Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:25, 5 May 2007

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Spoken Misplaced Pages

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages

Archives
Archive 1 Poll 2004 Archive 2 Archive 3 See also the talk pages of the subpages
Subpages
current list of subpages
Misplaced Pages talk:No personal attacks/Death threats Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks/Extension

What if the user removes the warning template from their talk page?

If I warn a user with {{npa}}, but they remove it, what can I do? --Lethargy 04:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Please answer this, there are others who are interested in hearing the response. Thank You. :) Duke53 | 05:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC) p.s. What if the warning is falsely applied?

Why should you do anything? People have the right to do whatever they want on their own talk page. The important question is whether they keep making personal attacks. john k 17:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a controversial issue. See: Misplaced Pages talk:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings Nil Einne 09:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions of self-harm

Currently, only direct threats and direct insults are noted as being personal attacks. I suggest that suggestions of self harm ("Why don't you jump off a cliff") should also be specifically noted as personal attacks. Common sense implies the inclusion, but there will always be someone who tries to use the letter rather than the spirit of the rule. Thoughts? Rhialto 06:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this a personal attack

I just wanted to know whether Is this a personal attack. I don't want any action as I assume Good Faith thinking that this is just a (mis)sense of comedy (this being the first instance) but just want to know the opinion of the community.  Doctor Bruno  02:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly obnoxious. Feels kind of borderline to me. Saying that people are pulling quotes out of their asses is rude, but I think it's only borderline. At any rate, I tend to think everyone would be a lot better off if we added an "ignore personal attacks" rule in addition to the "no personal attacks" rule. Personal attacks derail discussion, but only if we let them by engaging with them, instead of sticking to substantive disagreements. john k 17:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Some people talk like that. He's just sending you to take a walk. He doesn't like your POV.

But, on my experience, with a few of these you could well make a case in PAIN, depending on which administrator jumps first. --Sugaar 05:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

False Accusations

I would like to start a discussion of false accusations being used to personally attack another user. This seems rather obvious to me that falsely accusing another user of something derogatory, without evidence, is a method of personal attack. I request comments on this.--Fahrenheit451 19:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Fahrenheit451's request follows on the heels of his / her accusation of a personal attack, here which revolved around the image talk here. He / she took my intended (potentially) helpful solution to his / her intent as a personal attack and, in an attempt to handle the "high resolution copyright" difficulty, posted to Jimmy Wales here. Terryeo 19:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Only there was no "high-resolution copyright difficulty" as Terryeo alleges. False accusations are a method of personal attack. I think that this needs to be explicitly addressed in Misplaced Pages policy.--Fahrenheit451 19:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a separate (but related) question regarding this topic; a user has repeatedly accused me of personal attack for leaving a civility warning on their talk page (not unwarranted), though I have reminded them of the seriousness of the accusation and that the template is certainly not in and of itself an attack (that is their only "basis" for accusation). I am not sure of what I should do here; is their some proper action I can take to get the user to stop making false claims against me? Thanks. Shannernanner 14:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Tell them that you welcome an RFC to discuss your conduct and his. That usually puts and end to it, because the bullies who behave badly generally know they are behaving badly. - Jmabel | Talk 01:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Censoring obscene comments

I've created a template to censor obscene comments at User:nkayesmith/censored (see it in action on my talk page). I feel that it's a good compromise between deleting the comment and allowing it to remain. What does everyone think? --nkayesmith 09:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• See also Misplaced Pages:Remove personal attacks. >Radiant< 11:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not censored. Or so it's meant. Therefore I think it's not any good idea. Better to bear one or two rude comments than to start censoring. Of course, you can use it in your user talk page, if you wish.

If the matter is really serious, you should consider administrative action against the wrongdoer. --Sugaar 13:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not mean deleting the comment, I mean hiding it from view. I originally created as a way to more elegantly remove personal attacks (in the cases described in the essay linked to above) - instead of linking to the diff, replace the comment with a message and button to show the comment. --nkayesmith 01:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I suspect it will cause further edit wars. Personal attacks are meant not to be done, to be apologized about and even to be persecuted... but not to be hidden. That's my view.

Also the term "censored" sounds specially awful in Misplaced Pages. --Sugaar 09:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point, I've changed the wording.--nkayesmith 09:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggested addition

Please see Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks/Death threats and its talk page for discussion on that topic (recently moved to that subpage). One suggestion was to make the wording here stronger, and to specifically mention what to do in the case of death threats, as opposed to having a separate page. I'm recording this suggestion here, so that it can be discussed. See also Misplaced Pages talk:Blocking policy#Suggested addition. Carcharoth 01:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps all that is needed is an additional sentence at the end of the "Remedies" section. Something like this:

Threats of physical violence or death are taken seriously, and usually result in a community ban.

I think that reflects current practice, without going too far into instruction creep. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA is a widely used/cited policy. I feel that it's pretty important with this policy in particular to get the wording right before adding something like this into the page - and in my opinion the fact that somebody wrote a whole policy proposal on it, and the accompanying discussion on what should be in the policy, demonstrates that it needs to be clear and concise. A single sentence is very vague, and doesn't adress the concerns raised in the discussion. For that reason might I suggest a format for an addition as a subsection of the policy, along with a little box here to reach concensus on the exact wording (people in agreement with the subsection idea could obviously develop the exact wording until a consensus version appears)... (of course, those that disagree can still voice their objections and this whole comment may well be null and void.) - I may well be out on a limb all on my own here. Crimsone 05:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Which concerns doesn't that sentence address? (As someone who's been the ] of a death threat, I think that sentence covers the bases fairly well.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal subsection

• That's quite a bit more verbose than we need. For instance, the term "death threat" is obvious enough to not need any examples, let alone eight of them. (Radiant) 10:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'd have to conceed that looking back at it. Have edited out those 8 examples. Crimsone 14:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• • See, the problem with citing examples is that people will then argue that what they said wasn't a personal attack since it didn't match any of the examples. Yes, that's rules lawyering, but still. (Radiant) 15:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    • In principle, I agree, though if you don't provide examples, people can say "it's not a death threat, I was just joking", etc. I think it might be best to add just one layer of extra bureaucracy here, and ask people to report death threats (and any resulting blocks) to place XYZ for immediate review. I can imagine it would be painful to be blocked for a death threat when you were just joking. Of course, in genuine cases, the review would help push people to report this sort of thing to the correct people. Also, knowing that they will get reported, as well as blocked, might make people think twice. ie. if you don't give examples, build in a fail-safe review mechanism where the blocker and blockee can go immediately to thrash it out. Carcharoth 18:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Complaint

I am not so aware of cabals but I agree that the policy actually restricts free speech and accurate description of facts. For instance, I have been warned for descibing one POV-pushing editor's ideology as "nazi" and "racist", which is blatantly true, and agreed by other respected editors. He wikilawyered against me for that and got his prize and now I find myself unable to speak up properly and constantly threatened with WP:PAIN actions. While these terms can be abused, I see no reason to protect with "invisibility cloaks" the activity and motivations of such users, normally complex vandals with no respect for Misplaced Pages's way-of-life and NPOV policies. In fact it is counter-producing as it favors wikilawyering against realistic discussion and consensus making. We can't be assambleary and non-violent while protecting under the excuse of civility violent and anti-assambleary behaviours. Also, we should not give special protection to certain ideologies. Why are nazism and racism given that invisibility cloak that other ideologies don't have nor need? It's totally against the spirit of Misplaced Pages. --Sugaar 12:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the wording of the policy statement is problematic but I disagree that your example is a case of it's problems. Your problem is, you've let you anger get the better of you. Rather then calling the user a nazi and racist which benefits no one, point out that the user has a history of making comments which many people are uncomfortable with (and provide examples). And don't try and dictate what others should do or think, just point out the history and let people decide. If you'd gotten in to trouble for doing this, I would agree there is a problem. But when you start name calling, I would agree that you should have been censured and action should be taken if you continue. The simple fact is, a users previous comments would speak for themselves. There is no need for other wikipedians to start name calling. You risk becoming just as bad as the person your name calling. N.B. having taken a brief look at the dispute it looks to me like your description is perhaps a little one sided Nil Einne 10:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I'm one-sided. He never denied my claims in any way, just used them to attack me (and all other editors) legally (see Misplaced Pages:Wikilawyering and WP:DE).

The problem is that I wasn't in anger nor I meant those terms as insulting just as objectively descriptive of him and his POV. What got me angered was that he started complaining without even denying the claims... and he got me warned and finally he got me blocked for 6 hours (after I had watered down my tongue ans was even trying to be constructive and pedagogical), after what I have just broken all connection with that article (it's not worth the pain).

I don't believe for a moment that I'm wrong in my description because he has been defending Stormfront directly.

There is a problem and (in my opinion) it is that talking about someone's ideology is seen, by the wording of this policy as PA, independently on wether if that's real or not, or wether it's meant as insulting or not.

It was no name-calling: just objective description of facts. It was meaningful because the article had been under heavy vandalism by anon. users (and some registered one too) of that ideology. And, at first, I wasn't even talking to him (didn't expect him even to read the talk page, being a brand new user) but to the more serious editors working in that page. If you have any doubt just check the article White people, its looong talk page and its convoluted recent history.

But anyhow, ideologies are meaningful for discussion, at least in some topics. If we are writing an article on Stalin and I am clearly Stalinist (I'm not but just for the example), it's probably useful to point it out and talk honestly. I really dislike duplicity and hypocrisy and find them obstacles to sincered discussion, so why to hide what is obvious and relevant? It's not about name calling. Name calling are remarks that are meant to hurt and have little or no relation with the discussion, like intelectual despise, racist or sexist remarks, or maybe even ideology when the article is purely scientific.

This is just allowing certain twisted people to gag others.

Also, I never even thought in opening a PAIN against him for anything (until he started witch-hunting me and others). He has made personal remarks but I walk over fire (metaphorically), what is what a serious wikipedian is supposed to do, unless the situation becomes really abusive.

PA and PAIN are necessary but must be something serious, not just a blank check for wikilawyerists. After all, when you are discussing with someone for weeks, you can commit errors and definitively you can get hot. I don't think it was my case (I am hot now and what I'm doing is the opposite: to quit, not with Misplaced Pages but with anything that may have any relation with that article, that individual or his favorite administrator).

It's not worth the pain. But Misplaced Pages loses allowing disruptive editing, POV-pushing and displacement of serious users, not me but the other editors that have been or will be displaced by such means, with the blessings of PAIN and AN and under the cover of this NPA policy. --Sugaar 05:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

"Examples that are not personal attacks" boldly edited

No matter how it's phrased, this whole policy is a prime candidate for wikilawyering up hill and down dale by those skilled in goading others without laying themselves open to the dreaded PA charge. That kind of can't be helped. But I think some of the section "Examples that are not personal attacks" is unnecessarily encouraging to the PA tightrope dance, and I have edited accordingly. Please take a look. The vaunted "subtle difference" between "You are acting like a troll" and "You are a troll" comes down, IMO, purely to the not-so-subtle difference between those who know how to skirt the NPA policy and those who don't. The difference between commenting on motive and commenting on actions just isn't that technical: the implication is the same in both cases. I took it out. Also, I took out a little lawyerspeak ("include, but are not limited to"—please let's not positively encourage a law-book attitude here) and performed emergency surgery on a sentence stating that personal attacks should under certain circumstances not be construed as personal attacks (I swear, it did say that). Finally, I changed the statement that "a comment in an edit history such as "reverting vandalism" is a not a personal attack," because I'm just tired of seeing it. "Vandalism" is thrown around much too lightly, it's a very serious and wounding accusation, and it goes to intention and motive, not just action. What more do you want? It's a personal attack. It's only not a personal attack if you are indeed reverting vandalism, and vandalism is very clearly and narrowly defined at WP:VAND, which also makes the excellent poinit that "If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as vandalism, then he or she is actually damaging the encyclopedia by driving away potential editors." If somebody tells me they've reverted my "vandalism" to their page, that's a much more personal attack than if they tell me to fuck off. (That's not a nice thing to say, but what exactly's personal about it?) Anyway... yes, the section ended up rather different.

This is what it said

Wikipedians engaging in debate is an essential part of the culture of Misplaced Pages. Be civil and adhere to good wiki etiquette when stating disagreements to avoid personalizing them and try to minimize unnecessarily antagonistic comments. Disagreements with other editors can be discussed without resorting to personal attacks. It is important not to personalize comments that are directed at content and actions, but it is equally important not to interpret such comments as personal attacks. Specific examples of comments that are not personal attacks include, but are not limited to:

* Disagreements about content such as "Your statement about X is wrong" or "Your statement is a point of view, not fact" are not personal attacks. * Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks. Stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack — it is a statement regarding the actions of the user, not a statement about the user. There is a subtle difference between "You are a troll" and "You are acting like a troll", but "You seem to be making statements to provoke people" is even better, as it means the same without descending to name-calling. Similarly, a comment such as "responding to accusation of bad faith by user X" in an edit summary or on a talk page is not a personal attack against user X. * A comment in an edit history such as "reverting vandalism" is not a personal attack. However, it is important to assume good faith when making such a comment — if the edit that is being reverted could be interpreted as a good-faith edit, then don't label it as vandalism.

And this is what it says now

Debate is an essential part of the culture of Misplaced Pages. Be civil and adhere to good wiki etiquette when stating disagreements to avoid personalizing them and try to minimize unnecessarily antagonistic comments. Disagreements with other editors can be discussed without resorting to personal attacks. It is important not to personalize comments that are directed at content and actions, but it is equally important not to interpret impersonal comments as personal attacks. Examples of comments that are not personal attacks include:

* Disagreements about content such as "Your statement about X is wrong" or "Your statement is a point of view, not fact" are not personal attacks. * Remarks describing an editor's actions and made without involving their personal character should not be construed as personal attacks. Stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack — it is a statement regarding the actions of the user, not a statement about the user. (It can however be a harmful statement if it's untrue.) A comment such as "responding to accusation of bad faith by user X" in an edit summary or on a talk page is not a personal attack against user X. * A comment in an edit history such as "reverting vandalism" is a not a personal attack if it's concerned with clear vandalism, although otherwise it is. "Vandalism" imputes bad intentions and bad motives to the person accused. If the edit that is being reverted could be interpreted as a good-faith edit, then don't label it as vandalism. See Misplaced Pages:Vandalism for what is and isn't vandalism.

Feel free to edit and/or change back, please. Bishonen | talk 06:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC).

Looks good to me. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The new version is fine, but I despair anyway. I'll despair in a new section, though, if I get overwhelmed by it and need to express it. For this and for here, all the gloom I can share is this: the "not" section is to try to prevent people using NPA as a bullwhip. Arguably, if those people read the first part, they'd know not to do that. The core of the policy negates any such use from the outset, and yet -- here comes the doom cloud -- nobody reads the policy past the name. Having a specific example in the "not" paragraph to describe a particularly pernicious problem is good as a thing to point them at, but they still have to read. There has got to be a name for the condition of being able to write without being able to read, because there are many examples of people suffering from it these days. Geogre 13:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

saying "but he did it too"

I've come across this one a lot. People will often say "but this person attacked me first" and use that as a reason to make an attack on their own (though, quite frequently, the first person did not). I propose adding a section saying, "because the other person attacked isn't reason for you to do it too." -Patstuart 01:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Good point. This kind of argument may be appropriate in a children's playground ("but mommy, he started it!") but not in an encyclopedia. (Radiant) 10:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

While I generally agree, we cannot demand that everyone have the forbearance of a saint. For example, if someone suggests that you engage in unnatural sex acts with your parents, that you eat shit, and that you ought to be impaled with a hot poker (none of these are made-up examples, by the way), you can hardly be faulted for describing this person as "thoroughly unpleasant". Or something rather more strongly worded than that. - Jmabel | Talk 08:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'd certainly agree with this. (especially at the moment! Of course, the standardised reply to a string of statements like that would probably involve the title "The Aristocrats". 'Tis considerably weaker (and more amusing) as the wording of responses go, but may turn out to be a great diffuser (if only through the state of mind needed to deliver it properly. lol). I wouldn't suggest adding it to the policy though. Crimsone 03:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Going overboard.

I've been editing the George W. Bush page and this user User:ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE has engaged in alot of arrogant insinuation that his edits are justified. I browsed his contributions that he made to wikipedia and he's not able to restrict his personal opinion in the NPOV environment. Which I found out was evident here Talk:Bumfights especially at User talk:ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE. Thank you for looking in. ViriiK 06:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Please make such reports on WP:PAIN rather than on this page, which discusses the wording of the policy. Thank you. (Radiant) 12:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

"Don't Feed the Trolls"

Is a polite reminder not to feed the trolls a personal attack? I just read this article and realized maybe I was making personal attacks in some instances. Any thoughts on this? Does it constitute a personal attack?

Dylan Slade 22:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess it depends how comfortable you are characterizing someone as a "troll" being "fed". If someone concludes that you're a troll, and it turns out you're not, I can see why you'd be upset if they'd been telling others not to "feed" you. There is obvious trolling that occurs, though, and it's not really hurting anyone's feelings to call it that. I think a good rule of thumb is this: if its a borderline case, or if the potential "troll" is a regular contributor, err on the side of assuming they're not a troll. -GTBacchus 22:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

ad hominem

If this policy doesn't already cover this, I think it would be a good idea to add details about ad hominem attacks against other users. This issue generally arises in XFD's, and should be discouraged.--Ed 02:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Though the term is constantly misused on WP, "ad hominem" doesn't mean attack (though the two may be combined).

A personal attack is a personal attack.

"ad hominem" is a logical fallacy in an argument, trying to use the fact that a certain person is arguing a case as an argument against or, less frequently, in favour of the case itself. The argument "ad hominem" is a fallacy but it is not as such an attack. It must be resisted by other editors pointing out the fallacy, not by policy. Str1977 09:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Polemics as personal attacks?

At what point is something considered polemical, and subject to removal? If someone placed a comment on their user page saying "Muslims are one step away from being satanists!" and linked it to a page listing self identified Muslim Wikipedians, is that considered polemical? Is it considered a personal attack?--Vidkun 22:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is not very collegial, but it is rather a sort of impersonal attack. I'd suggest leaving a note on the user's talkpage mentioning that our resources aren't to be used for expounding bigotry, and that it would be best if they removed the statement. Jkelly 22:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

While one might argue over whether or not it's a personal attack, it is definitely incivil and not conductive to building the encyclopedia. (Radiant) 09:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure. How would you consider this, this and this userpages? They are highly offensive to me (and many others). There should be at least a guideline about not making fascist or racist political propaganda in user pages. --Sugaar 11:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If these bother you, I'd suggest throwing them on WP:MFD. Basically, political statements fall under "Misplaced Pages is not censored"; however, there is an obvious difference between a userpage proclaiming support for Bush (which I'm sure some would find offensive but is obviously a legitimate political opinion) and a userpage supporting Hitler (which can hardly be interpreted as anything other than hate speech). (Radiant) 11:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll think about it. By the moment I have more than enough fencing off (and reporting) these peoples' personal atatcks and group-harassment. I'm more worried by the users than by their pages actually - but all is connected. I don't want to censor anyhthing but it's hate speech clearly. --Sugaar 12:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I reviewed the web pages Sugaar referred to and didn't find anything offensive, they're just center-right political views, clearly Sugaar is someone who considers Fraga, Aznar, and Mariano Rajoy extreme-rightists, when in fact they're just tepid social democrats. Or maybe Sugaar himself is a radical leftist a la Castro, Chávez, Evo Morales? Cheers.--SanIsidro 13:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Rajoy? It's Le Pen, Mussolini, Pinochet and Falange what such propaganda pages are about (just for the record). --Sugaar 18:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how, within NPOV, we can allow support for Bush but not for Hitler. Nazism is an unpopular POV, and one that I personally abhor, but Hitler had millions of supporters in his time. If a pro-Nazi userpage is unacceptable now, would it have been so in the 1939 edition of Misplaced Pages? I think of this principally as a failure of NPOV. I've come across people using this policy to defend all manner of extremist positions.

Is this a Personal Attack?

Let's assume...Emma told me in P page that I'm XYZ. She also implied it in another of her remarks. XYZ is a personal attack. Then later, on same page and other pages, she says: "Lots of XYZ's on P page" "XYZ's are trouble makers" etc... (without directly referring to me). Is this a personal attack? Should I be offended? Is it still a personal attack despite not being an attack against me but against anonymous editors? Lukas19 20:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Possibly; at the very least it sounds incivil. The place to ask for investiagion such things is WP:PAIN. (Radiant) 08:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Usage of real names

Where can I find out about using real names of editors? Some editors like myself would prefer not to have our real names and identities divulged on articles and talk pages even if they are known to other editors, who may be prepared to use this information maliciously on and off-wiki. The point, "Treat others as you would have them treat you" is a pointer in the right direction but is not clear enough and may need expansion.

Is this article the correct place to make a mention of how real names of editors should not be divulged especially if this has been expressly asked by the editor? Or does another article deal with that subject? Thanks. I have also registered this query at WP:WQT talk page. ekantiK 03:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Edit (Jimbo quote)

I noticed the following comment by Jimbo on his talk page and strongly think that it should be included here as a "Jimbo quote" under the Community Spirit section, just like has been done by other WP Policy articles. Here is the quote which is also displayed on my userpage:

source. We do not need to display it in this way with a boilerplate (unless that is agreed upon as a headline of some sort?) but it would be sufficient to just add the quote without the date also. ekantiK 05:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• In general I'm not too happy with adding quotes to policy pages, because people have a tendency to take them out of context and misinterpret them. (Radiant) 14:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk Page Attacks

If an editor creates a talk-subpage or a section of the talk-page that specifically attacks other editors on the basis of what they see as bad faith or POV on the part of the "attackee", and especially in regards to off-wiki disputes that may or may not have anything to do with edits made on Misplaced Pages, is this a good example of a personal attack?

If so, I'd like to make an amendment to the Examples section of this article to include a sentence or two about 'Talk-Page Attacks'. ekantiK 16:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

To provide additional information, Ekantik (sockpuppet Gaurasundara) is talking about the information located on my talk-page located on This Section. Not only has "Ekantik / Gaurasundara" viciously attacked and defamed Sathya Sai Baba on numerous blogs and forums outside Misplaced Pages (thousands of times), he has done the same with me as well. He even devoted a public blog specifically attacking me and my involvement on Misplaced Pages. Unfortunately for him, he happened to use a Wiki-name that specifically identifies him with the Sai Controversy and he has since admitted he is the person I accuse him to be. He ceaselessly attempts to argue that his vicious extra-Misplaced Pages defamation campaigns against Sathya Sai Baba and me are irrelevant to his presence on Misplaced Pages. Obviously, I disagree. SSS108 19:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Please make such posts on WP:PAIN instead of here, and make sockpuppetry-related posts on WP:RFCU. In general, if someone creates a new page with the intent to attack someone, that's a speedy delete. In this particular case, SSS108 appears to be talking about Ekantik's actions rather than making personal attacks. I might recommend that you two pursue dispute resolution. (Radiant) 15:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Radiant, I have answered these complaints elsewhere. As per your advice that such pages qualify for a speedy delete, does this apply to sections of existing talk pages as per my original query? And does this count as a personal attack? I see that this does actually qualify as a personal attack according to the project page but I am just seeking clarification in the case of a specific circumstance. I think that we would do well to remember that changes to this policy will affect decisions throughout the Misplaced Pages community and not just a bunch of people. Ekantik 15:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Overuse or incorrect use of WP:NPA

Is there no way to make clear that saying to someone you are in dispute with "be civil" or "WP:NPA" hardly ever improves the situation? Is it not time to say that warnings about personal attacks should be done by someone other than the (usually) two people involved? In other words, never say "you are being incivil to me", but rather say "don't be incivil to that person". Would this idea fly? Has it been proposed before? Carcharoth 19:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Probably. NPA and FAITH and such are things you should do rather than say. It does sometimes help if a third party asks people to stop, but even then the answer usually is "yeah but he started it" or somesuch. >Radiant< 09:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both points. The trouble is that the WP:CIVIL nutshell says: Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally. But by telling people they are being uncivil, you offend them, unintentionally or otherwise. I am surprised how few people understand that telling someone they are being uncivil is a form of aggression. The only way to deal with incivility is to ignore it: either leave the conversation or address the substance of the point while ignoring the couching. That's basic assertiveness.

As for what constitutes a personal attack which requires administration, I would maintain a high threshhold for that. I wouldn't go by the endless Misplaced Pages pages on etiquette, civility, dickishness, personal attacks, etc., but by what leads to warnings in the average workplace: racial and sexist slurs, sexual and religious harassment, death and violence threats, bullying, etc. such might warrant taking further, if they persisted.

If you do wish to engage an attacker, the aim should be de-escalation, not winning. I find the best way to de-escalate is to address the substance while studiously ignoring the personal stuff: this way it's often surprising how quickly the other guy straightens up. If you use passive aggressive techniques like ticking the angry guy off for incivility (particularly if you do this as part of a posse), he will get angrier and angrier until he cops himself a block (as we saw in a certain case recently). This is not the best outcome, especially when the blockee is a known useful contributor. We need to ask ourselves whether we are helping when we accuse someone of making a personal attack. qp10qp 20:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You are very right. I am of the kind that has a thick skin and really don't mind (much) to suffer personal attacks (unles absolutely flagrant and persistent and accompanied by denial of discussion). But when I suffer a personal attack in form of (often unjustified) warning, it really makes me feel angry and powerless because it is:

• Conflict escalation: bringing it to the "judicial" level, what can have real consequences (while calling me "nazi" or "idiot" doesn't: disqualification only disqualifies the attacker - it can be nuisance but it's not really any major problem unless systematic).
• Accusing me of being uncivil and disruptive (wether it's true or not, it's a personal insult of the worst class).

So PA warnings can be (and be meant as) personal attacks of the worst kind, but can't be treated as such.

Only one person ever has made that with me and it was a clear case of harassment and manipulation of policy in order to take control of an article from a racist POV. Sadly enough it caused me a block and (for what I'm finding) blocks can't be appealed (in fact, no mater what WP:BLOCK says). It also caused a major decrease of NOPVness of that article and related ones and continuity of conflict.

Also I find that calling someone "nigger" (for example) is not considered worse than saying that someone is "nazi". And well, there's a difference between a direct racist gratuitous insult and a description of one's apparent ideology. Even if both should be avoided for reasons of civility, they can't just be considered at the same level.

The policy suggests to develope a thick skin but in practice favors those people who have (or rather pretend to have) a thin one: those that by means of insistent PA warnings and subsequent reports to WP:PAIN try to displace other more beleguered (and serious) editors, to wikilawyer a victory instead of working for a consensus.

As it is (or it is applied) now it may be more a problem for healthy discussion than a useful tool for civility and editor collaboration towards NPOV. --Sugaar 07:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to deal with this?

A major bulk of my edits are reverting vandalisms, and seldom there are questions on whether my reverts are actually vandalisms.

However, some vandals whose edits were reverted by me and I have gave warning for would vandalize my userpage. Previously I dealt with that through WP:AIV, but since these falls onto WP:NPA since these people attacks me on the basis of my vandalism reverts, what should I do, AIV or NPA? --Samuel Curtis-- _{TALK·CONTRIBS} 04:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

From what you say, this sound like a relatively simple situation with no precise venue for it. Might I suggest posting your message at WP:AN/I, where I'm sure that an administrator will be able to look into at and take appropriate action. If it truly is as simple as you say, I doubt it would be any bother for an admin looking at it. Crimsone 04:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Those edits are from months ago. There's nothing to be done here. Jkelly 04:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Lol. Simple then, but not in the way stated. That'll teach me for replying to comments on face value! Crimsone 04:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I ask for guidance for future incidents. My way of vandal reversion (ie reverting multiple vandalism made by a user in one time), IMO, would be likely to be open to future attacks like this, so I'm going to ask as precaution. --Samuel Curtis-- _{TALK·CONTRIBS} 06:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed shift in focus regarding remedies

Based on some of the disucssion at the PAIN MFD, I came here to read exactly what we're saying in WP:NPA. I'm a little surprised that nothing in the policy suggests that it can ever be best when water rolls off a duck's back. The remedies demand retribution: the first thing the attacked person should do is to "ask the attacker to stop and note this policy". After that, its the comfy chair dispute resolution and blocking. Obviously, there are exceptions: persistent or extreme attacks such as death threats are a different creature entirely from being told you are "an idiot". But in general, might civility be better served by suggesting that, at least sometimes, the best way to respond to an angry talk page comment is ... not to respond at all? Serpent's Choice 06:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

By means of clarification, I'm not suggesting that making personal attacks is okay or acceptable, but simply proposing that the current policy and environment lead to escalation more often than beneficial to the project. I recognize that this change would have to tread carefully to avoid giving the wrong impression, but on the other hand, there are complaints at WP:PAIN as of this writing relating to such attacks as: "You're pretty cocky, aren't you?", "dumb logic", and "pseudo-Buddhist". Yes, these are all (probably) personal attacks, but ... is the overall desire for civility bettered by responding to every wrong action? Serpent's Choice 13:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Between my above concern and the fact that WP:NPA frankly does not present policy in the compelling prose that should be expected of established consensus, I have written Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks/Proposal, a suggested refactoring of the existing page. Out of respect for consensus, I would like it to be given due discussion; I will not simply be bold and replace the existing content. Serpent's Choice 07:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Changes to Remedies

Per the original comments by Serpent's Choice above, per recent comments in the MfD of WP:PAIN, and per comments at the village pump (policy} regarding WP:Kettle, I have made these additions to the policy here, including an emphasis on ignoring personal attacks as a first response, and on seeking dispute resolution for WP:KEttle situations, with a cautionary note that pushing hard for intervention in such situations may result in intervention distributed equally over both parties.

It may not be worded quite as well as it could be though, so please edit as required if you feel it needs it. Crimsone 17:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Substantial revision to WP:NPA

The core elements of this major edit have been being discussed for some days now. They have been through several rounds of copyediting, a partial reorganization, and many sets of eyes. I'll be the first to admit, there have been objections to these changes. Some of the objects, I hope have been settled through discussion and compromise. Some may still be outstanding. While these changes may not therefore have unanimity, I believe they have consensus. As a point of note, changes to the live version of NPA that have taken place since this proposal work began (largely by Crimsone have been incorporated in this edit wherever possible. I do not want to give the impression at any point that I'm doing this alone.

I have encouraged a change in WP:NPA for several reasons, each of which I hope this edit addresses:

• Removing the dislaimer that this policy is subject to Wikilawyering, and decreasing its ability to be so misused.
• Rewording suggested responses to avoid implying that escalation and retaliation are encouraged.
• Providing easier access to options for aggrieved editors (such as WP:WQA, WP:MEDCAB, and dispute resolution), especially in the wake of the deprecation of PAIN.
• Clarifying policy regarding article talk pages (already on other policy pages, but this one is higher-visibility).
• Improving the visibility of the WP:BLP reference.
• Cleaning up the general appearance and style of the article. Policy pages aren't featured articles, but they should demonstrate that cooperative editing can produce quality, well-structured prose.

My promotion of these changed to the live version are admittedly at least somewhat bold. I hope that any objections or problems can be discussed here. On many issues, I'm more than amenable to compromise. I'm not looking to start an edit war, I'm looking to work with other editors to build better policy pages for this encyclopedia project.

Thanks! Serpent's Choice 09:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I support the clean-up on the whole, but I've removed two bits:

• Even some comments that might appear to be a personal attack, such as labeling an edit that removes a substantial amount of text as "vandalism", may be well-intentioned.
• Additionally, editors are strongly discouraged from using profanity in an insulting or abusive way in comments to other contributors. Misplaced Pages is not censored, but that policy is focused on the content of articles, not on the interaction of users via talk pages and edit summaries.

In the first instance because it's a poor precendent, and arbitration has been brought for this very reason, and in the second because while it's probably good advice there's no consensus on it.

brenneman 23:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Surely there's consensus that swearing at people is rude? -- SCZenz 23:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You'd think so, but there have been multiple cases of adminstrators being pulled up (either on ANI or by RfC) for swearing and there have always been plenty of people saying "don't be offended by a curse." This in all likelyhood has more to do with the respective position of the cursee and cursor that it does the swearing, but that's the history none the less. You're preaching to the converted, but it needs support before it goes on the page. Err... which it has from me. - brenneman 00:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a key difference between swearing and swearing at people. The later violates WP:CIVIL by the definition of the word "civility." -- SCZenz 00:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering why the "examples" section was removed? I found that section extremely helpful, especially the part that described merely pointing out personal attacks was not an attack itself, it said: "Stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack". Without that statement in the policy, attackers now just respond by saying we're attacking them by merely pointing out abusive behavior. I respectfully ask that the "examples" section be put back. Thanks! Dreadlocke ☥ 00:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added the wording "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks. Stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack " because it is a significant part of the policy that keeps editors from being accused of personal attacks when merely pointing out a personal attack with civil language. If it's said somewhere else in the policy, I apologize for the duplication. Dreadlocke ☥ 03:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Harrasment Issues

This kind of serves as a report/question, etc, but recently one of the users "Osfan", has been repeatedly harrasing me. This situation occured after he posted some drivel about my contributions, and I deleted it, not knowing that this is not encouraged or permitted. He has continued to post comments time and time again insulting me, getting more hostile each time I deleted his comments (because they offered nothing of worth compared to other...angrier posts I've had debating my editing preferences).

Eventually, Osfan was reported, and warned to stay away from me. Unfortunatly, he's returned, and is showing no signs of stopping. It's becoming obvious he's trying to bait me into an aggresive flame war, and has seemingly done this with other editors despite constant warnings.

The question is, should deleted comments, which are archived in the "History" section, be more encouraged if they do not serve any kind of functional discussion and serve only to bait and insult?

Thankyou.

...And I seriously hope a mod checks my talk page "history" to see what Osfan has been doing.

Dr. R.K.Z (talk · contribs), 03:06 12th Janurary 2007 (UTC)

Regarding profanity

There has been a query regarding the inclusion of profanity in the list of absolutely prohibited actions (specifically, in line with racial or religious epithets). The use of profanity is contraindicated just below that section, but there are, to my mind, a couple of compelling reasons not to elevate it further. First and foremost among these, profanity is regional. As ] discovered not long ago, twat is a synonym for twit in some areas (uncivil, but not profanity), but means something very different elsewhere. Serpent's Choice 06:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. I also think it should be made clear that profanity qua profanity is not prohibited, but aiming it at someone else in a way designed to attack or insult them is. IronDuke 20:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I can say I am having a shitty day, that is not a personal attack, so I don't think it is so simple that we can just add a prohibition on all profanity. HowIBecameCivil 17:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of userpage content and WP:ATTACK warning templates

Recently User:Yuser31415, under the pretense of WP:ATTACK removed a polemical rant from my userpage. This rant can be seen here, and concerns my frustration with IP editors. User:Yuser31415 also placed a level 4 personal attack template on my userpagediff and then 3RR warnings for reverting the removal of material on my userpage here and here. The only attempt at dispute resolution prior to this action can be seen here I feel that 1.) the rant did not constitute a personal attack and 2.) the usage of a "Personal Attack Warning" template is in appropriate in such instances. Furthermore, I feel that using WP:ATTACK as a de facto form of censorship on userpages is something that needs to be specifically addressed in the policy guidelines. - WeniWidiWiki 05:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Diff of edit I removed is here. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 07:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm primarily concerned about citing WP:ATTACK in such instances and not having any guidelines on when usage of the templates are appropriate in cases when it is not an ad hominem attack or is just abstract as in this instance - content is always up for discussion and review, but using vague policies to delete it on sight is problematic. - WeniWidiWiki 08:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like a serious case of WP:BITE to me. HowIBecameCivil 17:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

personal attack noticeboard?

What happened to the personal attack noticeboard? Is it gone?Anarcho-capitalism 21:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently so. I've had an issue for clarification on this page since last week with no replies, so I don't think many users watch this page. ANI is unwieldly. I think WP:PAIN should be reactivated. Now rather than acting with consensus on personal attack matters, an editor will get a few buddies on IRC to back his claim and there is zero mechanism for oversight. - WeniWidiWiki 21:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Is an editor who claims to be a professional held to professional standards here?

I have noticed that many users claim to be professionals in various fields on their user pages, which of course is a good attribute both for the editor and Misplaced Pages. I have also seen a few of them conducting themselves in unprofessional ways, and have wondered if they can be questioned about their behaviour based on their professional claims. Here is a hypothetical situation with two different editors and how I would choose to handle their behavoir:

• Editor A is a Wikipeian like me, no user page and very little talk. Editor A highly respects Pundit A, but recently said Pundit has been making a lot of false claims. When other editors add this information to Pundit A's Misplaced Pages article, Editor A reverts the page and argues in an immature manner saying things like "It's biased, It'S biased, It's biased, It's biased." In this case I wouild try to explain to Editor A why it is important for them to provide some evidence the information is biased.
• Editor B is a Wikipedian with a descriptive user page which claims that Editor B is a professor of logic at a respected university. Editor B chooses to argue in the exact same manner as Editor A above. Is it an attack to say something like: "Editor B, I would like to point out that your behavior is inappropriate for a professor, please explain to us why you think the information is biased."

Since Editor A makes no claims to be a professional, I would try to explain as politely as possible why making arguments like "It's biased, It'S biased, It's biased, It's biased" are not acceptable to Misplaced Pages standards. Editor B claims to be a professor and as such should realize "It's biased, It'S biased, It's biased, It's biased" is not very academic. Anynobody 22:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Credentials mean nothing here. At least in theory. HowIBecameCivil 14:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Reporting

Is there a way of reporting personal attack vandalism? if this is it, take a look at that. Kiran90 02:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI is the only means to snitch report that I am aware of. - WeniWidiWiki 02:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It can be very hard to get an admin response to personal attack, not sure why. HowIBecameCivil 14:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Very hard to get a response... except when it comes to Essjay. No, I don't want to know why. Bah. Bi 15:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasm in discussion of Articles for Deletion: can this constitute a personal attack?

From Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Xtreme Hockey League, as an example, when users get frustrated with others, especially new users trying to promote non-notable and unattributed subjects:

• Xtreme delete as Misplaced Pages is not for hockey leagues made up in school one day, regardless of how "xtreme" they are. (and yes, I did steal the "xtreme delete" thing from JzG) --TBCΦtalk? 01:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Xtreme delete to the Max yo! per TBC's comments above. --Haemo 01:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Wow, sim hockey rocks.... xtreme dude. DMighton 01:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say sarcasm like this (which I've seen in many AfD discussions, often in more extreme forms, sometimes angry like "LUDICROUSLY STRONG DELETE") is bordering on the level of the personal attack. I suggest that on the WP:AFD and WP:ATTACK pages we mention something about sarcasm, especially as applied to AfD discussions like this.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• No, sarcasm isn't a personal attack, because it isn't personal (they're ridiculing the article, not the writer). Rather, if you spend more than a few minutes per day on AFD, people are invariably tempted to make witty or semi-witty remarks. In the worse cases, a civility reminder may be in order. Other than that, you can't feasibly stop people from being sarcastic by legislating against it (although people have tried...) >Radiant< 14:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if I should give a NPA warning for this one?

This editor (User:1523) has been in a content dispute with me and User:08albatross, and after arguing with the latter in Japanese (I don't know Japanese personally), he left this message.

Since this message has be included, I got someone to translate it and found me being denigrated due to my having Asperger Syndrome; he claimed autistics are psychotic, unable to use reason, and is generally "trash people" (together with 08albatross). I wonder if I should give a NPA warning, and which level should I start on?--Samuel Curtis-- _{TALK·CONTRIBS} 02:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Attack sites

I have added information regarding linking to attack sites. We have routinely removed harassment from these websites that is posted on Misplaced Pages. Prior arbcom cases have specified that we do not link to encyclopedia dramatica. Misplaced Pages review is at least as bad as that website is. Hivemind is another. Linking to thses websites at any time should not be tolerated.--MONGO 19:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This was rejected over at Misplaced Pages:Attack sites, and it doesn't get to be revived simply by changing the venue. Mangoe 19:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• (after EC) I have reverted this addition. It is clear form the discion of WP:BADSITES, and the rejection of that proposed policy that there is NOT consensus on this issue. Please do not try to reinsert this without obtaining such consensus (Note that ArbCom rulings do not make policy or consensus, not that the arb com rulings on this matter are anywhere near broad enough to support the additiuon you made, even if they did make policy.) DES 19:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • See Misplaced Pages talk:Attack sites for the prior discussion. DES 19:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The rejection was about THAT becoming policy, not that it wouldn't be incorporated here. If I find any links to these websites, I will remove them. Others have been doing this already, so it needs to be part of this policy.--MONGO 19:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You and others need to stop doing it, because it has been rejected as policy. Mangoe 19:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

(after EC) Sorry that is just forum-shopping. If there was no consensus to have that as a policy there, you will at least need something beyond your bare assertion to make it one here. Any such link removal are currently unsupported by policy, and could and should be subject to the same process as any content dispute. Any blocks to support such removals are probably unjustified, depending on the precise circumstances. DES 19:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I have yet to remove any links, but if I find them, I will remove them. No one has to tolerate harassment imported here from other websites.--MONGO 19:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That assumes that any such link is in fact a form of harrasment. Some have been. Others are not. (The link in the recent signpost articel to teh home page of Misplaced Pages Watch was not by any reasonable stech harrasment, but it was removed citing this non-policy). That is precisely whay many objected to the proposed policy. DES 19:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Selectiveness of what is and what isn't a PA from these websites is what is going to lead to endless arguments...that why it is best to not link to them at all.--MONGO 19:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Selectivness about content leads to endless argumetns too. It would be much simpler just not to have an encyclopedia. A reasonable policy, helping to clarify under what circumstances such links are proper and when they are not, would help stem the arguments, but is made much harder to formulate by thosew who take the position that all such links must be eridicated at once. DES 19:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You do of course, understand we are talking about just a very few cites that make overt efforts or support efforts to "out" the real life identities of Misplaced Pages contributors...when we link to these websites, all we do is up their google cache, and add to their efforts to harass.--MONGO 19:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand that there are not many sites in your current balcklist. The proposed policy is writen with a very broad brush. I also understand that in at least some cases such links are valuabel -- I refer again to the recent signpost article -- and so i do not for a moment agree that all that such links do is push up the reciving site's google score. I do agree that such links should only be made where there is a clear and valid reason for doign so, and that many (probably most) such links will not have such reasons. Blocks are another matter, of course. DES 20:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

All these would be removed? Infodmz 19:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Then it should be no sweat...as we can see.--MONGO 19:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If someone removes them all it would be a test of the policy. Who is going to do that? Infodmz 19:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

We could also go remove all of these, given some of the content to be found on that site's message board. JavaTenor 20:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that we have no idea how many sites try to link a Misplaced Pages editor's name with their real name - and unless people are going to check every page of a website, one can never be sure. There are the obvious ones, but there are also many less obvious ones. Interestingly, I am aware of an official website of a musician who has publicly said he edits Misplaced Pages under a pseudonym. The fans on his message board have speculated on his pseudonym, referring to the pseudonyms of real WP editors. Only someone intimately aware of the contents of that entire website would know that it could be considered an "outing" site according to your definition, and the existing links to that site would be "strongly discouraged" and subject the inserting editor to possible blocks. I don't want to hear "No we would never do that" because given recent history there is absolutely no reason to believe that to be true. Risker 20:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that attack sites should be removed. There's a difference between how bad an attack site is. For instance, Misplaced Pages Review is supposed to remove all bad threads to a subforum called "The Tar Pit and Feather Barrel" and make them not visible to people without accounts so I don't think Misplaced Pages Review is always something to remove for attack sites (notability concerns are different). Whereas Encyclopedia Dramatica is almost entirely an attack site and hopefully is going to stay in the spam blacklist on here, Wikia, etc. for good. SakotGrimshine 20:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I dunno...from what I have seen of WR, their efforts to identify the real life identities of wikipedians is pretty deplorable...just because we link to one of their "good" postings (as if the opinions there by a lot of banned editors has any relevence here) then folks are just one or two clicks away from some post that harasses our contributors. Besides, ED at least pretends to be "funny"...that isn't the case for WR...sure as heck isn't for WW either.--MONGO 21:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Do we have to go through this whole thing again?

This failed consensus once. Why do we have to repeat the whole process again here? Mangoe 21:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Some people may only just have caught up with what is going on - I always assumed links to these type of sites were banned. I really don't understand why anyone would defend linking directly to a site that tries to out the real life identities of wikipedians. We can't control the whole internet but we can decide what we will or won't tolerate - any site that will host that sort of stuff should be blacklisted. Sophia 21:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Precisely.--MONGO 21:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the entire sites are not "attack sites" but there are specific areas which could be considered an "attack link". Much like the FreeRepublic example by User:JavaTenor. FreeRepublic has comments by users on their site that "attack" Wikipedians. Do we ban the entire site or just the specific links that contain these comments? That is the question, in my mind hombre de haha 21:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should...it is but a blog or discussion forum anyway...how their opinions have relevence to writing an encyclopedia is a mystery to me.--MONGO 21:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

And so is this, and what does this have to do with writing an encyclopedia? It seems obvious that discussion of writing this encyclopedia is potentially relevant. Mangoe 23:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Saying nasty things about someone is one thing but exposing real life idenities should make the site a no-no. This is not about suppressing criticism - we have the press for that and we do a pretty good job ourselves - this is about not contributing to the harassment of individuals. Sophia 22:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Interpreting what that is, on a blanket policy basis, is a problem. On a case by case basis it is fairly easy. The things I've seen on the FreeRepublic comments sections, I certainly would not want said about me; they are personal attacks. I also acknowledge MONGO's point that they probably aren't a reliable source on most things anyway- but that should also be dealt with case by case. When banning a specific site we may be throwing the baby out with the bath water. The banning of a site like ED is of less concern because as MONGO points out they are intended to be a "comedy" website. The links we are currently talking about (and more will come, I'm sure) are different in many ways.

In a nutshell, do these sites contain "attack links"? Yes. Do they contain useful content and information as well? Yes. Are they attack sites? I don't know. I think we should narrow our focus with these particular sites to specific links. hombre de haha 22:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

On Free Republic: links to that site are certainly relevant in an article discussing that site, for example. I haven't gone through the other links for suitability, however. JavaTenor 22:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it a website that "engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Misplaced Pages participants? SlimVirgin 23:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I've responded on your talk page. JavaTenor 23:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Why discussing this again? Because there are actual problems, not only restricted to WP but extending to the real life of people. And these problems don't stop just because there has been no consensus on WP. Actually, you cannot use the fact that there has been no consensus as a tool forbid future discussion of the issue. There was non consensus and hence the issue is not ended.

I don't see how these sites contribute anything useful to WP. WPreview is populated by banned users that got banned for a reason. If they were wrongly banned they should be reinstated here - if they were rightly banned they have no business in continuing their "contributions" from outside. In any case, WP should not support their actions.

Of course, not all sites are full of attacks but contain other information as well. But if part of the apple is poisoned I will stay away from the entire apple. It is the responsibility of these sites that they host, tolerate or even encourage attacks. Our accepting this encourages this behaviour. Maybe, if WP refused to include such attack links they would come to their senses (and if not it would be good riddance).

Some people have called this "censorship". I don't see how this can be. WP is no body with any civic authority that can actually prevent anyone from saying anything. WP cannot shut down these sites. They are out there in google land, if one really needs to read them. However, WP is responsible for what it includes or tolerates on its pages. WP is not a free speech platform but an encyclopedia and theoretically everything written on talk pages should be about how to imprive the encyclopedia, articles etc. Of course, there is a certain leeway for non-contributive postings BUT at least there should be nothing on there that disrupts the aim of WP. I cannot see how attacking other editors, giving away private details (no matter whether true or false) or level personal accusations (no matter whether true or false). Things like this disrupt the encyclopedia and therefore should not be tolerated.

Str1977 08:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok to include reference to MONGO Case as a link in "See Also?"

Rather than apparently codify ArbCom decisions as direct policy? —ACADEMY LEADER 22:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I oppose linking to the current page on that case on any policy pages as the page contains information not relevant to policy and could be construed as an attack on the editors banned by that rulking (who obviously cannot defend themselves), SqueakBox 23:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the current version of the page does cite and link to another ArbCom decision elsewhere:

...To cite the Arbitration Committee:

The remove personal attacks guideline (and the application thereof) is controversial. It has often been abused by malefactors, and may not have community consensus. It should, at most, be interpreted strictly and used sparingly.

Anyway, there does seem to be some cognitive dissonance occuring between the two decisions. —ACADEMY LEADER 01:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Just had a look at the WP:RPA essay and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/AI decision, and am suprised those surrounding controversies were not referenced in the earlier BADSITES debates. Anyway, it looks to me that the overly broad and strict wording the ArbCom used in the MONGO decision allowed for these current debates in the first place. Seeing how the two rulings are inconsistent I personally do not support referencing the MONGO case in context of a general prohibition against linking to off-site attacks, which do not need the case reference to be effective anyway. —ACADEMY LEADER 02:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Enduring precedent, inconsistency between sections

Note the first line of WP:NPA#Removing text:

The community has not reached a consensus about whether personal attacks should be removed,...

Contrast with the current first line of WP:NPA#Linking to attacks

Links or references to off-site personal attacks against Wikipedians should be removed.

I dont see how links are substantively different from text, and it seems clear to me that the proposal regarding links also lacked consensus. After turning over the two sections, it seems to me the only part of WP:NPA#Linking to attacks that could be consistent with WP:NPA#Removing text and also reflective of current social reality (re: a consensus) is a single, modified sentence:

Links or references to off-site personal attacks against Wikipedians may be removed.

—ACADEMY LEADER 03:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Using a website in the course of a personal attack

I think we should have consensus for this.

Obviously if a website happens to contain a personal attack on a Wikipedian, it may also contain useful criticism of Misplaced Pages, and each case should be judged on its merits. I'm sure that an editor who misused the leeway here would be subject to blocking for disruption, so it's not as if good Wikipedians would be likely to abuse it.

However it might be a good idea to point out, in our description of forms of personal attack, that if you introduce a link to a personal attack on an external website, you should be careful to avoid doing so in a manner that promotes or draws attention to the personal attack, because obviously doing so would be to compound or enable the personal attack. How about that? Does that seem about right? --Tony Sidaway 22:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it sounds like you are advocating a "context-sensitive" approach to the issue. A problem propelling the debate has been that others see the issue in more absolutist categorical imperative terms.—Academy Leader 23:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is nothing if not context-sensitive. Usually, linking to a site that contains an attack on a Wikipedian is a pretty blatant attempt to denigrate that person, but occasionally there may be a good reason to do it. So a dogmatic rule would be wrong, but it's a good idea to put all Wikipedians on notice that knowingly using an external website as a proxy to attack a Wikipedian, as we've seen several times now, is not tolerated. --Tony Sidaway 23:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would agree with that wholeheartedly... others seem to want the hard and fast rules though. —ACADEMY LEADER 23:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hard and fast rules don't exist anywhere. SchmuckyTheCat 01:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, in this case they seem to. Even citations used to show that not everything on these sites was an attack were erased on the basis of this supposed policy. Mangoe 02:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I imagine that if you were extremely worried about serious harm in real life as a result of your identity becoming known, you wouldn't want people clicking on something from where they could get to speculations about your real name and address in two further clicks. It doesn't seem logical to say that it's okay to allow people to find out my phone number in three clicks, but not in one. And it seems that linking to a page that has a link to an index that has a link to someone's supposed name and address isn't going to make the victim feel very comfortable. ElinorD (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that people arguing for this policy say that there is never a reason to link to an "attack" site. They want an absolute rule. Frise 00:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Just removing the word "sites" solves that problem. Linking to an attack is a problem and well-defined. Defining "attack site" has been problematic. SchmuckyTheCat 00:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason to change what the ArbCom said. I think they got it right. SlimVirgin 00:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It's neither the source of the policy nor does it add to the statement in the policy. It's a repeat. SchmuckyTheCat 01:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If it's right, then it's an illustration of the policy in practice. While the word "sites" may need a little qualification, I think the meaning is pretty plain. The encyclopedia dramatica case was a particularly egregious one, but most of the sites involved here are pretty plain in their self-designation for the purpose of attacks on Wikipedians, or (in the case of Encyclopedia Dramatica) their co-option for the purpose of a specific attack. I think we've got consensus here, we're just haggling about the words to use. --Tony Sidaway 02:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The current wording by SchmuckyTheCat looks good to me. Frise 02:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we established the first time around that this is not about wording. The controversial change establishes specifically that links to pages on a site can be erased if other pages on the same site are deemed by someone-- pretty much anyone-- to be attacks, regardless of what the linked material is. In practice this has been applied utterly legalistcally. And the whole matter has been discussed exhaustively before, and it looks as though we're going to do it all again here, and it's going to come down to the same impasse, only with more participants. Mangoe 02:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Frise and SchmuckyTheCat. The current wording is entirely correct, and I don't think anyone can disagree with it. Given that a subsequent ArbCom panel refused to endorse the "no links to attack sites" position of the MONGO panel, the use of any ArbCom decision is essentially contradicted by the opposite ruling. The word "sites" is far too broad. Risker 02:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree, unfortunately the current wording of "Linking to attacks" is entirely inconsistent with the wording of "Removal of text." Why is removing a link different from removing text?--—ACADEMY LEADER 03:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"Any page anywhere that insults Wikipedians is reason to blacklist the entire site." There is no consensus for that and never has been. Don't link to attacks. What fine and simple statement. Why does that need more verbiage? SchmuckyTheCat 02:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with you there. This is why (if you look above) I propose the following:

it might be a good idea to point out, in our description of forms of personal attack, that if you introduce a link to a personal attack on an external website, you should be careful to avoid doing so in a manner that promotes or draws attention to the personal attack, because obviously doing so would be to compound or enable the personal attack.

I think it would really help if we could discuss this proposal instead of some other proposal that I haven't made. --Tony Sidaway 03:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It's nice but unnecessary. I don't think we need to overly prescribe behavior here.—ACADEMY LEADER 03:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the Misplaced Pages:Attack sites version has been abused even without gaining any consensus to be a policy in the first place. You may think that usually attack sites should not be linked to and only occasionally is a link acceptable. But there are people who think that all links should be removed, and they really do mean *all*, not "all except occasionally". They refuse to make any allowance for special circumstances, and even removed links that were used on the talk page of the proposed policy itself as examples of links that might be acceptable. Ken Arromdee 03:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Proudly, I state for the record that I am definitely one of those that can find no reason to link to several websites...anything that might be needed by arbcom or similar that has been posted on these websites can be emailed to them...they all have their emails activated.--MONGO 09:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

And they censored a link from this week's Misplaced Pages Signpost, too. *Dan T.* 04:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Resulting in the return of HM, not exactly protecting our admins, eh? SqueakBox 19:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

A quick note, so far I agree with the new wording .I feel that the last proposed policy failed because it was too specific, geared to removing specific sites, and that made it unworkable because it would include many more sites than the policy endorsers may believe. Sites do not cause hurt of personal feelings, comments do, and we must look at those comments before deciding to remove it as an attack. I'm hoping that makes sense because I am very tired. hombre de haha 07:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• I find myself generally agreeing with Tony Sidaway here. MONGO says that he can't ever see a reason to link to any of several sites. I can't see many reasons to link specifically to an attack, but I thought that, for example, the link to the main page of Misplaced Pages Watch in the recent Signpost article was perfectly appropriate, and its removal was improper. I wopuld be inclined to restore it myself if it wern't that I gather the owner of the site has been trying to use threats to get the link restored, and I don't wish to even appear to be yielding to such tactics. There can be, in specific situations, good reasons to refer to or even link to sites which include attacks. There are rarely if ever good reqasons to link to attacks (though even that should probably not be an absolute) and links to sits that host attacks should be done in such a way as not to encourage the attacks, if possible. DES 11:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Even the current wording is a little absolute for my taste -- there may well be reason to refer to or even link to attacks in RfCs and the like, even if ArbCom takes it evcidence by email (a poor idea in general, IMO) but it is much better and I can live with it. DES 11:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I know what you mean DES, I am thinking that some emphasis on the context of providing the link should be included, and of course the intent of providing the link. This should be a common sense thing, so whether or not it is a worthy addition I don't know. Regards, hombre de haha 19:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The Arbcom said "Links to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking." Subject to good sense and judgment, that is the policy I intend to follow. Tom Harrison 13:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Note the conditional use of the word "may," in "may be removed." How does this get translated into policy as "should be removed?" —ACADEMY LEADER 18:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

How does "May" become "Should"? Well, it's currently April, and April showers bring May flowers... and the Mayflower brought pilgrims... and I'm not sure just where I'm going from there, or whether I actually have any point to make, so I'll just stop now. April fools bring May tricks... but what is The Matrix? *Dan T.* 18:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Depends where you are. No April showers here, SqueakBox 19:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"Welcome to the desert of the real."—ACADEMY LEADER 18:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The Arbcom also said "The remove personal at"tacks guideline (and the application thereof) is controversial. It has often been abused by malefactors, and may not have community consensus. It should, at most, be interpreted strictly and used sparingly." Do you intend to follow that too? Ken Arromdee 14:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone removed one link, down to 196 now from 197 yesterday. Infodmz 15:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Should is far too prescriptive as we are volunteers and not paid employees, SqueakBox 19:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"Should" doesn't mean "must" in the sense that you'll be blocked if you don't. But nevertheless, I think "should" is correct. If a feeble old lady gets on the bus, you should give her your seat. You don't say that you're not paid! Regarding insults, I don't think there's a pressing need to remove them, but certainly feel that one may remove them. (I'd go further than that if it involves linking to a website that was created for the purpose of making fun of someone. I saw an example of a user linking to such a website shortly after I joined. It didn't "out" the user in question, as he uses his real name on Misplaced Pages. But it was very nasty, and I was glad that an administrator removed it.) However, when it comes to revealing someone's real name, contact details, etc., I think any decent person would remove such posts, and I think the word "should" is entirely appropriate in that case. ElinorD (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to get overly into semantics or syntax, but "may" is permissive without implying a moral imperative to remove links, beyond whatever their actual content might be. But thanks for joining us.—ACADEMY LEADER 20:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What is an attack site

If we are going to label a specific domain as an "attack site" what is the inclusion, and does it ban all links to said site? There are some examples that may not be considered an attack site presently, but the site does contain attacks on wikipedians. This is my problem with the word "attack site". Do we decide by consensus? Is using the ArbCom definition appropriate? Thanks, hombre de haha 20:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom definition of attack site appropriate. WP:RPA often abused, Zilla dubious about removing "insults," easily turned into removing valid critique. Some users even remove ROARRING! Attack sites separate issue, not so open to abuse. Remove links attack sites! Sorry Zilla no verbs. bishzilla _ROARR!! 21:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Bishzilla common sense as always (except that remove is a verb). SlimVirgin 21:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• ...any website in which the contributors compile evidence that is used to try and discover the real world identities of Misplaced Pages contributors is one definition.--MONGO 20:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Just use the ArbCom definition, El hombre. That's why it's there. SlimVirgin 20:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

My concern is sites that allow comments, such as a blog or maybe even a news organization, and comments in those areas. I've seen some personal attacks directed to editors there, but I wouldn't label the whole site or organization as an attack site. hombre de haha 21:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If you read the ArbCom definition, you'll see it's pretty clear and restricted. SlimVirgin 21:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I would feel much more comfortable with a WP:Official list of attack sites definition that is community based rathert han it bering left in the hands of individual administrators to make that interpretation. That leaves me feeling deeply uncomfortable as this shouldnt be left for individuals to interpret, SqueakBox 21:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Nah, such a list would get constructed and interperted exactly the same way.—ACADEMY LEADER 21:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Why shouldn't it be left to editors to use their common sense? SlimVirgin 21:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I find the question "what is an attack site," and the ArbCom designation of the same, immaterial to the behavior of Wikipedians on Misplaced Pages. It's not something we need to determine, as we acknoledge that off-site behavior is not something we can regulate. While I am for outlawing direct links to anything that could be considered a personal attack on Wiki per NPA, I don't think outlawing all links and references to sites that may host such content is a good thing to set in policy.—ACADEMY LEADER 21:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

We're not talking about off-wiki behavior, but about on-wiki posting of links. We need some sort of broad definition of an attack site if we're going remove links to them, and the ArbCom has supplied one. If it gets to be problematic in future, we can revisit the issue and redefine if necessary. SlimVirgin 21:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The definition provided by MONGO is clear and unambiguous. It should only cover a few sites and is about stalking not supressing criticism. Once a site is prepared to host information like that it should be banned in its entirety. Sophia 21:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

" website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Misplaced Pages participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Misplaced Pages pages under any circumstances,"

So the specific link will be removed, instead of links to anything site? Example: WHATEVERBLOGMAKEITUP.com has an entry about Misplaced Pages. In the comments section near the top, a reader posts personal information of an otherwise anonymous editor and the person who runs the blog will not remove the comment. Is the entire site an attack site, or should this specific blog entry be considered an attack link? I hope I am being clear in my thoughts. Thanks for indulging me on this. hombre de haha 21:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If the site refuses to remove the information then yes - the whole site should be banned. Sophia 21:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Blogs routinely fail WP:RS.--MONGO 21:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that there will be many sites to remove and sources/external links will be lost in doing that. About RS, I generally agree, but it is my understanding that removal would take place on user pages and user talk pages as well. hombre de haha

I do believe that Wikipedians have a right to privacy and should be able to edit here as harassment free as possible. There are definitely on a very select few websites that try to out the real life identities of wikipedians...or allow this as a routine part of their postings. I have repeatedly stated that if there is anything redeemable to be gathered from a post from these websites, then that information can always be emailed to whoever it may concern. Linking to websites that routinely engaged in harassment, legal threats, or attempt to out our contributors, and routinely support such efforts, are attack sites. If, in the case of some websites, where this is only a rare occurence, then I suggest that simply keeping the link to the specific attack off Misplaced Pages. This is a policy amendment about our contributors, and is not to be confused with policies regarding biographies, and even for those wikipedia editors who have bios here, then the B:P policies apply.--MONGO 22:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

On first reading, that appears to make sense to me. Thanks MONGO hombre de haha 22:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, other than your case, there does not seem to be any sort of effective precedent elsewhere for WP:PRIVACY protection, not even Misplaced Pages:Protecting children's privacy. Hate to say it, but you're on your own if you start getting stalked as a result of your activities on WP.—ACADEMY LEADER 23:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

And since Misplaced Pages is in the real world forbidding these links offers no real protection. Mangoe 23:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the definition provided by Mongo above clear and workable too.

Misplaced Pages is in the real world and therefore we must tackle this real world problem. Not that we can prevent others from creating such sites and posting to them but we can at least not support them (and yes, any behaviour blocking a solution is in the end supporting these sites with all their content). Since these sites live as leeches from WP removing links also seems not entirely pointless. Str1977 08:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus."

Could we maybe try to come up with a consensus wording for the new additions on this talk page (as is suggested in the {{policy}} template), rather than edit-warring it out on the main page of an accepted official policy? Thanks! JavaTenor 21:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed wording (1)

My first impulse is to shorten the passage that keeps being added and removed. It seems to say everything twice, presumably in the interest of giving the exact wording of the relevant ArbCom rulings. But surely the wiki way is linking, not quoting. I propose we say, once only, that off-site personal attacks should be removed, that you don't get 3RR'd for removing them, that repeatedly linking to attack sites may be grounds for blocking, and that "outing sites" are regarded as attack sites. Links to the exact wording of the relevant ArbCom rulings should be included. Something like this?

• Links or references to off-site personal attacks against Wikipedians should be removed. The removal of such material is not subject to the three-revert rule. Linking to attack sites is not permitted, and doing so repeatedly may result in a block (see this ArbCom ruling). "Outing sites" that engage in publishing the private identities of Misplaced Pages participants are regarded as attack sites and should never be linked to from Misplaced Pages pages (see this ArbCom ruling). Bishonen | talk 21:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Some criticisms:

• Reprints direct quote from an ArbCom decision as policy. Citing the decision I have no major problem with, reprinting it as policy however seems questionable.
• "Outing sites" (or content)... are currently not prohibited elsewhere on the policy page WP:NPA#What is considered a personal attack?. While I agree this is an issue and often undertaken in context of other harrassment, there does not seem to be effective precedent for it in current policy. See WP:PRIVACY. I think links to this could be made actionable under NPA, but "outing attempts" would have to be prohibited on WP first, i would think, before we prohibit links elsewhere, and then we run into problems with people editing using their own names or revealing details about themselves that leads to other people guessing about them or stalking them. It all becomes a slippery slope! —ACADEMY LEADER 22:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the wording by Bishonen is the best yet. It is succinct and unambiguous.--MONGO 21:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

My Itteration

Here is some text I edited:

Linking to attack sites

Links or references to off-site personal attacks against Wikipedians may be removed. To cite the Arbitration committee:

inks to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking.

This itteration leaves "attack sites" undefined so as to allow prohibitions against links to anything "in particular" that could be considered a direct violation of NPA on-site, and eliminates redundancy and is consistent with prior policy. Prohibiting links to other content on sites hosting such attacks seems to me not in keeping with the spirit of Misplaced Pages as a free information resource.—ACADEMY LEADER 21:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Free information does not mean information distribution without responsibilty. We have articles on paedophiles but they don't contain links to sites. Any site that hosts this stuff is not to be trusted or encourages - simple. Sophia 21:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, per my wording anything that links to a specific instance of what would be an NPA violation on Misplaced Pages would be removed. The problem with defining open-membership sites entirely devoted to criticism/critique of Misplaced Pages as "attack sites," and restricting access to them because of the activities of certain individuals there, is that the designation will be used by other members of these sites to show how the administration here is not only intolerant but further removing themselves, by enforcement of this policy, from the outside world.—ACADEMY LEADER 22:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the article on the North American Man/Boy Love Association does link to its website, and also to an archive.org copy of it since the regular link is currently broken. *Dan T.* 01:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I checked the link. There are no dodgy photos and they do not advocate breaking the law but changing the law. If either of thise two situations changed then the site should be banned. That is where the attack sites cross the line - they publish private information to intimidate wikipedians. Calling someone a crap or corrupt admin is one thing. Publishing their home address/phone number with photos is quite another and external sites should be very clear as to how we will treat them if they do. Sophia 06:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Edits disappearing mysteriously

The database was briefly locked a few minutes ago, and some edits made before then seem to have disappeared, so please don't get in a tizzy about somebody deleting them--nobody did. Oddly, some were moved rather than removed, still without anybody touching them--I noticed Bishzilla's was. People had better each check for their own words of wisdom if they're concerned, as restoring the original order is beyond my skill. Bishonen | talk 22:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

I figured something like that happened. Not a problem. hombre de haha 22:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Can 'Zilla not restore them, with her coding skills? ElinorD (talk) 22:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Fast-track Zilla Developer Status first, then restore! bishzilla _ROARR!! 22:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Attacks and attack sites

I've noticed that some people are trying to change "attack sites" to "attacks", which would completely change the whole meaning of the MONGO arbcom ruling. If a website engages in speculation about the identities of anonymous Wikipedian editors, their locations, etc., then, according to the arbcom ruling, that website is an attack site, and should not be linked to under any circumstances.

Leaving it as "attack" would suggest that if a website is devoted to "outing" people, and you link to the actual index page, rather than the individual pages saying who I am, who Bishonen and SlimVirgin and Sophia are, etc., that would be okay. It would certainly not be okay. Common sense and common decency indicate that if you want to protect people from harassment in the real world, you don't make it possible for a stalker to find out who they are in three clicks, and then innocently protest that you didn't make it possible to find out in one click.

Regarding consensus, my understanding is that we need consensus to elect the members of the arbitration committee (unless Jimbo directly appoints them), but we do not need consensus for their rulings. If the arbitration committee rules that ElinorD is limited to one revert per week on ice cream, it doesn't matter if the community agrees or not — I'm still only allowed one revert per week. The arbitration committee ruled that:

"Links to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking." (Link)

"A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Misplaced Pages participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Misplaced Pages pages under any circumstances." (Link)

I've never been involved in an arbcom case, but have skimmed through some arbcom rulings and have sometimes disagreed with the committee. That's my right, but it's not my right to try to modify policy in such a way as to ensure that their rulings can't be enforced. ElinorD (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom doesn't create policy. The community doesn't look to Arbcom for policy, they look to the community. Arbcom doesn't consider their previous cases as precedent. Consensus can change, thus, no stare decisis. That's why we should not link to Arbcom cases as backup of the policy.

A site like LiveJournal has millions of users. If a single post to a LiveJournal has an attack on a Misplaced Pages user we should not block the entire site. That's ridiculous. Forget the site. Don't like to attacks. One simple sentence "Don't link to attacks." If an entire website is attacks, then it can't be linked to. That's a really short list. Users should be smart enough to figure that out. SchmuckyTheCat 22:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Use of "Attack" focuses on the "verb/behavior," rather than the "noun/concept" of "Attack Sites." Use of "attack" effectively prohibits against links to anything that would count as an NPA violation here from other sites, saving us the problem of attempting to legislate what such sites are in WP policy.—ACADEMY LEADER 22:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This comment would seem to be relevant to those who are attempting to cite ArbCom decisions as binding precedent. *Dan T.* 01:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• The ArbCom does not make or set policy, and WP:RFARB explictly says that prior decisions are not nesicarily binding precedent even in other arbcom cases. Also the MONGO case ruling has been pretty striongly qualified. "Don't link to attacks" is not unreasoanble (although i still maintain that doing so on an RFC evidence page or on an ANI discussion should be permetted, at least if the link is made by the victim of the attack) "Don't link to attack sites" is IMO compeltely unreasonable, at least as a general black & white prohibition. This is a matter that needs case-by-case evaluation. I repeat, does anyone have a principaled reason why the link in the recent signpost article should have been delted? It was highly relavent to the article and the page to which it linked had not attacks of any sort -- in fact I don't think it even linked directly to such attacks, although such attacks may be found elsewhere on that site. In short, I oppose any "do not link to attack sites" wording. DES 01:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't wait for the article in the next Signpost, which "should" (not "may") contain a reference to show that Brant's Hivemind site is up again as a result of this controversy.—ACADEMY LEADER 01:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

And your point is? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, do I really have to overstate it? Next week's Signpost is going to be a trainwreck over this issue. DB's indicated on an unmentionable site that a WP reporter has attempted to contact him for an interview regarding the issue, which he apparently refused, and instead put that site back up as a consequence of not reinserting a link to some other site of his within a limited time frame. How is this going to get reported on without making the references explicit?—ACADEMY LEADER 01:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a new tagline for the Signpost: "We report; you censor." —ACADEMY LEADER 02:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The Free Newspaper that Anyone can Censor! *Dan T.* 02:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"Fair and balanced," but I think that one's taken already.—ACADEMY LEADER 02:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I would want to know if you would have the same response, if it was your photo, full name, city and place of work, listed on that site. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There already is media about me on other sites that contains that information. I personally would be more worried about stalkers approaching me from other contexts than from my editing on WP, not that anyone has been that interested.—ACADEMY LEADER 03:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: Though to be completely clear, there was an on-wiki troll in my old neighborhood who claimed he was walking around there and thinking of me and I thought, hmm, he can identify me through my GDFL photograph, best to back off. i more of less in response to that decided to terminate my previous activities under my old account than continue to make a target of myself for this individual, not that i was worried that much. It just seemed like good practice. —ACADEMY LEADER 21:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with you that links to that particular site are inappropriate after the hive2 page was restored. JavaTenor 03:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have already posted my legal name and (until it was deleted over license issues) my picture here, and enough info thart anyone can find my address and telephone number in 5 minutes, and my place of work in 15 -- and at least one editor threatened to report me to the FBI over an on-wiki dispute. While I will support and defend those who wish to edit without makign their real identities public, I wouldn't think it a disaster if editors (or at elast admins) were required to provide legal names. In any case rights to privicy do not trump all other considerations. DES 16:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mongo above. Removing attacks on WP is uncontroversial and not the issue here. The problem is attack sites. Obviously we cannot remove these attacks at other websites, hence the need to deal with those by not linking to them. Links to attack sites are an endorsement of the content, which would be WP attacking some of its editors. Str1977 09:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Existing links awaiting deletion

I believe after all this discussion it should be clear that any links to sites containing any attack material need to go. It may mean that some stuff interesting to some people may also not be linked to, but that's simply necessary and definitely worth it. I'd like "clearance" to go ahead and begin deleting all (or most) of these links.

Likewise, I'd like to direct everyone's attention to LiveJournal#Encyclopedia_Dramatica. That section features not a single reference, yet attempts to justify one particularly vicious attack site by claiming notability, and it makes indirect linking possible. I didn't want to delete it unilaterally, even though it's in fact uncontroversial, I believe.

—AldeBaer 03:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

On your first item, I don't know that it's necessary to delete a bunch of links from old ArbCom evidence, but interpretations may vary. On the second, terminate with extreme prejudice - that appears to be an endrun around the salting of the main ED article. JavaTenor 03:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your first item, there's no sign of any consensus on that point, no matter how much handwaving anybody might make. On the second, given that the section in question is full of unreferenced assertions, policy certainly encourages its deletion, though not out of any value judgment about "attack sites", but simply because of the overall policy of verifiability and referencing. *Dan T.* 03:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Aldebaer, you are cleared for take off per existing wording of this policy!—ACADEMY LEADER 03:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I suspect some of you of trying to make a WP:POINT. *Dan T.* 03:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Not me, I only make points after disruption. And then I say, "See, wasn't that a bad idea?"—ACADEMY LEADER 03:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I find it disturbing that some people find this funny... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I find it disturbing that some people take this seriously. *Dan T.* 03:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I am asking you the same question I asked before: Would you have the same response, if it was your photo, full name, city and place of work, listed on that site? 15:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to urge people to keep this discussion more civil, if at all possible. JavaTenor 03:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Given the circumstances, I'm trying as best I can. It is an absurd situation, however.—ACADEMY LEADER 03:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Getting back to the point: Since about half of these are in archives of some sort, it is legalistic to go after them. But you know, if I were looking at an arbcom archive or something similar, and I found that a link had been erased after the fact, I'd be powerfully motivated to find it and follow it. Mangoe 11:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I meant occurrences like this rather than ArbCom discussions. —AldeBaer 14:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any real problem with deleting these. They are not part of the encyclopedia and it's hard to justify the proliferation of these references. --Tony Sidaway 15:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The edit war here

We have consensus for saying that attacks are not to be linked to. We do not have any such consensus for attack sites, no matter how fervently or certainly people believe it should say that. Until the issue can be resolved, the word should stay out. Mangoe 14:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no "consensus" against "sites." What I do see is an Arbcom ruling that is crystal clear.--Mantanmoreland 14:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, I see a lack of consensus for sites, and substantial objection to its inclusion. You need consensus to advance policy, and adding the word is patently a forward change. There is no consensus that arbcom can unilaterally advance policy anyway. Mangoe 14:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. Policy is formed by consensus. If we agree that wikipedia policy is expressed by a particular form of words, then that is what should be in our policy document. If we don't agree, then the written form of words does not conform to Misplaced Pages policy and we must discuss until we find a form of words that we can agree expresses that policy. Policy is what actually gets done on Misplaced Pages, with consensus, and the written policy document is supposed to describe that.

If it should be the case that links to attack sites are regularly deleted from Misplaced Pages, then that is policy. If that is the case, we can agree to add a suitable description to the written policy. It it isn't the case then we should not. --Tony Sidaway 14:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You beg the question, since there is no such consensus. Mangoe 14:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. You see, in my experience references to attack sites do get deleted. I can't be everywhere and so I don't know for sure whether I've got this impression from selective exposure to a set of deletions, so I don't yet have an opinion on this matter, but because of that impression I'm leaning towards the view that we do have consensus that links to attack sites can be deleted. --Tony Sidaway 15:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What you have is a few editors who occasionally go on big sprees of deleting such links, but that's not the same thing as a general consensus in favor of it, especially when it frequently occurs that other editors try to revert such changes and often the first editor tries to shut them up by waving the ArbCom decision around like it's the Word of God. *Dan T.* 16:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll repeat: the real controversy isn't over deleting attacks or even deleting links to attack sites. The controversy is over blindly and unconditionally deleting all links to attack sites in a robotic manner that does not take special circumstances into account. A policy which says that links to attack sites should usually be deleted, but that there may be occasional exceptions and that human judgment should be used, would be much less controversial. But supporters of a ban generally don't want that policy; they want a more extreme policy with no room for exceptions, even minor ones. Ken Arromdee 17:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland, Arbcom does not create policy. And, there is disagreement even there. SchmuckyTheCat 15:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of agreement that "sites" needs to be included. Sophia 16:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Included in the policy - yes. Also I think this is becoming a kind of "chicken and egg" argument. Which came first, the policy/consensus or the arbcom decision? Either way, both are reflections of reality.--Mantanmoreland 16:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

But on a wiki, reality can change. Seriously, if policy is determined by consensus, and ArbCom decisions are based on policy, then consensus can shift, and hence the policy changes, and hence future ArbComs would be likely to rule differently. From what I've seen in the discussion pages about this policy, there is clearly a big gaping lack of consensus in favor of it applying to all links to so-called "attack sites" regardless of context. *Dan T.* 16:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that "sites" needs to be in this policy...that's four editors in the last hour who now feel this way...so which way is the consensus going again? Please understand, I can't see this amendment applying to but a very few of the most egregious sites that routinely allow it's contributors to post harassment and make efforts to identify the real life identities of Wikipedians. So we are talking about a few, maybe 5 websites...none of which meet RS in most cases anyway, and all of which, should they ever have anything posted which might be useful for arbcom consideration, can always have links to such posts emailed instead of posting them here.--MONGO 16:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

and at least one who thinks that sights must not be in the policy. Ther are other reasons to link to a site besides using it as an RS or in an arbcome proceeeding. 1) Links when an articel discusses that site itslef -- any site is an RS on its own contents; 2) links in RFCs; 3) Links in things like the signpost article, or articles about those people who start and run such sites. There may be other cases that son't come to mind right off. DES 16:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't have an article on ED or it's founder. We don't have an article on WW or WR. We do have an article on the founder of WW, but there is enough other sources that can be used to determine his notablity for an article, however, I have long felt that regardless of such notablity, I think the article on him needs to go away. Rfc's should be based on an editor's actions here, as should arbcom cases. In the MONGO arbcom case, links were used there from the now banned ED website to identify the efforts of the person who originally filed the case, but the same information could have easily been emailed to the members of arbcom.--MONGO 17:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The whole RS issue is a red herring, given that most of the links in question are on such things as talk pages where this policy doesn't apply. And the fact that we don't presently have articles on any of those sites doesn't mean that this will always be true; we had articles on some of them in the past and might again in the future depending on decisions as to their notability which shouldn't be altered in a POV manner based on your or anybody's feelings against those sites. And, in general, we favor openness in such things as ArbCom cases; having secret evidence by private e-mail, while it might be necessary in rare cases where sensitive private information is involved, it is generally to be avoided and makes no sense when it regards things that are already publicly viewable on the Internet. *Dan T.* 17:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

(after EC) As long as we have an article on the founder of WW, it would be relevant to mention his actions in creating WW, and to link to WW to illustrate what he created, and to source that aspect of the article. We might, at least in theory, have articles on the founders of ED or WR. There is policy that says that off-wiki attacks may be taken into account here, so RFCs and Arbcom cases can, in what I would hope are rare cases, need such links. Frankly i think we should have an article about ED, but I'm not going to fight that case now. But if ED were to become more clearly notable (or if WR or WW were to do so) then an article would be appropriate, and in such an article, a link to the main page of the site involved would be appropriate, provide that link was not directly to a page with attacks or privacy violations, and provided it wasn't formated in a way that said, in effect "follow this link to see attacks". Mind you, my position is that such links will be appropriate in very few cases, and that the presumption is against them, and any particular instance ought to be individually justified. It is merely the blanket black&white anti-link stance I oppose, and the threat of enforcement by ban. I also think that references, as opposed to links, to sites (not attacks) are more likely to be appropriate, and i don't see how inserting a reference would ever be a blockable offense, unless it was done in such a way as to draw attention to an attack or personal info, and with the pretty obvious intention of doing so. DES 17:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why we need to be fighting over this. Just quit trying to legislate what an "attack site" is and make "outing attempts" actionable under NPA. Everyone walks away happy.—ACADEMY LEADER 20:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Outing attempts are actionable under NPA and WP:BLOCK. I will block any user doing that, and I am sure many other admins will. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the only text on this page remotely concerning "outing attempts" or privacy before this mess started is this:

Threats or actions which expose other Misplaced Pages editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time, which may be applied immediately by any administrator upon discovery. Admins applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Arbitration Committee of what they have done and why.

It doesn't explicitly mention "outing" per se, but it does seem sufficiently broad to cover such instances, without defining them as such. Likewise, the problem with defining any given concept in a rigid categorical sense is that such definitions can easily be undermined, as we've been seeing in this case, by posting items from "attack sites" that don't fit with the proscribed definition, the categorical prohibition against which leads to the appearance of self-censorship against sites hosting informal critiques of Misplaced Pages. My best advice, and I mean this in all sincerity, is to allow the case citation to "attack sites" but leave the term undefined in policy so as to allow admins and others to use their best discretion when coming across such links, rather than create a categorical imperative in policy to automatically remove such links wherever they may be found. —ACADEMY LEADER 20:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What is beginning to convince me here is that we evidently do have a tradition of removing references to attack sites here, and it's uncontroversial enough within the community for the tradition to have survived a long time and to be endorsed by the arbitration committee in at least one case. There may be the occasional gray area, but the community strongly endorsed, for instance, the deletion of the ED article, largely as a result of the campaign of vilification carried out on that website. It seems to me that as a community we don't tolerate links to websites that allow themselves to be used for this purpose. And I think I agree with that. --Tony Sidaway 20:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

We're a lot better off to have deleted that article for lack of reliable sources than "as a result of the campaign of vilification". The latter would be a case of acting out of pursuit of justice instead of treating the encyclopedia as a project bigger than any of us, and it would be precisely the kind of action that turns around and bites us in the ass. It's much better for us to be boring and just apply our usual notability standards than for us to delete an article because we've got some kind of internet rivalry with its subject. -GTBacchus 20:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Once you said the phrase "there may be the occasional gray area, but", you've shown that you're missing the point. There are people who do not accept the existence of grey areas, and believe that literally all such links must be removed, with no consideration for any special circumstances.

These people are already applying the nonexistent policy, selectively pointing to Arbcom rulings to justify themselves, etc., and they are the ones agitating for an attack sites rule here.

A policy as draconian as the one they want is by no means a community tradition. Perhaps a weaker policy is a community tradition, but this is not about a weaker policy, whatever your own personal intentions are. Ken Arromdee 20:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever seen a discussion where one accuses another of a personal attack? Then that person says, "I don't think that was a personal attack." It's because we cannot define a personal attack. It is a personal attack if the person receiving the comment feels attacked. "Attack sites" may similarly be left to interpretation and resulting disruption. "An attack site is in the eye of the beholder," to be incredibly cliche about it. Saying that, I don't know what the answer is to this problem or if it is even a big problem. Do you make a list of "official" attack sites (or links) not to be linked or do you leave it up to various administrators do decide?

Admin A blocks User:X for linking to an "attack site". Admin B finds this ridiculous and unblocks User:X because the link was simply an essay. Admin C reblocks User:X and admonishes Admin B for supporting an attack site, even though Admin B didn't feel that's what he did.

There is no reason to take this to monotonous detail, if a link is an attack, it is to be removed, and the user informed about why it was removed. I can assume good faith on the part of an administrator that blocks a person for inserting a perceived "attack site", but I certainly don't assume common sense and their correct judgment of the link.

I have a problem with the way this debate has taken place since it was conceived and the emotional invocations that it has caused. I am not emotionally involved in it, I just find a problem with banning links from entire sites based on an inpretation. Eliminating attack links makes much more sense to me. I have a feeling it will sort out in the end, perhaps long down the road, and the good of the encyclopedia will be put ahead of emotions. At this point I will sit back and watch as the outcome appears clear. hombre de haha 21:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The ED deletion is hardly evidence of a strong, longstanding community consensus in favor of complete, draconian removal of anything to do with "attack sites". For one thing, it took three AFD tries before a consensus was reached to delete it, and the consensus was far from unanimous; also, the reasoning behind many deletion supporters was the lack of reliable sources to demonstrate notability, not the fact that it was an attack site. In two prior AFDs, the rough consensus was against deletion; this shifted just enough to change the outcome the third time. It's hardly a clear indication of permanent, longstanding consensus against linking or mentioning even that site, let alone the entire category of "attack sites" in all circumstances. And the fact that there have been many other links to such sites, and the bulk removal of them is mostly a recent phenomenon, is another indication of lack of permanent consensus. The Daniel Brandt article has, at various times, had links to various such sites, though this has been ever-changing depending on the mood of editors. So has the Criticisms of Misplaced Pages page. *Dan T.* 21:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the key here is "There are people who do not accept the existence of grey areas, and believe that literally all such links must be removed, with no consideration for any special circumstances." It's a bit "so what?" There may be such people. This is not a good argument against having a written policy that accurately describes the policy of Misplaced Pages. At the moment, and for as long as you like going back into the past, that seems to have been that links to attack sites can be deleted. I'm unconvinced by representations to the contrary. Everybody knows why the policy is this way and there is no significant case where the interests of permitting attack sites to be linked has been considered to outweigh the interests of keeping a civil environment that is as unfriendly as possible to trolls. --Tony Sidaway 21:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of significant cases--but it's hard to give examples without getting the examples themselves deleted, as they were in the Wikipedia_talk_Attack sites discussion. In fact, this is both one of the examples, and one of the great catch-22s--you can't give examples to prove the policy is misguided because the examples themselves will be deleted under the misguided policy. Ken Arromdee 23:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ken, surely examples can be described without providing the actual URLs? -GTBacchus 23:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The man is spot on. Sophia 21:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Aww, what happened to "Misplaced Pages is nothing if not context-sensitive," Tony?—ACADEMY LEADER 22:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is context-sensitive. A link to an attack site may be removed. Nothing in the policy obliges us to do it. --Tony Sidaway 22:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Change the policy wording to "may" rather than "should", and I'd entirely agree with you. In this discussion, I've been (consistently, I hope), a proponent of the notion that such links should generally be removed unless there's a strong reason for them to remain. The strong reasons, I'd argue, include instances where a site is deemed notable enough for its own Misplaced Pages page (see Free Republic), in which case it would be odd to retain a page about a site without providing a link to that site, and situations in which such a link is meaningful or relevant in a WP-space procedure (RFAR, RFA, RFC, etc.). Some have suggested that links which are ArbCom evidence should be mailed to the arbitratrors in question; my general belief is that "secret evidence" should be avoided when possible for the sake of transparency. It makes sense to keep private e-mail correspondence secret, but I'm not certain that publicly available posts on a messageboard merit the same secrecy. Furthermore, there are procedures other than RFAR in which such links might become important and in which there's no set group of individuals to receive the links as evidence via email. JavaTenor 22:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Even "may" isn't enough. Because if you put the policy in with "may" people will seize upon the policy to delete all such links unconditionally without regard to context. They only way to prevent that is to explicitly say "there may be unusual cases where such links are needed". Ken Arromdee 23:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Policy can't afford to have such an ambiguous interpretation of language. Policy needs to clear. NeoFreak 22:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Our editors are not that brainless. However, "Don't link to attacks" is about as unambiguous as it gets, adding "sites" becomes ambiguous as we have no working definition of attack site. SchmuckyTheCat 22:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Editors do get banned for transgressing guidelines. Do you propose placing an WP:IAR tag within the policy template? LessHeard vanU 22:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how adding "sites" makes it ambiguous. Don't link to sites that engage in the practice of trying to find out and publicise the names, contact details, and other private information of Misplaced Pages editors. I can't see anything unclear about that. I've never been that happy at the word "attack", since "attack" suggests an insult. But the serious problem here is not of calling someone a bitch, but of saying that her name is X and her address is Y. It's much more important to remove links to those sites than to sites that call some editor a bitch. Mind you, the sites that have lots of trolls gleefully calling administrators "cunts" and "whores" are generally also the kind of sites that engage in these appalling privacy violations. However, despite my lack of enthusiasm for the word "attack", I am satisfied that the links to the arbcom ruling that a site that engages in such privacy violations shall be regarded as an attack site will take care of any possible ambiguity, and there is absolutely no danger that such a policy could be applied to reputable news sources like The Times, because The Times simply does not engage in the practice of trying to find out the identities of our administrators. (Nor does it call them whores and cunts.) I know that at the WP:BADSITES talk page, people were constantly bringing up the Essjay case, arguing that this policy would mean we couldn't link to the New Yorker. That's not true at all. Essjay voluntarily provided his details at Wikia, and then voluntarily confirmed on his own talk page here that the Wikia details were correct. ElinorD (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I see it, the problem with using the "attack sites" definition provided by the MONGO case is that it is, simultaneously, overly broad in terms of definition and overly strict in terms of application. The wording the ArbCom used in that case is directly causing this conflict we are experiencing now. Towards a solution, I would prefer to focus on the agentive, active notion of "attack" as a verb, and prohibit actions identifiable as such, than continue to focus on "attack sites" as a noun, which is a static, stative concept and not something that can "behave" or "act," in itself. These sites may enable attacks, but they are not the attack itself which our policy should proscribe against, as I've been arguing. —ACADEMY LEADER 00:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a bit of a non sequitur; the multiplicity of revelations doesn't change that both the New Yorker and the Unspeakable Site revealed him, and that by this proposal both are subject to exclusion. But the larger issue is that external criticism of Misplaced Pages is not bound to respect the Wikipedial theory that it doesn't matter who edits or administers here; indeed, an attitude of disbelief, if not outright challenge, is to be expected. Calling this an "attack" is not necessarily really true (as opposed to Wikipedially true). But even so, a more neutral policy of forbidding links to such identifications (which seems to be a second thread in this) would block lots of other content if it were applied to entire sites.

That seems to be the weakest link in this: nobody seems to have a problem with forbidding links directly to this material. We have a good consensus as to exactly what material is forbidden. The entirety of the problem is whether this "poisons" the rest of the site on which it appears. And there is absolute disagreement on this point. Mangoe 01:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

But given that most, and perhaps all, of those who disagree are regulars posters to at least one of the attack sites in question, it's hard to take the opposition very seriously. As for your New Yorker argument, which Wikipedian has the New Yorker ever outed? SlimVirgin 01:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Slim, I'm not a regular contributor to any attack site. I just think that making specific bans against certain domains as "attack sites" is a bad idea, and not in Misplaced Pages's best interests. Such rules are misguided, and empower the "opponent" you hope to defeat; history is full of examples.

We're better off keeping the rules lightweight and flexible and continuing to exercise our good judgment when it comes to removing harassing or privacy-endangering material, for which we've never needed specific chapter-and-verse policy support. The current policy seems to work pretty well, and adding clauses to replace judgment with blanket rules is instruction creep.

There are some specific things that we can (and IMO should) do to protect Wikipedians from harassment (see here); maintaining a blacklist of WP:BADSITES isn't one of them. Inappropriate links have been, and will continue to be, removed. We shouldn't try to fix what ain't broke. -GTBacchus 02:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

And while we're at it, SV, aren't you (in essence) engaging in some "outing" here yourself? This is, after all, an attack upon our personal integrity. It's a fairly weak attack, given that at least one of us appear on the Unspeakable Site largely as a critic, and another didn't join there until this brouhaha brought it to his attention. Nor have any of them posted anything there that could be legitimately called an attack, nor outed anyone. And others, as far as anyone knows, are not in fact members of the unspeakable forum. There are of course similar conflicts of interest on the proponent side. We can take this "assume Bad Faith" approach, but I don't think it's going to put the proponents of this in a good light to do so. Mangoe 02:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you're not being outed in any way, shape, or form; I can only imagine the squealing if you really were, and if we started posting material about you that could get you killed in some countries. That is what has happened to others, but because it's not happening to you, you think it doesn't matter and happily post to the site that has done it.

Could you answer the question I asked above: you said the New Yorker would count as an attack site under the current definition. Which editors has the New Yorker outed? SlimVirgin 18:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I am certainly not a regular poster to the sites everyone seems so hung up about, nor am I even a regular reader of them. One thing that everyone seems to keep forgetting is that ArbComm itself refused to confirm this principle in a subsequent arbitration case. And one must note that the arbitrators themselves have differentiated between "principles" and "remedies." Even in the MONGO decision, they had the opportunity to state that all links to "attack sites" were to be removed, but they chose not to do that. Let us not foist responsibility for this mess on ArbComm.

I do not see anyone, at all, saying that a direct link to a personal attack is anything other than a personal attack. And if people are genuinely fearful that they will suffer serious consequences from their name being linked to their edits here, they have much bigger problems than being outed on WR - because even without those sites a diligent tracker would be able to find them. (In the interest of WP:BEANS, I won't explain in detail, but it's easier to do with proliferate editors than occasional ones.)

A separate section about linking to personal attacks doesn't even need to be here; personal attacks are well described, and would pretty clearly include links to personal attacks on external sites. It is inappropriate to link to an ArbComm principle that has since been rejected by ArbComm itself. I cannot help but wonder why this entire discussion was ever started; nobody was demanding that links to personal attacks on external sites had to remain intact before this entire essay/proposed policy/proposed specific addition to policy came up. Risker 02:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Where is this stuff coming from? The New Yorker has not outed any Wikipedian; no responsible publication has or would. The ArbCom has not rejected the ruling; on the contrary, Fred Bauder affirmed it. It's becoming hard to assume good faith when you keep changing the basic facts. No one has answered the most basic question yet: please offer a scenario in which it would be necessary to link to an attack site on Misplaced Pages, as opposed to e-mailing the link or contents to the interested party? SlimVirgin 18:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Way to go, Slim! One editor here is not afraid to demonstrate an WP:NPA violation by providing us with a concrete example of "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views." We need more of that among the general editorship around here.—ACADEMY LEADER 05:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

(Quote SlimVirgin)"...posting material about you that could get you killed in some countries...". Unless it is certain that the individuals concerned live or intend to visit such countries this is a strawman argument. Some easily identifiable editors have information freely available on their userpage which may cause some difficulties, or worse, if they were to visit nations who take a dim view of such beliefs, orientation, or political affinity. LessHeard vanU 11:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Two ways of looking at it. Your argument, LessHeard, seems to be that it should be okay to post personal information unless it's certain that that will endanger people. I would say that it's not okay to do it unless it's certain that it will not endanger people. (And of course, we can never take that decision for other people.) If you're talking about people posting information about themselves, then, of course, that's their decision. But I hope you're not implying that it's okay for people to post personal information about other users (or link to such personal information) "unless it's certain" that it will cause them harm in the real world. ElinorD (talk) 13:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I was more commenting on the use of emotive language in SlimVirgin's quote than that of the policy discussion. I have followed what you have been saying regarding stalking and the inferred consequences thereof, should identities be revealed, and agree with your concerns. Extrapolating the risk of blown identities to the consequences of visiting or residing in certain nations is too miniscule a concern, especially in relation to those users whose identities are easily ascertained and who identify as belonging to groups which are not tolerated in some countries. In short, IMO in the En-Wiki World there is too little a risk of identity being disclosed and therefore being a matter of state sponsored oppression for it being a valid concern. It is simply a very poor argument in support of SlimVirgins position (which of itself is a rarity). LessHeard vanU 13:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Another trip to the Wheel of Reality

I've made an analysis of the 196 links reffed above. It breaks down as follows:

This is still misleading as the vast majority of the references in project space are in archives of WP:AN (9 refs), WP:AN/I (22 refs), or WP:ArbReq (39 refs, all in a single case). Likewise, most of the talkspace references are in Talk:Criticism of Misplaced Pages or Talk:Daniel Brandt, or archives thereof.

What it comes down to is that at least half of these references, and probably more, are evidentiary. At most there seem to be 25 references to the website itself, as opposed to specific references to threads or posts. Some of these are clearly iffy, like this one. But the majority of references are in situations where someone coming across the erasure is going to have cause to wonder why the evidence is being suppressed. Mangoe 18:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Great. This means that people are not linking, or that people are removing links to it. Excellent. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Good work on this, Mangoe.—ACADEMY LEADER 21:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Attack sites section disputed

I have boldly added {{disputedtag}} to the "Linking to attack sites" section. The discussion on this page and on wikien-l seems to imply that consensus has not been reached. I hope that this can be resolved without a wheel war. --Chris (talk) 06:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. That section is clearly in dispute; here's hoping people won't edit war on a protected page. Frise 06:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I would hope not. (I have changed the section title here, so it doesn't duplicate the title of a section farther up the page, anf auto-edit-summary links will work. DES 07:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The tag needs to go. This is not a war amongst admins so using the admin bit to gain an advantage in a disagreement in unethical. The page was protected to stop ALL changes - not to weed out the non admins. Sophia 07:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I never made it a "war amongst admins." But the fact is that this section is disputed, as evidenced on this talk page. Also, consider that the protection template at the top says that the page is protected until disputes are solved; how are people going to know what is disputed?

I believe I am well within the protected page guidelines to add clerical tags that clarify the reason for page protection. Whether you agree with the section or not, you can't disagree that there is a dispute with that section. --Chris (talk) 07:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Chris isn't even involved in this disagreement, so you might want to reconsider your accusation that he was doing it just to gain an advantage. That page was protected specifically because of the edit warring related to the dispute. There's no question there's a dispute. Frise 07:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It says at the top of the page that it is protected to stop an edit war - that tag is obviously needed, but in the run up to this no editor felt the need to place a disputed tag on that section so adding one when some editors are forced out of the loop is not good practice and could be seen as a POV edit. It does not clarify the edit dispute - all the tag does is calls the whole section into question when we are reallly only discussing two words - "attack" and "site". It narks me enormously when admis act like "higher editors" in content disputes but will drop this as I can tell by the speed of replies to my post that this will be taken as a great opportunity to go "off topic". Sophia 08:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You are making some very broad accusations there. I'm not pretending to be a "higher editor," and I'm interested where you draw that conclusion from. --Chris (talk) 08:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologise unreservedly for any offence you may take from my comments. I expressed an an opinion about your actions which I am entitled to and think you should be aware of when engaging in edit wars. If no one else posts to support my view then I know my opinion is not shared and I will drop it. So far two of you have disagreed so I know that of those users currently awake I am in the minority - that's how a wiki works - or am I wrong on that one too? Sophia 08:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't take offense, but thank you for your courteous reply. When adding the tag I thought it might cause a small spark with some editors, and I didn't do it lightly. My intent isn't to support one side of the argument or the other, just to help clarify what is disputed so people reading the page have some idea before they come here to discuss. If it becomes clear that I should not have added this tag then I will certainly not hesitate to revert myself. Cheers! --Chris (talk) 08:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit clash) And thank you for your explanation - I always abide by consensus even when I personally think it is nuts. However I do feel very strongly about this issue as I have edited on contentious topics such as abortion and have teenage children who also use the internet (they know the dangers of revealing information but mistakes are made). My biggest fear is that I offend some wierdo who tracks me and then targets my kids. I have a good friend who's life has been made hell by these people so you could say my judgement is clouded as "hard cases make bad law" but this really does seem well defined and simple to me. You would be surprised how limited I would like to make this as I have no patience with people who get all upset because someone has used "nasty words" about them. Sophia 08:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Everyone here obviously has strong opinions about this policy page and its tags. The goal, I should think, is to get this page to a condition where no warning or protection tags are needed. If we can remain focused on the task of collaborating on a solution to the wording problems, then all the arguments about how the page should be tagged can be rendered moot. Serpent's Choice 08:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is protected. Editing protected articles without being sure of consensus is risky. Having said that, the edit is not unreasonable. --Tony Sidaway 19:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. The WP:BADSITES page had an edit war, over marking it as rejected or redirecting it to WP:NPA, and was protected to stop that edit war. It was protected in the redirect version, and in the last half hour, an administrator reverted to the marked-as-rejected version, over the redirect, just as I was pointing out that there were several people who support the redirect. It makes the whole idea of page protections in edit wars completely pointless if administrators can just go in and change it to their preferred version, while ordinary editors are locked out, but perhaps he didn't realise that the page was protected. See the end of WT:BADSITES#Tagging_as_rejected. ElinorD (talk) 09:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

As I've said before, this edit was not "me changing the article to my preferred version," but just clarifying what the {{pp-dispute}} tag is referring to. I am not involved in this dispute and have no desire to be. --Chris (talk) 23:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed wording (2)

Part one

It seems that this situation is unlikely to be resolved by inserting either "attacks" or "attack sites" into this section in its current state. May I suggest a possible rewrite to address the substantive arguments of both sides? Serpent's Choice 07:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If we are worried about this being to broad I would advocate being explicit that it is sites that actively seek and publicise personal information about wikipedians who have chosen to remain anonymous that need all links removing. I agree that "attack" is broad and subjective - I would take no notice if I were discussed and insulted on a blog (sticks and stones...etc) but others would be outraged. It is almost impossible to create policy for hurt feelings but a site that does or threatens to "out" wikipedians (or gives enough personal information to make it easy for internet users to do the work themselves) should be dropped immediately to lower its Google rankings and hopefully send a strong message that we consider them stalking low-life. As to there being a list - I agree that this can become a rogues gallery but we do need to keep a log as we will get the "there's nothing there that I can see" conversations every 3 months when the stuff has been removed but is just waiting for the chance to be reposted (as we have seen over the last few days) Sophia 07:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I tried to word my proposal in such a way as to make this point without painting policy into a corner; I don't pretend that it is perfect, though, just a hopeful jumping-off point. Regarding the list/log issue, I don't think that the admin community, especially, will be sufficiently prone to "forgetting" what sites have been responsible for outing editors and faciliating stalking as to require an actual physical log be maintained. Serpent's Choice 08:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages (controversially, but that's another issue) inserts the "nofollow" attribute in its external links, so they shouldn't affect Google rankings of the linked sites one way or the other. *Dan T.* 13:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I like that wording, Serpent's Choice. --Tony Sidaway 19:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It works for me as well. Thanks for the effort in finding common ground. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It's good for me too, though I'd suggest removing "although in extreme cases sites have been added to the MediaWiki blacklist," because it's only when the sites are being spammed that they're added to this list, not whether they're extreme cases. SlimVirgin 20:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, suggest removal of the one comment as mentioned by SV, otherwise, the wording is fine.--MONGO 20:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Change "should" to "may" and I "may" be willing to let it go, not that I think I "should," of course.—ACADEMY LEADER 20:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

'Should' is what arbcom said. Tom Harrison 20:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

(ed conf) These should be removed, as per the text following that. As a compromise I would not be against this: Links or references to off-site personal attacks against Wikipedians are not acceptable. and then continue with the explanation on how to remove these.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Nah, you went and found a wording more draconian than the previous one. I'm ok with a citation to the relevant ArbCom decision, I'm not for transcribing this as dictated policy. Use of "may in this instance keeps the section consistent with the section on "Removing text." (Links are text!)—ACADEMY LEADER 21:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I like it too, except that, like SlimVirgin, I'd remove the bit about the blacklist, and also, I would definitely not encourage editors to report sites that give personal information at the administrators' noticeboard, for reasons that I've already mentioned here. I think an editor who discovers that a link has been posted to a site that has name, address, and photo, etc. of an anonymous editor here should remove the link and then perhaps go to WP:RFO to request oversighting. If there's doubt about whether or not the link is appropriate, it should really be discussed by private email among responsible administrators, not brought to the noticeboard for community discussion. I really wouldn't like the thought of a link to a stalking site about me (or the name of the site, so that everyone can find it with a just a little more effort) posted to WP:AN so that for the next two hours people discuss it and look at it to see if it really has ElinorD's phone number! Thanks, Serpent's Choice. ElinorD (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

After a more careful reading, I have another objection. The proposed wording says "SOME websites "engage in the practice of publishing private information" (emphasis mine). That would imply that some of these stalking websites ("Who is Bishonen?", "Who is Sophia?") may not be linked to, but leaves a loophole allowing people to link to other stalking websites ("Who is ElinorD?"). Actually, that's not at all what the arbcom said, and may not be what Serpent's Choice intended, but I think it would have to be made clearer. Leave out the "some", and that sentence is fine. ElinorD (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• I don't find either of these acceptable. In fact i don't find any wording acceptable that either 1) ciites or references the arbcom decision (arbcom doesn't make policy); or 2) contains or implies a blanket prohibition on linking to particualr sites "under any circumstances"; or 3) threatens blocking to enforce removal of links. DES 23:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• • I have to agree with DES. Arbcom doesn't make policy; they made that decision with the understanding that it was policy, and now we're using that decision to make it policy. I think we can all agree that links made with the intent to harass should be removed, but a blanket prohibition with no regards to context is unwise. We've been using common sense until now, and I believe we should leave it that way. Frise 00:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

How about this version:

I could live with this, although it is more balck&white than i would prefer. DES 00:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That would be OK, though to meet the objections of some others above, it might be a good idea to also mention who to contact by private e-mail if one's questions or need for clarificiation involves the discussion of private information about Wikipedians that wouldn't be appropriate to do in the open. One might also amend it to refer to personal attacks against other Wikipedians; referring to personal attacks on yourself in order to laugh at them shouldn't be against the rules (personally, that's one thing I like to do with any attacks I get). *Dan T.* 00:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

(Edit - DES posted a proposal just before I posted this. My comments refer to the first two examples, not that of DES) I agree that neither of these examples are appropriate. In fact, I keep going back to the statements by several respected editors, including Fred Bauder, who indicated that existing policy already covered this issue. Let's look at an example of how someone could make a personal attack using external and internal links, without using any of the links that are so poorly thought of:

"Risker, you are an outstanding editor. Your edits are always enlightening. Many editors could learn from your style."

Anyone want to remove all references to the Oxford dictionary? Wiktionary? Misplaced Pages policy? Of course not. This is the danger of the proposal. It is open to interpretation - and someone could quite legitimately interpret it to mean that any site used in a personal attack should be forbidden from Misplaced Pages.

I propose this addition, which is to the point and addresses the issues without crossing the line to unintended consequences:

My proposed addition is in bold. Risker 00:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• I could support User:Risker's sugestion above, although i would say "types" or "forms" rather than "examples". But that is a detail. DES 00:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point, DES. I've made that modification. Risker 00:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• It seems reasonable to me. *Dan T.* 00:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Not strong enough, and misses the main point of this debate: the disclosure of personal information of WP editors as a mean of harassment, or to solicit harassment by the fact that the information is disclosed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • • Agree with Jossi. ElinorD (talk) 07:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This could be fixed by saying: "Threats or actions which expose other Misplaced Pages editors to harassment, political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others, such as the disclosure of personal information about editors".... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"unwelcome disclosure of..." or "disclosure of personal information about editors without the consent of the affected editors" perhaps. Linking to a self-disclosure is not an attack. DES 01:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "personal information not previously disclosed by the Misplaced Pages editor who is the subject"? Risker 02:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That would do, although in a few rare cases i can see a new disclosure being made with consent. (For example "Blocked user X emailed me to say that he is really Person Y, and asked me to post this.") But I hope no one would be foolish enough to try to invoke such a rule in such a case anyway. DES 02:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that wouldn't do, because most of the getting hold of information has been because sometimes editors, especially new editors, supply information themselves, and then regret it. If someone has originally used their real name and said where they worked, and no longer does so because they've become aware of the dangers, it's unacceptable to link to a website that gives their real name and work phone number. ElinorD (talk) 07:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Then return to "Unwelcome disclosure" or "disclosure withotu the consent of the affected editor(s)" which says nothing about who disclsoed first, merly that the editor doesn't want it disclosed now. DES 07:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Whew! I've had a bit more time to read into the history of this issue, including all the referenced arbcom discussions, and a lot of the community chatter about the issue. Here is my understanding of what this debate is about: 1) There is general agreement that harrassment of Wikipedians by off-wiki sources is problematic from both a community-building and safety persepctive. 2) There is general consensus that WP:NPA should take a stand in that regard. 3) There is general consensus that "linking to personal attacks" is unacceptable. 4) There is strongly divided opinion about the ArbCom's ruling on sites "engage in" this activity. 5) One reason for this division is the "under any circumstances" clause. 6) Another reason for this division is the mandated removal of text and links. 7) A third reason for this division is a lack of a clear definition of "attack sites" ... although I think, in general, that it is clear what we are talking about. Keeping those things in mind, I'm making another stab at the wording. DES, I'm particularly interested in hearing if this addresses your concerns, since some proposed wordings have favored substantially more minimalistic treatments.

Thoughts? I recognize that this charts unexplored territory, but I hope it cuts a compromise between the two salient points: that ArbCom is not the source of policy (I still reference ArbCom, but as quotation not citation), but that certain sites strongly contrary to this project may need special handling for the benefit of Wikipedians. I leave unresolved whether WP:AN or WP:CN is the proper place to raise the discussion of whether to so consider a site. Serpent's Choice 02:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly prefer that the link to the arbcom decision be removed entirely from the text. I am not thrilled with any form of "site ban" but a ban that requires community discussion for each specific site is a lot less harmful IMO than the version proposed earlier. I would prefer the previous proposal, but could live with this. DES 02:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Assuming that Fred Bauder doesn't mind the unattributed quotation, the quotes and reference link could be dropped without impact. Otherwise, I'm sure other equally compelling wordings exist for the same factual content. Is there any objection to noting that this issues has "been the subject of several Arbitration cases" absent a link to one? I feel that acknowledgement is valuable as it underscores the weight the community (and WP:DR) has placed on the issue. Serpent's Choice 02:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a lot of discomfort with this proposal. First off, I really do believe that ArbComm should be left out of this entirely; they do not make policy, and there is discomfort on the part of some ArbComm members that their deliberations are being used for policy development (I haven't figured out how to link to an email, but it has been mentioned by a couple of them on wiki-en-l). Secondly, I don't think that this is the way to go about "banning" sites. Keep in mind that the meta admins have already turned down requests to add the most obvious sites to the blacklist. It is not possible to ban the sites without publishing a list of banned sites - otherwise, how will new editors know they are banned? And how would one discuss the banning without linking to the sites and drawing their reportedly NPA/harassing/outing posts to the attention of dozens, possibly hundreds of editors who never noticed them before? Indeed, that was the biggest effect of the original essay/proposed policy. Finally....having this in a separate section makes this appear as though it happens every day to scores of editors. It makes the situation an attractive nuisance, and practically dares people to go find these sites and see what all the fuss is about. I genuinely believe that keeping this as small and as unobtrusive as possible will do more to reduce the (entirely understandable) sense of exposure felt by the small number of Wikipedians who have been discussed off-wiki in this way. I rather doubt that they have enjoyed all the attention drawn to these sites in recent weeks. Risker 03:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to mull over a couple of these concerns before forumulating a response, although I would like to note that at least one such site (the one in the Mongo case, specifically) has been added to the MediaWiki blacklist (and is the reason my original proposed wording included the "in extreme cases..." verbiage). Serpent's Choice 03:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this most recent compromise proposal is that though it solves the Arbcom issue, it still implies that, as long as a site is decided to be on the list, links to that site must never be made with no allowance for special circumstances of any type whatsoever. (It says that attacks may not be linked to, and then it says that attack sites may be considered by the community to be attacks). That is the big problem in essentially all versions of the proposal; there are people who want to remove links 100% of the time, with *no* exceptions of any sort, rare or otherwise. They are floating the proposal as a means of getting this ridiculously literal interpretation made into official policy. We shouldn't help them.

It's also an attempt to use a phrase to mean something that it doesn't mean. Attack sites aren't attacks, and they don't become attacks by defining them as such. You could just as well say that the community can call a site which contains attacks a "copyright violation" and then links to the site can be removed under the rule that forbids linking to copyright violations. Ken Arromdee 04:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

A word means what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less. -- Humpty Dumpty, in Through the Looking Glass. *Dan T.* 04:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As far as the first sentence, I'd feel fine with:

Direct links or references to off-site personal attacks against Wikipedians ("can" or "may") be considered actionable in themselves. (We already know personal attacks are unacceptable.)

The rest of it I am unsure of. I would say, if the "Removing text" section has a case citation, I would not be opposed to having one here, but then there must be some effort to reconcile the two decisions. Otherwise, this section rather radically departs from the earlier one, which emphasizes context, judgment, and good sense, for an absolute prohibition.

I guess another problem with referencing "websites" per se, even in this way, is once the hint of a notion that "there are websites critical of/dedicated to attacking Wikipedians!?!" is "out" in policy as something prohibited against linking to, people are going to go looking for these websites... WP:BEANS. It seems an impossible situation to legislate no matter what you do with it. My condolences to everyone affected by this matter.—ACADEMY LEADER 05:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Part two

As I mentioned above, I explained here why I think it's a bad idea to have community discussion or reports at admin noticeboards to deal with the question as to whether each individual website should be subject to removal. If a website is set up to stalk an editor or editors, and gives personal information about them, the very last thing we want is a whole thread at AN/I where the website is initially named and linked to, and people of good will and people of bad will go to have a look at it, to see if it reallly has a photo, address, and phone number of User:X. When such links appear, they should be removed immediately, and, if necessary, a report should be emailed to some trusted administrators, or perhaps the arbitration committee. ElinorD (talk) 07:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Then return to Risker's version above, or mine further above, that drops the whole idea of a ban on entire sites. The only wayu that such a ban is accptable is if there is a full and open discussion to determine consensus on banning an entire site, IMO. DES 07:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

ElinorD, your edit summary adds to your post above that you feel it is "not okay to give personal details of editors who originally, incautiously supplied them, and then regretted it and removed them." I will point out that if an editor supplies personal information on-wiki, or linked to it on-wiki, there is no "right of retraction." To quote the Privacy Policy (link at the bottom of every single Misplaced Pages page): "If you contribute to the Wikimedia projects, you are publishing every word you post publicly. If you write something, assume that it will be retained forever. This includes articles, user pages and talk pages." The Foundation has made their position pretty clear - if you write it, you live with the consequences.

I'll also point out what I believe is a straw man argument here. You keep referring to addresses and phone numbers. Now, I'll grant I haven't dug all the way into the archives of the most frequently mentioned sites, but I haven't seen anyone's address or phone number posted at any of them - well, with the exception of Jimmy Wales, and it's the media contact one. Risker 08:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I've seen four sites that gave addresses and/or phone numbers of individual Wikipedians. They may not be the ones you're thinking of, and I'm certainly not going to give the URLs or even the names. Nor am I going to hint at them. And I know that there was one site (no longer in existence) set up by a sexual stalker, with not only the personal details of the administrator he was targeting, but also the phone number of her elderly parents, and that her mother, who was very ill at the time, became terrified of answering that phone in her own home. It's very worrying that some people seem to think it would be okay to link to the index page of that site. Regarding the Foundation's privacy policy, it is my understanding that administrators do delete and selectively restore the user pages of editors who regret putting too much personal information on them. If editors have removed such information, but have not requested deletion, they still have a right not to have the information used for the purpose of "outing" them. ElinorD (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Elinor, there is no one here that endorses the linking to or providing of any information like that! No one is arguing to link to an index page and therefore wikilawyer their way around a policy. An example is the WW page which presents information regarding real life BLP concerns, plagiarism concerns, and Misplaced Pages's responsibility of removing libel. There is a lot of information on that site, some interesting and some not, and ONE PAGE THAT HAS REAL NAMES OF EDITORS (currently). I do not know how this information was aquired, and who provided it of free will, but while others say they will not blame the victim, I will. Risking providing identifiable information about myself, I will say that it is a crime in my state to leave your keys in your car while it is running. Is this BLAME THE VICTIM? It could be interpreted that way, I consider it more of a "don't be stupid" approach. If the car is stolen, it is still a crime, but the person who left the keys in the car is not absolved of blame because they didn't know their car might be stolen.

Sophia stated somewhere (in this mess :D) that she was never a member of an online community before, and the username policy at that time encouraged the use of a real name or "long standing pen name", or whatever it said. This is terrible advice for a person that doesn't want information found out about them. Believe it or not, I found that out the hard way when I first starting participating in internet communities. Conceivably millions upon millions could be reading our interactions and getting information about us, if we don't want that, we simply shouldn't participate in these communities.

I really do feel horrible about the situation you are talking about. It is difficult to divorce ones self from emotions when making a decision on where they stand on one issue or another, and on issues personal and close to me, I find it impossible as well. What happened to your friend (or yourself, I have no idea) I take as an unfortunate and very hard learning experience and life unfortunately are filled with these. This person's experience could have turned out worse, but presumably this person (and hopefully others) have learned from it and are better for it. I don't take the stance that we can correct all of the world's ills, but I do wish we could. The policy, as it is being pushed, will not correct anything and only present more problems. We WILL remove attacks and we WILL remove private information from wikipedia when that person presents a concern about it, whether they freely revealed it at a previous time or not is irrelevant when the person wants it removed. Additionally, I thought this is why oversight existed--to remove such information. If that is your case or any editors case, I would recommend that you demand it to be deleted it from the history, and if they refuse, there should be a policy writing attempt at correcting such a situation.

I may appear blunt in my commentary but I assure you I do not mean to hurt or belittle anyone, I am simply not smart enough to be subtle. I have had similar experiences and I am willing to bet that anyone that is/was seriously involved in an internet community for any extended period of time has as well. An incident happened to me about 6 years ago on an internet community. I have learned from it and it hasn't happened since. hombre de haha 22:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that privacy policy... I couldn't understand why there wasn't a policy on-en.wiki to cover something everyone should basically be concerned about to one degree or another, with or without the hysteria regarding stalking or outing. Interesting that the Foundation sets this. One of those thing that is "hiding in plain sight" I guess. (The page should be the first of those link batches sent in those annoying welcome messages.)—ACADEMY LEADER 08:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Most people will first come across WP:USERNAME which when I joined actually encouraged users to use their real name. So there are a lot of established users who may regret the information they gave following policy advice. Sophia 09:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It also said "Misplaced Pages editors have occasionally been subject to harassment outside of Misplaced Pages due to their contributions or vandal-fighting activities on Misplaced Pages." Frise 09:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I doubt if most got past the first line of advice "The best username is typically either your real name, or a longstanding Internet pen name". Sophia 09:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I certainly didn't read the whole thing when I was registering. I'm very glad now that I haven't given more personal information about myself, but I really can't blame those who did so, and I completely reject any idea that they're not deserving of whatever protection administrators and policy can give them simply because they did at one stage give some information that would enable someone to track them down. If there's something buried deeply in the history of my talk page edits saying what part of the UK I come from, that is no excuse for people piecing together information and posting it in a way that could "out" me. ElinorD (talk) 09:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Franly i think that in the vast majority of cases, the 'danger' of beign outed as a wikipedia editor is vastly exageratted. Yes, ther have been soem cases wher serious stalking or harrasment occured, but as far as i know this is very very rare. I personally have always edited under my legal name, adn i urge others to do so if they possibly can. I know thare are people who have good reasons not to do this, but I honestly think large the majority of editors are at no risk at all from revealing their names. -- However, anyoen who wants to remain annon should not be outed, whether there is any "real risk" or not. DES 09:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Telling someone that they should be cautious with their personal information online is kind of like telling someone not to poke themselves in the eye. It's the kind of thing that should be blatantly obvious. Anyway, the warnings are there, we can't MAKE people read them. Frise 09:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

When I joined I wondered whether I would be regarded with suspicion as I had chosen not to use my real name. If you have never been a part of an on-line community before (as I had not) you don't know the rules and can only go by policy advice. As an ex security manager I knew better but we also have minors as editors and admins who whould not necessarily realise that the advice sucked. Sophia 10:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just figured out why the direction this thread is going in annoys me so much - it's the classic "she was asking for it" line. Sophia 10:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You're suggesting that new users care enough about the username policy that they consider using their real name, but at the same time they AREN'T concerned enough about it to read the warning on the very next line. That's fairly weak, imo. I'm not blaming the victim here, but at the same time I'm not going to agree that there weren't warnings in place. Frise 10:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think WP:USERNAME is a part of the issue. I myself only found the page when looking for a policy to apply to a particular, ill-named, troll: User:OCDpatient. I think the elephant in the room, however, is the lack of an effective or popularly understood policy or guideline on user privacy, which would be consistent with the foundation's while not being solely constructed to limit the foundation's culpability in real life cases of stalking or other harassment. Misplaced Pages really is no more secure than Myspace in this regard, and there should be more attention given to online personal security matters in preventative terms. Punitive actions, unfortunately, can draw more attention to the initial harassment, as others have been saying.—ACADEMY LEADER 19:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

(Resetting indent) I've been looking at MediaWiki:Signupend. As it stands now, it says at the bottom:

• Your username will frequently appear publicly on the site; see the pros and cons of using your real name.

Interestingly, the link to "pros and cons" doesn't lead to a section discussing that issue: it leads to the general Username policy page. I've left a message about that here, asking an administrator to fix the link. But it's worth pointing that out, for those who think that Misplaced Pages has given ample warning, and that if people end up being stalked, it's their own fault.

Another valid point is that while the page currently has that warning, it was added by Demi on 8 December 2005, and strengthened by Essjay on 26 May 2006. So even if it were valid to argue that stalking victims don't have a right to having links to stalking sites removed, because they "brought it on themselves" by disregarding warnings in 2006, that cannot apply to some of the victims who registered before that warning was added. ElinorD (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You put "brought it on themselves" in quotes as if someone is actually saying that. Frise 14:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to argue that way, but I do think the personal security issues revolving around the mediawiki privacy policy should be publicly ironed out and perhaps a derivative or interpretive policy, that is written in plainer English with appropriate admonitions for online security, should be adapted and widely promoted on en.wiki. It should be admitted that the first order of consideration when interacting with others on WP is definitely not assume good faith.—ACADEMY LEADER 17:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Playing something of a Devil's advocate here in an effort to better understand both sides ... Regarding Ken Arromdee's comment, "That is the big problem in essentially all versions of the proposal; there are people who want to remove links 100% of the time, with *no* exceptions of any sort, rare or otherwise. They are floating the proposal as a means of getting this ridiculously literal interpretation made into official policy." How much of the objections are lessened if some method is put in place to whitelist such links on a case-by-case basis if they are deemed essential? On the other side of the coin, what are legitimate purposes does the project lose if the handful of most seriously offending websites are "site banned"? Serpent's Choice 09:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC) Answered my own question, no need for that. Serpent's Choice 10:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed wording (3)

• Less ivory tower this time. No ArbCom references. Explicit acknowledgement that exceptions may exist. Statement of current de facto occurrance (as encouraged re policy development). And, as always, still open to suggestions. Serpent's Choice 10:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That's more in line with what I was thinking. What is meant by "actionable" needs to be clarified, I think. Frise 10:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, something more like my previous suggestion: "Direct links or explicit references to off-site personal attacks against Wikipedians can be considered personal attacks themselves." Not really compelling prose, but it gets the message across, I suppose. Serpent's Choice 11:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think what all the proposed wordings miss out on is the intent. I would never advocate the linking of a site with the intent of harassing someone, but that raises the question of "Is there any other possible reason to link to one?" which we can't seem to agree on.Frise 11:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The most convincing of the arguments I have seen is based more around what might be an "attack site". The worst offenders probably have no legitimate linking purpose. But I know one of the concerns is that, if we don't have an actual blacklist, then labelling creep might eventually apply the "attack site" tag to somewhere that also contains viable content. Although it is a slippery slope claim, I don't think it is meritless. That's one reason why I avoided the phrase in this most recent effort. To that end, I'd also be open to moving word order to read "...websites that have regularly engaged in or condoned...". But right now, I'm far more interested in finding a proposal that everyone can talk about rather than make something very pretty that might still leave many editors unhappy. Lipsticks, pigs, and all that.... Serpent's Choice 11:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Change the words to "strongly discouraged" and I think we've got the makings of something. However I very much doubt that, irrespective of the wording of this document, policy will change in any way. Attack sites will normally be removed on sight and those who persistently refer to them without a good reason will end up in trouble. --Tony Sidaway 11:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we're making progress, but am I the only one who can see what a really, really bad idea it is to report the URL or the name of a stalking site at the admin noticeboard. If someone sets up a website http://www.I_know_all_about_ElinorD.com and posts a link to it here, I would expect every caring responsible person to remove the link instantly, and not to encourage a whole thread at the admin noticeboard where the entire community looks at all the pages and subpages of the site in order to discuss at length whether it really give personal information about me, and to make a "community decision" as to whether or not links to that site should be allowed. ElinorD (talk) 11:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Glad you raised that. I'm uneasy about it too. Instead of encouraging people to put the link anywhere on Misplaced Pages, we should ask them to exercise strong discretion on this: if in doubt, don't cite. This would operate in exactly the same way that we don't expect people to upload defamatory or copyright-infringing material. --Tony Sidaway 12:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, underscores aren't allowed in domain names, and if it's a noncommercial informational site a .org or .info domain would be more appropriate than a .com. *Dan T.* 12:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Point well raised, Tony. That last line was an artifact of my original suggestion, which was still a fundamental holdover from the blacklisting approach. I've just been copying it from proposal to proposal. Its time has come. Obviously, I'd like to hear from one or two more of the folks who had been supporting more literalist interpretations of the ArbCom commentary, just to make sure that my efforts to compromise on behalf of the position supported by DES et al haven't swung the pendulum too far. But otherwise, I hope we're getting closer to something that can actually go into the article. As the comments below indicate, this argument in all its forms has been running long enough that patience for its continuence is running out. But, again, just pulling the tags and protection will have us back here again in a month if nothing is put in place.... Serpent's Choice 13:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little wary because the "when in doubt" clause can be easily misused to support the literal 'remove links 100% of the time regardless of context" version: "I have some doubts, therefore, I can remove the link". But I can't think of a much better way to say it.

I would point out that most circumstances where one would wish to link to "attack sites" are talk pages or other non-article pages such as Misplaced Pages Signpost, so reliable sources really isn't an issue. Also, the reliable sources guideline is itself controversial and invoking it in a policy (or even a guideline) may not be a good idea. Ken Arromdee 03:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps change "reliable sources" to "appropriate references for articles"? I am open for a better way to word that last sentence. I agree that the "when in doubt..." wording is potentially inadequate. Serpent's Choice 02:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why would links to off-site personal attacks result in a considerably more harsh reaction than personal attacks made on-wiki? The section on "Responding to personal attacks" is quite circumspect and doesn't even talk about 3RR, it talks about proportional response to the specific attack. Again, I keep coming back to the idea that the bigger deal we make about linking to off-wiki material, the more curious people will be to find out what's really there. Existing policy, with the addition of specifying that using linked material to make a personal attack is included, covers every aspect of this issue without waving red flags in front of people. Personal attacks are personal attacks - period. Enshrining in policy that personal attacks using the material from a few sites is *worse* than a direct personal attack is counterproductive - and to the overwhelming majority of Wikipedians, just plain not true. Risker 14:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The editorializing about attack sites is a problem. Certainly someone felt that some comment on the Unspeakable Site was worth citing, or they wouldn't have linked to it. It seems to me that the whole reason for deleting these links isn't really being addressed any better than "arbcom said to delete them". And really, it isn't that arbcom said to delete them in general, but that certain people have taken to interpreting that a few specific sites, designated by name, are to be suppressed. Nobody would be able to find these references, it seems to me, without a url to work from. So this seems to be headed in the direction of establishing a blacklist of such sites, because otherwise there will be hearsay-based fights, since it could not be proven that a site does or does not contain attacks. OK then: who is going to determine which sites are on the list? Mangoe 18:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• I could support either of the two versions above in thsi section. I find that I agree with what Risker is sayign to soem extent, but when an on-wiki attack involves revealign personal information against the will of the person involved, it is typically dealt with swiftly and drastically. It isn't so much of-wiki atttacks as off-wiki priovicy violations that are at issue here, i think. That said, once such things are psoted off-wiki, the cat is out of the bag whatever we do on-wiki. DES 19:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I commend to you all Johnleemk's suggestion

On wikien-l on the thread on this:

I find this whole discussion ludicrous. It's *basic common sense* not to link to /webpages/ which contain personal attacks or any of the sort, unless absolutely necessary (e.g. evidence in ArbCom). Similarly, it's basic common sense to link to webpages which contain helpful information (but not personal attacks), even if these pages are hosted on sites which also host personal attacks.

This crusade against linking to any website which hosts personal attacks, regardless of the value of individual pages hosted on the site, is beyond ridiculous. Its only founding is in an ambiguous ArbCom decision (as demonstrated by the different opinions of arbitrators about how to interpret it), and it lacks any grounding whatsoever in common sense.

We shouldn't be banning links on a site-by-site basis; if we are to ban them at all, ban linking on a page-by-page basis.The most authoritative biography of say, ], may be found on a website which also hosts personal attacks on Misplaced Pages editors. What ought we to do? Cite the damn biography, and don't link to any of the personal attacks. It's not that hard to do.

I dunno, will you listen to a long time contributor and bureaucrat who probably has a better feel for the place than people who joined a month ago and have zero article space edits and all their Misplaced Pages contributions are to Misplaced Pages: space?

If you need a policy to tell you if a link is an attack, may I humbly suggest that you may not be clueful enough to edit Misplaced Pages.

May I just say that the fact that anyone could consider this worth thousands of words of missing the point shows that some people have way too much time on their hands - David Gerard 12:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Some good points, and an excellent comment from Johnleemk.

It is a shame that you chose to add ad hominem comments regarding some of the contributors, because they is likely to detract from the common sense of your arguments (and it is arguments that drive consensus). Please edit your comments above as suggested and you will have my unequivocal support (for whatever that is worth). LessHeard vanU 12:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree it's "ad hominem" (to spell it correctly) to imply, or even to directly to point out, that someone who's been here a month and made no edits outside Misplaced Pages: space is unlikely to have a useful opinion to the project of writing an encyclopedia - David Gerard 13:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That is an absurd statement, since it implies that all new accounts bring with them no value. A new account may be an long time anon, or one created for the purpose of discussing policy by an existing editor, or a compiler of encyclopedia who wants to contribute here, or (whisper it) a pretty damn smart and quick learner. It also implies that long term contributors are invariably right because they are long term contributors (I find a fair amount of long term contributors consistently make the same errors and never learn from their mistakes). As I said it is the quality of argument that counts and not who makes them. Therefore I agree with your points supporting bringing Johnleemk's comment to the discussion but feel you lose a lot of the thrust of the argument by pre-emptively dismissing a faction of any opposition on grounds that do not indicate WP:Good faith.

BTW, it is a typo and not a spelling mistake (see where "n" and "m" are in relation to each other on a keyboard). My spellchecker does not recognise "hominem", probably because I installed it only a month or two ago, so I missed it. LessHeard vanU 20:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Some of us have been saying this exact same thing for a month now, and it hasn't made any difference yet. Not likely to now, either. I think the most amusing thing about your statement is that it's the newer users who are arguing in favor of a common sense approach instead of a formal written policy, not the other way around. Frise 12:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • *shrug*. Some people value the formal policies more than others. That's why there are userboxes about process or its lack, and why we have policy pages to begin with, really. That's why my goal here has just been to help as best I can at getting a compromise wording in place that makes sense and puts this to rest. There are thousands of words being used, because that's how text-only, non-real-time communication works sometimes. But in the end, we'll be able to reach a point where the full-protection and in-dispute tag come off the policy page and all go back to doing articles or XFD or whatever else we all do to help build this encyclopedia. Its not like this is even the most involved or acerbic argument Misplaced Pages has ever endured. Serpent's Choice 12:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

He is way off the mark regarding the MONGO arbcom case...those that voted there made it clear that we don't link to attack "sites". With that said, arbcom does not create policy. However, without this being a part of, at the very least, this policy, we will end up having neverending discussions about what links from these very select few websites are "okay" or aren't "okay". That is the path to anarchy...it's better to just simply not link to websites that aide and abet the efforts to harass Misplaced Pages editors by collating the information that identifies their real life personas.--MONGO 07:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree and I'm actually surprised that this aspect has flared up again. I was about to begin deleting the link from non-ArbCom related pages (esp. userspace). What should be done about those? Can I still refer the ArbCom ruling? —AldeBaer 10:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You could say that having no strict, black-and-white policy on everything is a "path to anarchy", or you could say that having strict, black-and-white policies on everything is a "path to fascism"... or you could avoid inflammatory rhetoric and support making common-sense distinctions like reasonable people. *Dan T.* 11:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice...no cookies for you today.--MONGO 13:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone who thinks that policies should not be blindly applied, and that instead common sense should be used, is acting like a small child? I don't know, it seems the opposite to me. Children often see things in black-and-white terms that adults don't; anyone who says "we need to use common sense" is probably *not* at the stage where they need to be deprived of cookies. Ken Arromdee 15:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I was responding to his allusions about fascism and inflammations and the his appeal to common-sense and reasonablility while nevertheless being rather inflammatory himself.--MONGO 13:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

My "allusion to fascism" was merely a response to your allusion to anarchy. *Dan T.* 14:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats what I figured...as once again, your insinuation is Reductio ad Hitlerum.--MONGO 04:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Um.... did anybody else read Dtobias' post as saying that comparing one position to anarchy is parallel to comparing the other position to fascism - equally absurd, and equally to be avoided as inflammatory rhetoric? In other words, nothing was being insinuated except that comparing one position to anarchy isn't helpful.... that's what I got out of it, but maybe I was misreading. -GTBacchus 04:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

So his allusion to facism and his suggestion that something I have said is inflammatory or lacking common sense or lacking being reasonable is not noticed. All hyperbole aside, I think his comments here are no better than others I have asked him to cease from making.--MONGO 04:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I think he absolutely suggested that you said something inflammatory. I said that I picked up an implication that something you said "wasn't helpful". That it was "inflammatory" is more specific, but that's what I was talking about. Saying that you said something inflammatory is pretty different from suggesting you're a fascist, isn't it? It sure isn't Reductio ad Hitlerum, anyway; that's what I was responding to. -GTBacchus 05:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

To be fair... he didn't say it tactfully. -GTBacchus 05:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No kidding. Nothing I said was inflammatory. Simply put, as I have repeatedly stated, there is no good reason to link to websites that support the harassment of our contributors. It is a pretty simple concept.--MONGO 06:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, you don't seem to be very aware of the way you say things. "Anarchy" is inflammatory, and hyperbolic. My objection is more subtle: that the actual anarchy of Misplaced Pages, combined with this proposal, creates local fascism because it encourages autocratic WP:OWNing of talk and project pages. Mangoe 15:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Neither do you, you been cautioned numerous times. This is not WR, now is it? We're here trying to edit harassment free as much as possible. It is anarchy to expect people to be able to do so if we are going to be linking to websites that have made it part of their mission to attack our contributors. That anyone would not understand that that there is nothing useful to be gleemed from linking to these very few websites is baffling. So what! We don't even have articles about these websites...and for good reasons besides the fact that they aren't notable.--MONGO 18:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well MONGO, none of us is infallible when it comes to saying everything just right. There's ways of talking that make it more likely that people will agree with you, and there's ways of talking that make it less likely. There's ways of presenting an argument that make it more likely the argument will get resolved, and ways that make it more likely the argument will continue, or escalate.

I would say that comparing the position that a specific site-ban policy is a bad idea to "anarchy" is unhelpful at best, and unlikely to make the conversation go in a direction you'll feel good about. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so. Maybe you don't give a damn how you present yourself in a conversation, but you should, if you wish to get anything done. -GTBacchus 18:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well GTBacchus, I think I'll sit back and laugh this one off. I do think it creates anarchy to link to websites that make it part or all of their mission to post collated personal info about our editors. I have seen 13 people leave or be forced to assume new idenities because stuff posted at these websites was brought here by trolls for the sole purpose of harassment. Nevertheless, the fact that you have no argument left to defend against this common sense issue except to attack me, there isn't anything left for us to discuss. As far as Mr. Gerard's start of this section...I think now is a good time for me to push past article number start 300...I'm at 294, or something like that. I suppose the best thing for me is to not take the bait of such goading and inflammatory retorts and conversation starts. One would expect a lot more from our administrators and key representatives.--MONGO 06:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you choose to see things that way, MONGO. Maybe I'm just unable to be unbiased around you. I look at a page, and I see you saying something to escalate a negative situation, presumably because you just don't know that's the likely effect, and I don't know why I don't just walk away. I'll try to do more of that, and less of giving a shit what you say or do. You're a good Wikipedian, and you'll be remembered that way. Maybe someday you'll realize that I was always on your side. So long. -GTBacchus 10:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into a grudge match about who is the greater sinner. But be that as it may, I simply don't agree with your characterizations of the matter. The use of the word "attack" is an ongoing problem here. I'm sure that you and more especially certain admins view yourselves as being attacked by WR. And in some sense, you are; but some "attacks" are justified. The allegations of corruption and abuse of power that they level at these people may or may not be true; but in the abstract, the kind of abuses they are charging are possible, and some of the tactics they use may well be necessary, if outside of what is permissible within Misplaced Pages. The pretense that it doesn't matter who edits or administers Misplaced Pages can only be sustained so far; and when it cannot be sustained, outing people and other "attacks" are going to happen. And under those circumstances, they probably ought to happen.

At any rate, I personally find WR useful as a constrating point of view on Misplaced Pages process. It doesn't mean I agree with them. Mangoe 19:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The word "attack" is a problem as it is so subjective. Why can't we just ban sites that reveal or encorage others to reveal the identities of anonymous wikipedians? Simple and clear. It is one thing to call someone a crap or corrupt admin - some deserve the condemnation, but it is quite another to reveal personal information. That is a form of blackmail - the " piss me off and I'll make your life hell" attitude. Sophia 21:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Spot on, Sophia. The problem all along has been the word "attack", as it suggests just rudeness and insults, and trying to ban links to any site that calls a Wikipedian a bitch is simply not going to work. Nor is being called a bitch such a big deal that we need a policy to cover it. Say anything you like about ElinorD, as long as you don't say what her full name is and where she lives. I personally wouldn't have any objection to links to websites that simply criticise individual Wikipedians being removed (or not) on a case-by-case basis. The problem with the "attack sites" terminology is that it makes absolutely no distinction between saying that AdminX is abusive and saying what AdminX's real name is. ElinorD (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's an extremely useful distinction. I'm not 100% certain that we wouldn't have to eventually re-evaluate a blanket ban on sites that also host outing information, but it's worlds better than trying to define "attack sites" as a meaningful concept. -GTBacchus 01:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed (un)change #4

Having spent the better part of the evening reviewing the history of this policy, it seems that the policy as it existed back on April 17, 2007 - just before all this edit warring - pretty well had it right. This version was the result of a re-write in January 2007, largely carried out by Serpent's Choice, with only minor revisions for three months. The point about external links not being permitted to be used as personal attacks was added in May 2006:

There was also a previous attempt about a year ago to considerably expand the section on off-wiki behaviour; however, this did not reach consensus, and was every bit as contentious last time as it was this time.

My proposal is that we revert back to the version that was in existence on April 17, 2007, and call it a day. As many editors have pointed out, existing policy was perfectly capable of addressing this situation before all of this started on April 6, 2007, with the "Attack Sites" essay and its original author's action to delete links based on it. In the ensuing four weeks, the most frequently referred-to sites have no doubt seen a huge increase in traffic, as many Wikipedians have followed their inquiring minds to check out what all the fuss was about. Now they know - plenty of snarky gossip, a few ideas worthy of thought, and not very much that people couldn't have figured out on-Wiki if they were really curious. Risker 05:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Frankly, agreed. I'd frankly forgotten how much work went into assuring that the bases were covered during the January rewrite. Thank you for doing something we all should have, and looking at what had been said in the past. Reverting to the 17 April version also restores the "Off-wiki personal attacks" subsection to the "Consequences of personal attacks", which contains important text (that ArbCom can consider off-wiki behavior in regard to cases) that seems to have vanished since then. I would suggest a slight tweaking of the bullet point wording, though, just to clean up the language (agreement in number with the rest of the list), and clarify a bit: noting this applies to attacks against Wikipedians (some "personal attacks" are news, others are dealt with via WP:BLP), striking the "including the suggestion..." clause as redundant (and WP:BEANS), and adding text to handle indirect linking in what I hope is actually a mutually acceptable manner -- based on application rather than strictly on origin. Serpent's Choice 06:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this fits well. --Tony Sidaway 06:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice clean-up, Serpent's Choice. I think perhaps being a little more specific about what is meant by "in such a manner" might be helpful...perhaps "when they are employed in such a way to imply a personal attack" ? (Hmmm...maybe not much better...) Risker 06:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I had hoped that "in such a manner" would clearly refer to the previous "in a manner that incorporates ... into Misplaced Pages." Is there a way to word this better without being redundant or unwieldy? Would "in this manner" suffice? Serpent's Choice 06:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes...that works for me. Thanks. Risker 06:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Minor tweak to language: it should begin "Making links or references...." or some similar word (original version had "Posting"). Other than that, this is good. Mangoe 13:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Original did, yes, but I don't think it is necessary. The assorted "threats of..." are not listed as "making threats...", for example. This entry should not begin with a verb form either for consistent style, a mistake wasn't caught by the copyediting done during the previous rewrite. Serpent's Choice 14:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the best proposal yet; it gets to the substance of what sorts of uses and references to remote material are bad, rather than trying to impose some arbitrary ban that's independent of context and purpose. *Dan T.* 14:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The version on the 17th of April is fine. As a tangent, Tony's suggestion to add a second sentence ("Links and references to websites that host or condone personal attacks against Wikipedians need not be to a specific attack when they are employed in such a manner.") is a no-go, it leaves the door open for witch hunts. SchmuckyTheCat 14:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion, actually (just below my sig rather than above it, sorry) ... no need to blame Tony for my middle-of-the-night style efforts. But authorship aside, I'm not certain that I see how that phrase could lead to a witch hunt. Really, nothing is acceptable when used "in a manner that incorporates the substance or purpose of attack into Misplaced Pages." What sort of scenario do you foresee as problematic here? Serpent's Choice 14:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

People cut and choose sentences out of context, by mistake or purpose. The contingent of editors that want blanket bans on their own personal blacklist will see this sentence stand-alone and justify purges of external links. The door should be closed to purges of external links based simply on the top-level domain. SchmuckyTheCat 15:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I know that there are other editors who consider this element to be a valuable addition, beyond those who are trying to justify "blanket bans". To be honest, I do not think that the principle of policy is well-served by attempting to remove (or add, for that matter) text due to the expectation that it will be taken out of context. I mean, through ellipses and selective quoting, I could say that WP:NPA says that "Violations ... may result in a block for an extended period of time, ... applied immediately by any administrator." It does say that, sort of, in a specific context. I view this the same way; as others have said here, editors who desire link removal are probably going to remove links regardless of what we put in this policy. If that is itself a problem (and I will remain steadfastly silent on the issue), then it is a matter for dispute resolution. But expectations of bad faith aside, I think this sentence serves a valid and valuable purpose. If some website (let's fictionalize a Wikihate.com for argument; it isn't real) is posting detailed personal information about Wikipedians as a matter of course, and someone makes a post that says, "Serpent's Choice, keep up the policy talk, and people are gonna start to Wikihate you...", then that is and should be a personal attack. If someone wants to discuss the website in an appropriate manner in Criticism of Misplaced Pages then that is not "in this manner." Is this still a concern you feel is valid? Likewise, the opinions of other contributors would be valued here -- nothing we do is likely to please everyone, but I'm willing to stick with this talk page as long as needed to get a working compromise and consensus. Serpent's Choice 15:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I can support the reversion to the version of 17 april. I can not and do not suport the addition of ("Links and references to websites that host or condone personal attacks against Wikipedians need not be to a specific attack when they are employed in such a manner.") or anythign like it. This is IMO far too likely to be used to support the kind of black&white "All links or refernces to site X must go" editing that soem have advocated here, but that iMO clearly does not have consensus support. DES 16:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that the principle of policy is well-served by attempting to remove (or add, for that matter) text due to the expectation that it will be taken out of context.

I do, because it's not just hypothetical. The equivalent *has* been interpreted just that way, even without being aproved as policy.

Seriously, there's a difference between just saying "people may end up blindly removing links because that's possible" and saying "people may end up blindly removing links; they've been doing it constantly already, and I'm sick and tired of it." The expectation that the rule will be abused is more reasonable given history of actual abuse. Ken Arromdee 16:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear! However, I don't see a way to police against that either, unless you want to put these pages on your watchlist and contest each and every removal someone makes. It all looks like WP:SNOW, in every direction, if you ask me.—ACADEMY LEADER 20:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Digg Controversy

Anyone following the controversy over Digg's removal of user-posted software code that unlocks copy-protected DVDs? Here's an LA Times story on it —ACADEMY LEADER 23:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal by Sophia

Misplaced Pages supports an editor's right to remain anonymous. All links to sites that publish, or encourage others to publish, personal information of wikipedians who have chosen to edit anonymously, will be removed. Such removals are not covered by the three-revert rule and repeated posting of such links may result in a temporary or, in extreme cases, an indefinite block.

• This is a suggestion for a simple and limited addition to the policy. Hopefully it addresses the issues with the subjectiveness of the word "attack" and also makes it clear that this is not about suppressing criticism, but is about the privacy and security of editors who choose to edit anonymously. Thoughts appreciated. Sophia 07:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I support this proposal. Bad-mouthin can be annyoing but in the end an editor can simply shrug it off. Giving away personal information (true or faint) is of a different kind. Str1977 07:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I like it very much, except that I'd change permanent ban to indefinite block. Not all blocked editors are banned, and I'd say there are numerous cases of admins indefblocking some newly-created account for posting someone's name, but such users are not added to the Misplaced Pages:List of banned users. Thanks, Sophia. ElinorD (talk) 07:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support per ElinorD - great job, Sophia. KillerChihuahua 07:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Still with the "sites" verbiage. Get off that horse already. SchmuckyTheCat 08:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Looks good to me...concise and to the point.--MONGO 10:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Completely unacceptable, just like all the other versions with "...all sites that..." language. Total bans against entire sites muist be subject to case-by-case community discussion. In fact, this is really no different than several of teh proposals above, excapt that it makes celarer what they meant by the misleading term "attack". DES 13:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• That works for me. It's basically what I do now, and plan to continue. Tom Harrison 13:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• I can't support a blanket ban on linking to certain sites without regards to context. Frise 16:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal by DES

Here is a modified version of Sophia's proposal, perhaps we can all agree on this.

• It seems to me that this draws a good line between legitimate and illegitimate links. Can anyone suggest improved wording? what are your thoughts? DES 13:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• I agree. Links to pages containing attack material to be removed without incurring 3RR, allowance to link to site mainpages if absolutely necessary for purpose of article. Covers all concerns, I would hazard. LessHeard vanU 14:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• No way. We end up in one of those "let's discuss this on every WP noticeboard we've got until everyone who didn't know where the information was now does" situations. Sites that host this stuff need taking off the web let alone banning from wikipedia. We don't control the web but we can define what is unacceptable to us and send a clear message to these people who are basically stalkers. Sophia 16:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • • I can easily define what is acceptable to me, and you can easily define what is acceptable to you. What is difficult is reconciling the two, and all the other viewpoints between and beyond. Unless it is simply a blanket ban for all sites containing attack pages, which gives nothing to work with, is there a wording you would consider appropriate?LessHeard vanU 22:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

See above - this is not about "attacks" but is about editor security. Call me any name you want on a web page but don't print personal information as I wish to be anonymous. I don't see how more simple this can get. We have to ban whole sites that indulge in this bullying otherwise we get the silly situation where they can have links from their front page to the material but as the personal information is not actually on that page it then becomes OK to link to it. Freedom of information is not about doing whatever you feel like with no regard to the consequences. Personal security does trump all else. Sophia 23:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I've partly answered this below in my response to ElinorD. As far as consequences are concerned we take risks as soon as we go online. At what point does the attempt to mitigate the risk render the process unworkable, or (and excuse me if this sounds blunt, as it is not intended to be) when protecting the vulnerable disallows access for the wider community? You have the right to contribute without fear, and I have the right to contribute without constraint (or the fear of constraint). I am perfectly agreeable to having some of my freedom reduced to provide you with a degree of security, but perhaps not to the extent that my freedom is compromised. I know this sounds selfish, but it allows a majority to selfishly enjoy the benefits of WP while you need to be as vigilant as possible to reduce the risk to yourself. I wish I could find a way of squaring the circle, and I really do sympathise with you (having been trolled elsewhere), but there is risk to all aspects of life. All we can do is find something which gives most, if not all, most of what they want/deserve. LessHeard vanU 23:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Then go with one of the various versions above that bans links specifically to attackign content, and says nothing about other links. or just the first three sentances of the above. DES 16:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This proposal looks very reasonable to me. _InBC 16:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Sophia. The last thing an anonymous editor whose details have been published on another website by some permabanned trolls wants is a nice community discussion where everyone looks at the link and clicks on it and finds out the name and address and workplace of the anonymous editor in order to have a nice community discussion at AN/I, where everyone feels included in the decision-making process, as to whether or not that particular link is appropriate for Misplaced Pages or not. As to allowing links to the sites that engage in and encourage these violations while banning links to certain individual pages on the site, well, the mother whose children are threatened as a result of some stalker getting hold of her details is not going to feel very much consoled by knowing that the stalker got to the details in two clicks from a Misplaced Pages page, but not in one click. ElinorD (talk) 22:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • When we discuss matters pertaining to attack pages/sites a troll is going to find their way to the subject matter, link or no link (and I too know how far trolls will go to find information), so the number of clicks is irrelevant. DES' suggested text disallows links to attack pages and only to the homepage when deemed necessary. Even the related article is likely to provide a troll with sufficient info to find the site in question. In the end there should be a balance between providing readers with verifiable information and the consequences of that information to the editorship. LessHeard vanU 23:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Privicy is important, it does not, however, trump all other considerations. There are legitimate reasons to link to some of these sites, and there could be more in future. The above bends over backward to make sure that only legit links are retained, and I expect that there will be few of these. it deos not encourge or require "let's discuss this on every WP noticeboard we've got until everyone who didn't know where the information was now does". It puts the burden on the editor including any link to provide a justification, and supports removal in the absence of a reasonable justification. If we can't agree on that, then lets fall back to just the first three sentances that authorize removal of links to pages with "outing" info and ommit the topic of links to outing sites entirely. Failing that, let's remove this entire topic from NPA and revert to the version before this issue came up. (17 april I think, but I may be incorrect) DES 22:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics