pages.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I propose that NPOV entails that the status of a site or its creator as being in conflict, serious or otherwise, with Wikipedia should not affect the linkability of their site one way or the other (unless the conflict is itself a notable topic, in which case the link becomes more essential).  And, if your proposal does not apply to talk pages, bringing up a link somebody made above on this talk page is a red herring. *Dan T.* 14:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anything in NPOV that prevents us from evaluating the reliability of sources or from excluding those that are deemed unreliable. On the contrary, NPOV says we should only include those viewpoints which are significant, not those solely sourceable to fringe, self-published sites. If folks are worried about red herrings then they should stop referring to "BADSITES".  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tiny blog

message: I notice that it's gotten quite common to speculate about the motives of people who oppose BADSITES.  It seems like people genuinely are confused about why the ANTI-BADSITES crowd are so motivated, and this has led to rampant speculation that the objections to BADSITES stem form personal character flaws, a lack of compassion, or support for harassment.   I've written a little manifesto in response, User:Alecmconroy/AGF and BADSITES. --Alecmconroy 16:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why do you want to link to harassment then? (Hypnosadist) 23:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Diff, please. LessHeard vanU 01:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: "want to" not "have done", a question not an acusation. (Hypnosadist) 04:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This doesn't apply to Alecmconroy, but the sock puppet Privatemusings has twice linked to harassment sites.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, presumably that's to say that the cheeky monkey Will believes the material (you can follow Will's 2nd link to see it ironically - I think he's made a little mistake on the first) is inappropriate. I found it, and believe it to be, germane. Privatemusings 11:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Germane is one of Michael Jackson's brothers, isn't he?  Now, only Will can answer for sure, but maybe he now considers the wikien-l mailing list to be an Attack Site? *Dan T.* 13:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BADLISTS ;-)  daveh4h 16:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The issue of harassment of editors is about ad hominem attacks. Some users wish to allow links to ad hominem attacks, yet they complain when their hypocrisy over the matter is questioned. Let's try to avoid all ad hominem attacks by avoiding linking to external harassment.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ohhhhh.  I see--  the only real problem is that PM is a hypocrite!  PM, WP:WHYDOYOUHATEWP? --Alecmconroy 22:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is to say--  attacking someone for hypocrisy and condemning ad hominem attacks in the same paragraph isn't particularly convincing. --Alecmconroy 22:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not attacking anyone, I'm pointing out that the same people who favor harassment are complaining when their hypocrisy is revealed. If you think that ad hominem attacks on Wikipedia editors is harmful to the project then I encourage you to support policies that would prevent them.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, no. Belief that something is harmful does not require acceptance of anything which prevents it. Unceasing government monitoring would prevent crime, after all. -Amarkov moo! 23:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's worse than that.  Unceasing government monitoring would not prevent crime, it would make it more powerful than ever. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: And summarizing PM as someone who "favors harassment" is exactly the kind of pathetic attempt at distraction that my little essay was hoping to stop.  --Alecmconroy 23:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Because if we put our heads in the sand like ostriches, or cover up our eyes, ears, and mouth like the "See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" monkeys, then attacks will cease to exist. *Dan T.* 21:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: That only makes sense if any link to external harassment is an ad hominem attack, a case which you have not made. We could ban all external links as well, but that would be stupid, because all external links are not harassment. -Amarkov moo! 21:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Here we have the anti-anti BADSITES misrepresentation in a nutshell;The issue of harassment of editors is about ad hominem attacks. Some users wish to allow links to ad hominem attacks, yet they complain when their hypocrisy over the matter is questioned. Let's try to avoid all ad hominem attacks by avoiding linking to external harassment...where in fact the AAB faction have no wish to link to the harassment, but to the site containing such attacks where it serves the purposes of Wikipedia - which would be disallowed under BADSITES. LessHeard vanU 23:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "BADSITES" isn't being proposed. We do know that some editors here wish to link to self-published websites that negage in harassment, because they have done so and have argued for their continued ability to do so. "Serving" Wikipedia has already been discussed and found to vague to be a useful standard. We shouldn't use sources that aren't reliable. Self-published sources are inherently unreliable and are only used in exceptional cases. All I'm propsoing here is to reduce the number of exceptions that allow them.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You want a blanket ban on linking to attack sites, and you want removals based on this to be immune from 3RR. Correct me if either of those statements are wrong, but if they aren't, then it is being proposed. -Amarkov moo! 23:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both statements are wrong. I am proposing that we treat self-published websites that actively engage in harassment of Wikipedia editors as being generally unreliable as sources.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay then. Most people agree with that. Have you seen someone say that self-published sites that actively harass Wikipedia editors are generally reliable sources? Remember, there need not be a ban on any links to them just because they are unreliable. -Amarkov moo! 23:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, noting that harassers are generally unreliable is something everyone can agree on.  On the other hand, banning all links to sites that harass, whether justified by NPA, RS, EL, or any other legal theory, would just be BADSITES by another name.  And what's in a name? that which we call BADSITES, by any other name, would still lack consensus. --Alecmconroy 00:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, since "everyone can agree on it" I will add it to the policy.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha-- not quite so fast, eh?  I don't agree to it being on NPA.  NPA doesn't apply to articles.  But it's fine in Linking to External Harassment, where I believe we already say that.  It also would be most bad form to edit the protected policy, and of course, you should take more than my word for it being something "everyone can agree to".  --Alecmconroy 00:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh- I see-- you did add it to Linking to External Harassment instead of here. :)  most good. --Alecmconroy 00:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AGF, NPA, and BADSITES

message: Let's make sure that we discuss changes here. It would obviously be pretty silly to immediately return to an edit war! I'd strongly recommend that we all stick to 1RR to help this along. Privatemusings 03:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone deleted a whole section without mentioning it here. I've restored the material. The RfC above did not have a definitive outcoime. If we want to draw a conclusion from it we should ask a neutral editor or admin "close" it.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It's a good idea to try and find a neutral editor / admin. My reading is the same as yours in that there was no definitive outcome, which I would say indicates no consensus for the section, and hence justifies its removal. A neutral editor may or may nor concur. Privatemusings 05:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, in your reversion, you removed the note drawing editor's attention to the problematic section, and encouraging their participation here with the aim of avoiding further edit warring - was this intentional? Privatemusings 05:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no reason for the note embedded in a policy as it was...everyone who seems to care about how this policy is worded has this policy watchlisted anyway.--MONGO 16:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now that we're unprotected 

message: I'm not going to leave this on ppl's talk pages and have it taken the wrong way, but I've brought this page up at ANI  Milto LOL pia 22:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ANI discussion 

message: There's no consensus in my view for the section in question. The note regarding the ArbCom case, and new policy proposal should stay, and the text should be removed. Consensus is not required to remove the section, it must be evident for it to stay. Privatemusings 23:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No consensus in my view