Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 14

Am I the only person who thinks this policy is a problem?

Uh, an extremist is an extremist and quite frankly it is advantageous to the community to call a spade a spade, as it were. Extremists never budge from their positions, ever. We should discourage participation by extremists, and the best way to do this is to confront them. Most people have a natural need to individuate psychologically by forming common ties and bonds with others; extremists don't, because they have a glaring psychological weakness that they are very sensitive about and feel a need to repress by suppressing others' opinions and expression.

It's often advantageous to turn an extremist's weakness on them, illustrating it to many. Certainly this tactic should only be used as a last resort, but once they've dug in what can you do? Although humiliation may have consequences to them personally, the problem they posed is resolved and the majority benefit from their tragedy. An extremist's internal conflict resolution is not a matter of if but when and how. We have nothing to gain by allowing ourselves to lament the harmony we cannot acheive due to extremists in our midst. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcaudilllg (talk • contribs) 00:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I dunno... my experience tells me you're wrong. It's entirely possible to work with an "extremist", and a big part of what makes it possible is refraining from ever "calling a spade a spade". If you do that, you'll create a self-fulfilling prophesy. You ask, "once they've dug in what can you do?" That's easy. You edit the article, applying sound editorial judgment, and you apply dispute resolution, no part of which is assisted by any kind of labeling of participants as "extremists".

If you have a specific case in mind where you think a user is truly intractable, I'd like to see it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not labeling, just a behavioral category. If a person won't negotiate except at the expense of point made by the other side, then that is extremism. Whenever you've satisfied an extremist, you've given in to them because you've invariably dissatisfied the other party in the process. You're projecting an image of peace and resolution where there is really none, because the other side had valid greviances and the extremist's perogative was invariably to stop the expression of the greviance because they find it threatening.

If ever you've negotiated a fair shake between an extremist and the party they despised, I'd like to hear about it. I wasn't referring to specific cases. Tcaudilllg 23:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what part of the WP:NPA policy Tcaudilllg is objecting too. Is it "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme"? Like other personal attack issues that depends on context. We can point out that some views are extreme, but we shouldn't say to someone that they can't contribute because of their views. It's the edits that matter, not the viewpoints of the editors. So long as extremists are neutral there isn't a problem. If they aren't neutral then that's the problem, not their views. Even a person with moderate views who can't edit neutrally is a problem. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That provision has been a widely-violated one in the course of the debate over the external links provision of this policy; there are a few who can't seem to resist making edit summaries like "Reverted trolling from ED and WR partisans." *Dan T.* 01:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not a helpful comment and doesn't address the editor's question. It does serve to promote disputes, which I hope isn't the intention of anyone here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Remember, an extremist is someone who disagrees with me. My views are always correct, and anyone can see that, therefore the small minority who disagree must be extremists. See Wikipedia:The Truth for a well reasoned essay explaining this in more detail. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 01:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

An entremist is not someone who disagrees with you; it's someone who holds to a point that they simply will not relent on whether it is rational or not. Tcaudilllg 23:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Holding a point of view doesn't get around verifiability or [[Wikipedia:|reliable sources]]. All you have to do is hold people to those policies, and their bias need never be discussed. Am I missing something, that makes it necessary for us to identify and point out biased editors? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's a case in point: the ActRaiser article. No one in the mainstream media has bothered to give attention to the Judeo-Christian references in the game, although as the current incarnation of the article notes, they are there. (it's been informally assumed for ages (A Gaming Intelligence Agency article said it thus "In Actraiser, you play as God; no wait, this is Nintendo--you play as "the master."), and even strongly hinted it in a variety of places; this is common in Japanese Judeo-Christian mythos references.) The question is this: what's the cutoff? As regards the game it's an obvious point, and yet there are those who would say that without an explicit statement by the designers that yes, we intended to characterize Judeo-Christian concepts, there should be no such reference. When I see that, I see someone who is literally frightened by the implicit, to the point that they want it completely replaced by the explicit. That's a form of extremism, and specifically, the kind I was referring to and concerned about. It really has to do with an inability to detect what is "obvious" and what isn't reliably. Some people are talented at it, some people aren't; and some people think it so threatening as to try to squelch it out of existence.

Who do you satisfy? On one hand some find obviousness threatening; on the other there are the legions who have noticed the references and for years have scratched their heads over why no one said anything. And still, there are others who may actually find the explicit itself threatening. Who do you side with and why? Tcaudilllg 00:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Point on that article: it does contain some extremism in its own right; specifically, the interpretation of the master as unhappy with his creation's independence. (this question is posed by the angel, and supposedly left up to the player.) Definitely bias PoV that someone felt they had a stake in projecting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcaudilllg (talk • contribs) 00:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

So... are you arguing that we should allow original research, so long as it's sufficiently "obvious"? I tend to think of it as coming down to NPOV and "undue weight". If a fact about a game has not been considered notable enough to write about by people who've written about the game, then who are we to claim that it's notable enough to write about in our encyclopedia? Are we trying to reflect information that's already available in sources, or to generate our own content, covering facts that have not been covered before?

It sounds as if you're concerned by "extremists" who think we should stick with material that's verifiable in reliable sources. Am I understanding you correctly? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as it applies to this policy, nothing in your story above justifies anybody talking about anybody else's motivations or labeling each other in any way. Nothing you've said changes the fact that we have to work with each other, and that personal remarks make that just about impossible. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I've seen through your bait-and-switch; it's easy enough to see where this is going. You completely dodged the problem I mentioned, and I suspect the dodge was intentional.

"then who are we to claim that it's notable enough to write about in our encyclopedia?", to which I answer, do you really have so little self-respect? Of course you don't, you're just dodging the issue again. Dodge, dodge, dodge.

This is useless. There is no opportunity for resolution here. Suffice to say, there is no consensus on the issues I have raised. Mark my words: someone someday will write about the role of religious references in games, and although we haven't yet organized the political and cultural cover they need to express the fact, we will. There is no harm in anticipating those "discoveries" which have yet to be formally expressed. Tcaudilllg 19:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"Bait and switch"? You "suspect the dodge was intentional"? Sir, I apologize if I've been anything less than direct, clear, and sincere. You seem to have me mistaken for someone who has a lot more free time than I've got. I have no idea what "dodging" you're talking about - if I'm failing to address your points directly and honestly, then please hold me to account. Do not, however, accuse where you're unwilling to explain.

What you call "dodging", I call sticking fast to the only standards I'm interested in applying here: WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. I will continue to insist that the job of an encyclopedia is to reflect what is written in other sources, not to "anticipate" what those sources will say tomorrow.

I hope you're right that the religious references in question will be written about, because then you can add that material to Wikipedia with no problem at all. Until then, if you're asking that Wikipedia be the first place where some information is published, then you're disagreeing with our fundamental content policies, and I'm afraid you won't get much consensus to do that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

On what basis do we hold videogame articles to the same level as ? "Principle?" Why abide by principle that serves no purpose? I actually argue that synthesis is beneficial to some articles because it sets people's imaginations aflight, and does so in a broad way. For example, making the case that a chWilhelm is

Consider this article: Wilhelm (Xenosaga). The character may well be the first to be created specifically to embody Nietzsche's Ubermensche concept, for reasons explainted in the article and affirmed in its sources; indeed, the first to be formally stated by the creators as such. Yet there is no attention drawn to this in print media, and academics refrain from critical analysis of game plots due 1) to the personal nature of game experiences, and 2) a perception of games as "just entertainment" and not to be taken seriously. I personally learned a lot about psychology from studying the character and his relations with other characters in the game [i]Xenosaga[/i]. Finally there is a question of style. Xenosaga is a game that relies a lot on suggestion, straddling the line between the implicit and the explicit. The article's very style reflects this aspect of the Xenosaga experience, drawing the reader into a better appreciation of what the fullness of Xenosaga is. My point is this: some topics are so far beyond the domain of what we are accustomed to thinking of as encyclopediac material as to warrant special consideration, if only because policies are not made (at least not agreed to) with these in mind. Tcaudilllg 20:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see what this argument has to do at all with the NPA policy. From what I am seeing this has just turned into an extension of your disagreements voiced on the WP:NOR talk page. Are you saying that because for some reason or another the Xeonosaga articles are "special" so editors should feel free to be nasty to people who don't agree with their opinions on the matter? Have you ever considered not antagonizing people and instead actually working on an article or two? I strongly recommend that you take a break from these policy page discussions and either take some time to observe how the Wikipedia community at large conducts its affairs, or take some time to focus on article writing in principle application as opposed to theory. A few people are clearly getting frustrated here, yourself it appears most of all, and it would probably benefit everyone here to just take a break from this.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 20:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yay, my essay is special. :) -Amarkov moo! 05:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Replying to the original question: I also think it's important to allow the WP:SPADE thingy. When someone, for instance, is obviously and insistently displaying a racist bias, using the term "racist" is not a PA but calling things by their name.

I also think that it is not always possible to cooperate with extremists. Good-faith extremists are workable: they have their extreme viewpoint but are open enough as to see it's not the only one nor the one that has widespread support. But there are also bad-faith extremists (some quite smart) who want to impose their viewpoint by continuous manipulation of the rules (policy, guidelines, common sense), provoking others into PAs (or plain saying the truth / expressing their frustration).

So while I think PAs should be strongly discouraged, there must be a "Spade is a spade" exception. You can't penalize people for saying the truth: that way you would be only encouraging hypocrisy and that's not good for healthy debate.

The true danger of this policy is that: promoting hypocrisy. I know some people, by their nature, strongly dislike bluntness, even if clearly justified, but others, like myself prefer sincerity even if blunt to socially coded hypocrisy and self-censorship.

To discuss things clearly we must be able to speak our minds. And sometimes that means using a descriptive calificative about somebody's ideology or attitude. A spade is a spade. --Sugaar (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOSPADE. No part of good, effective dispute resolution involves name-calling. If someone is making racist edits, you can call their edits racist; there is no need to call them anything. It is not hypocrisy to stay on-topic, and refrain from making irrelevant, distracting, damaging, bad-example comments. We may be completely sincere, blunt even, as long as we're on-topic. Personal judgments about others' motivations are never on topic. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, if you need to resort to name calling to make a point, then you may need to rethink your point. 1 != 2 03:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree: we all have motivations and, while in most cases one of them is to make a great NPOV Wikipedia, in some cases, specially as Wikipedia is so popular (and potentialy influential) this is not the case. Some people just come around with an agenda. What's the difference between saying: "you have a racist agenda" or "you are racist". I see little or no difference. In fact, as wikipedian, I prefer a racist with no agenda than a whatever with a racist agenda (though guess that often both go together).

I also do not think that ideological adjectives are "name calling". "You are a jerk" is name calling, "you are a nazi" is an ideological judgement. It may be accurate or not but it's not an insultif the person is actually a nazi and is proud of it.

I've found myself in this circumstance with a very manipulative element of the worst kind you could imagine who abused NPA and all available policies to his advantage (to make disruptive editing by displacing good-faith editors through PA) who never ever even bothered denying to be that.

Would it be a case where the "offended" person says "I am not that and I find it offensive that you call me that", it would be a PA possibly. But with someone who acts like a "duck" all the time and never even tries to deny he (or she) is one, then it's not any PA but, in fact it's an (probably) objective description and a much needed warning to other less aware wikipedians.

In the end he got banned and I'm still here. But there was much suffering around this for many months. Causing the distress and psycho-emotional exhaustion of many serious good-faith editors and possibly of the administrators involved, some of which were just too easily manipulated thanks to the strict wording of this policy.

What I'm trying to prevent is that NPA policy, in itself a good idea surely, can be used to wikilawyer and make disruptive editing in the benefit of an agenda. And this requires common sense and certain allowance to call a spade by its name in certain cases. --Sugaar (talk) 08:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, it can't. You don't need to do anything to accomplish the fact that wikilawyering doesn't work. When someone does it, you may point it out and move the discussion past it. Why do people worry so much about wikilawyering? It's easy to deal with; WP:IAR.

As to "calling spades", I'd like to see an example where it's necessary to make some accusation that another editor is here for the wrong reasons. Why don't you say what sort of noun you really mean by "duck"? Give us a concrete example to work with.

Your example of telling someone "you have a racist agenda" or "you are a racist"... those are both irrelevant and quite unhelpful assertions, and I don't distinguish between the two of them. They're both unknowable to us. It doesn't matter what you guess or predict someone's "agenda" to be; what matters is their behavior, and yours.

It is absolutely on-topic and helpful to point out that someone is making edits that do not comply with NPOV, or that they do so habitually, or in some pattern. There is no reason, while doing that, to offer your conjectures as to why the person is doing it, unless you wish to derail the discussion and create obstacles to collaboration. I have never seen an example of a case where it is remotely helpful to talk about someone's motives. Show me one.

When you actually want to get things done, collaboratively, you eventually learn to stop talking about people's motivations, because it leads 'round in circles, rather than forward. It's just about building good communication habits. -GTBacchus^(talk) 11:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

And... it is also important to remember that we, wikipedians, are common mortals and not sophisticated diplomats or politicians of frozen smile who are trained to act manipulatively through rigid protocols. Many of us value a lot freedom of speech and the ability to be able to speak our mind simply. And, even if we are aware of this policy and we may try to contain ourselves, sometimes it's just plainly impossible and the less you can do is to put a name to the problem.

Compulsory self-censorship is not good for normal discussion. I agree that one should try to respect the other parties even if there is strong disagreement. But sometimes this frame is just way too narrow. And applied even more narrowly and strictly.

In the end, NPA as it stands now it's a dictatorship of an specific belief on how discussion should be, with zero allowance for even the most common senses exceptions. The very policy suggests to develope a "thick skin" but, in fact, it rewards those who have no skin whatsoever (or pretend it) and go to the administrators in the mood of "mamma, he called me whatever!" And that's not, I'm sure what it's intended for. --Sugaar (talk) 08:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Compulsory self-censorship? Is that what you call it when you don't tell someone you're negotiating with what an asshole you think they are? Or do you tell people with whom you have to work just what you think of them all the time? I mean, you can do that, but you might find that you don't get very far with many people that way. Most people don't like to work with people who are habitually inconsiderate.

I deeply value freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean I care nothing for tact or courtesy, or that I imagine I can offend people at will without ever having repercussions. If my choosing words with the goal of building bridges rather than burning them is compulsory self-censorship... then I guess that's what I do.

When you say that NPA as it now stands is a "dictatorship", you seem to be assuming that it's like a law, or a piece of computer code, or something. Policy isn't like that here. We apply common sense and judge everything on a case-by-case basis. If it's true that people are running to administrators as for a protective mamma, then those admins would be foolish to coddle them in that manner. This page certainly doesn't compel anybody to do so, and I like to think that most of us have enough common sense not to. Do you have evidence that this is a problem that actually exists, or is it just a possibility you're reading into the page? -GTBacchus^(talk) 11:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean "ashole" or any other insult/slur, I mean normal political terms such as "racist", "nazi" or the like that, in some cases, are necessary to describe the agenda/behaviour of a wannabe wikipedian who has a very disruptive editing behaviour and a very clear agenda.

In the case I base my argumentation (for details see the 2006 history of White people aricle and specially talk - not sure how it is now, as I made myself a promise of stepping aside of that mudtrap), "nazi" and "racist" was considered name-calling not by one but several administrators, when "conservative" or "liberal" or "communist" admittedly wouldn't.

Only after a very long process of many months, after it became evident that the disruptive element was playing the "mamma!" trick once and again with each and every editor that opposed him (because he was rewarded several times with the price of warnings and blocks, all based in this policy) the disruptive was banned but, in a hyper-salomonic decission, another, maybe too honest and definitively quite vocal, legit editor was also banned.

In my attempts of opposing this abuse, I was the one accused of "wikilawyering", while the PA accusations were almost systematically through.

So, while I believe it's convenient to prevent PAs and even punish them in some extreme cases, there must be allowance for speaking the truth.

As for my experience, you can't leave that only in the hands of administrators. Policy must be as clear as possible about the fact that calling a spade by its name is not name-calling or PA, no matter that it also encourages (more in guideline style) to avoid such personal accusations when possible. --Sugaar (talk) 05:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

So, in such a case, why is it insufficient to say that the person in question is editing with a racist bias (for example), and to demand that they comply with the usual standards for verifiability, reliability of sources, no original research, and neutral point of view? At what point does it become necessary to say, "...in addition to this behavior which has to stop, the editor is also personally a racist"? Racists who are willing to comply with NPOV may, and almost certainly do, edit here. What makes the person a problem is that they won't edit neutrally. So, why is the personal part necessary? Simply violating content policies is enough to get an editor banned; why do we have to go after their intentions as well?

Does my question make sense? I don't see why it's necessary to cross that line, from talking about somebody's contributions to talking about their purported lack of good-faith. It's not about us; it's about the content. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure that saying "racist bias" would be considered a personal attack to. It eventually came to the point that any sort of even vague insinuation was considered a personal attack and one became paranoid that admins of maybe similar ideas were protecting such element.

The case is that the wording of the NPA policy, as it was before and as it was now, specifically in the sentence Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme. basically means that we should discuss as if everybody would be absolutely neutral all the time, and that is not the case.

It's sometimes also about us: WE make the content. Hopefully (and often it is that way) we are just open-minded, cooperative and objective enough to make things right. But sometimes it's not the case: sometimes a person comes to the Wiki out of the blue to specifically edit certain articles with an specific bias and agenda. This attitude (and the bias/agenda behind it) are a problem. In some cases they may be redirected towards productive wikipedianism but in others it's impossible because the element is not interested in knowledge but propaganda.

Said like that ("propaganda") it looks blatantly punishable but what happens if the propaganda is introduced through use of biased sources (for instance there's much more racist literature on "race" than non-racist or anti-racist, for obvious reasons; plus US census with its obsession for racial classification adds to the bulk of "sources" that in the end make a racist article instead of a neutral unbiased one).

PAs are easy to denounce and get punished but disruptive editing (against consensus, displacing other editors through wikilawyering) is not so easily punishable.

In any case I do demand the right to say things plainly and without so much hypocrisy: if it looks like a nazi, edits like a nazi and treats others like a nazi, then it is a nazi and there is no reason to pretend that we are talking of some merely mislead person with some parochial prejudices. A spade is a spade.

Hence I propose to delete that sentence from the policy or to rewrite it in a way that at least demands express negation and feeling of offense by the part that is being ideologically labelled, to constitute PA. If he/she at least claims to be offended by such label, then it may cnstitute PA but if he/she does not, then why should it? --Sugaar (talk) 03:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you do not have the right to announce your speculations about other editors' motives. Or rather, you have that right, but you may be warned and eventually blocked for it, and I'm willing to defend that position. If someone introduces bias into articles, then you work to correct that bias, and you attempt to engage with them civilly. If that fails, you bring other people to the situation, and eventually we arrive at some kind of consensus.

You say that pointing out that someone "is editing with a bias" would be considered a personal attack - so what? If you show that you know the line between content and contributor, and that you're confidently standing on the correct side of it, then you win that argument. (If there's trouble: come get me. I'm serious.) If you've allowed yourself to cross that line, and you've commented on the contributor, then you will be bogged down with accusations of personal attacks. All of the time you spend defending yourself against those accusations could go to productive editing if you just don't go there in the first place.

Refraining from speculation as to motives wins you the moral high-ground; don't sell that for the satisfaction of calling someone a duck. What if you're mistaken, and they're not a duck? Then who has egg on their face? You do; that's who.

Even better than saying that someone is editing with a bias is pointing out the particular bias in a particular edit, or simply correcting it by using information that's verifiable in reliable sources. People who edit with a serious bias eventually get blocked, and it happens more quickly and smoothly if we refrain from making personal attacks. When you "demand the right" to call someone a nazi, then you're demanding the right to a weaker, less effective form of argument than you should be using. You can do what you want to do more effectively by scrupulously refraining from commenting on other editors' motives. If you don't believe be, bring me to a specific situation, and I'll personally show you how it's done. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of target

There seems to be a view around that you can make general defamatory comments about other editors' behaviour and that is OK because they have not been specifically named, therefore it cannot be a personal attack. This is nonsense, but it seems to be something that might need clarifying.

I was pondering adding something to the policy along the lines of:

It is not necessary to specifically identify another editor for a personal attack to have occurred. Disparaging comments, where it is clear that there are people who would be identified as the target of such comments, will cause disharmony and are equally discouraged. For example, a general comment on a talk page such as "Beware of the trolls" will be taken as a personal attack, especially where the victim believes they are acting in good faith.

There is probably a neater and concise way of saying it, but I think it needs saying. Comments? Spenny 16:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

One can create disharmony simply by sticking to a point, without saying anything. So long as there is an irrational stand being made, there will be disharmony. Especially when someone says "it's this way or no way", in spite of people arguing otherwise, that's extremism and by definition, a problem. (so long as others have valid greviences, the problem of irreconciliation will exist.)

I agree though that "beware of the trolls" does imply a bias toward what is and what isn't a troll. I advise that the community not accept such a broad and ambiguous statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcaudilllg (talk • contribs) 23:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The trolls was an example. I'm not going to point to specific examples as that might be seen as inflammatory to those situations, but I am sure we have all tripped across the casual accusation of meat-puppetry, stupidity and so on targeted at people and when you suggest this is uncivil, the defence is that nobody named names.

While I am about it, the other issue is that people seem to have a strong impression that rudeness is quite acceptable on user pages, especially on their own pages. Spenny 00:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

What's needed on that, I think, is not so much an expansion of policy as much as a proper enforcement. We've have plenty of examples "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme" against specific, named individuals-- but little enforcement of that provision. --Alecmconroy 00:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that our civility problems will not be solved by creating new unenforced policy, but by enforcing existing policy. Our harassment and trolling problems could be solved the same way. I suspect people find it very satisfying to edit a policy page and imagine they've done something; that's much easier than the day-to-day work of reminding people to avoid any kind of disparaging remarks about other contributors, and setting an example by scrupulously doing the same. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

War is over, if you want it

It appears that the text "but some types of comments are never acceptable: [...] Linking to external attacks or harassment for the purpose of attacking another editor." has consensus, since many people from diverse points of view have endorsed it, and I don't believe there have been any strong objections to it. So in the spirit of Only Nixon could go to China, I've added it. (if anyone feels I've jumped the gun and the text doesn't have consensus, by all means please revert me)

I'm sure we'll still dispute individual cases, but this is a big big step, and congratulations all round. --Alecmconroy 22:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who helped take this small step towards improving our policies and reducing persaonl attacks and harassment. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. <exhale deep breath> Privatemusings 12:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community is being played like a violin.

The Wikipedia community is being played like a violin. All it takes is two trolls to edit war over a link and respected Wikipedians jump into the fray drawing huge attention to a link and its contents. Sometimes it can be done with only one troll if the link is pre-existing. WAS 4.250 20:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the respected Wikipedians could stop allowing ourselves to be played? Like, by not freaking out and going off on people as "trolls" just because they invite us to? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Some of the extremely antoi attack sites people do not know the meaning of subtelty, so drama follows them around wherever they go. Viridae^Talk 20:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've seen the argument made that, if we don't call trolls "spades" while blocking them, then we're being somehow less than honest. I wrote an essay in response to that idea. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hit the nail on the head there. Viridae^Talk 21:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

My feeling is that it is more being banged like a drum, and not by me. The professional dialog in disagreement I feel we have broadly maintained here is sadly atypical. Privatemusings 20:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop attacking me with accusations of attacking you

This needs to be dealt with. I have no idea how. I have seen many variations of attacks and counter attacks. One of the most effective is to accuse the other of attacking you. I have no good ideas on dealing with this this. But it is an issue. WAS 4.250 06:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I reverted. I agree very much with both the standing policy and the frustration of the editor. However, the policy has the correct spirit. This takes me back to two or three months ago when an editor who made much of civility would use just this technique. It is just another technique in the diversionary tactics of failing to discuss content, just another use of WikiLawyering. If you are a "bad guy" then accusing someone of a personal attack simply becomes trolling, if you are a "good guy" the accused is simply a troll anyway. As soon as the word "troll" is used, we can invoke the Jimbo "ban trolls without mercy" directive.

Perhaps policy would be better served by deleting it all and just saying "Play nice". Spenny 10:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we can aim higher than "play nice". How about "be excellent to each other"? If we started enforcing zero-tolerance for comments on contributors rather than content, then you'd see some changes. Imagining that the culture can be changed by making an edit to a policy page is rather naïve, I suspect. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I see these things as being long term tweaks. It is more about taking away excuses. You are right, if you need to read policy pages to know how to be nice, then it's too late. However, it is useful to give admins, and other editors, a set of guidelines because it sets the environment apart from the Inernet where anything goes. There is a good analogy in Formula 1 rules where they have a rule that says "No moveable aerodynamic surfaces." They then have a set of rules that define tests that establish suitable rigidity. They then have another rule which essentially says "Just because you have passed the tests does not mean you have complied with the first rule - go with the spirit of that rule." We shouldn't I guess, get too hung up on the detail. Spenny 16:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we can remove that part and replace it with something more generic such as "Advising against behavioral issues is not a personal attack if done in a civil fashion and is justified with evidence". People are going to rules lawyer no matter what the policy is, but the current wording does seem to invite it. 1 != 2 15:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe your word "evidence" there is the key. Perhaps we should ask people to present evidence in place of name calling. Not "I blocked him for being a troll" or "stop being a troll." But, instead "I blocked due to edits listed at <link>" and "stop making edits like <link>". Provide evidence and not your conclusions, no matter how sure you are of those conclusions, because we all make mistakes. Let uninvolved people make conclusions and let them express those conclusions in term of what policy is being violated. So instead of drama and name calling and disruption we can have a process of evidence and civil neutral-language policy-based consensus building. WAS 4.250 19:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Strongly support that. Viridae^Talk 22:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Restored section on linking to harassment

Seems necessary to ensure we don't link to harassment...--MONGO 18:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Good. Thank you. ElinorD (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Nope it isn't. Consensus on this matter formed above at #A growing agreement? and prior sections. I've removed accordingly. GRBerry 18:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Others need to chime in as well. I trimmedit down and the external links policy proposal is dead anyway it seems...it looks like it was just an effort to move the arguement elsewhere so that it would die...--MONGO 18:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, I don't think I've ever seen you make an argument without including an insult or some ad hominem attack in it. Not once. Isn't that interesting? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It's an established principle, and important to include here. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see evidence that it's "important to include here". You can provide none, I suspect. You can only make your case by flatly ignoring the simple fact that we already have policies against harassment, which are perfectly adequate without being BEANS-filled. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, so what changed between this and today? spryde | talk 21:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

MONGO you had every chance to participate in that dicussion while it was going on, and now you edit war to re-add it against the consensus formed on the talk page. That is ridiculous. What exactly has changed since that consensus was formed? Viridae^Talk 21:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Viridae, we have discussed this issue to death. Clearly some users here would be happy to attack their fellow editors by proxy, by linking to attack sites. Others, who support the privacy and civility rules, believe it is unacceptable. This site will go to the dogs if we permit this loophole of attack-by-proxy to exist. Crum375 21:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you actually read the dicussion aobve? NOONE support attack by proxy. Go on a nd read it and then come back and tell me why you declined to tak epart in that discussion and are edit warring to re-add the section that was removed as the result of it. Viridae^Talk 22:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I have read this page, and countless other discussions. I don't see anywhere a reason to allow linking to attack sites, which is what is being done here. If I am wrong, and the prohibition to linking to attack sites (which I consider as attack-by-proxy) is actually there, and I just missed it, please correct me and point me to it. Crum375 22:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You missed it. We have a consensus that it is sufficient to include the language "Linking to external attacks or harassment for the purpose of attacking another editor." in the bulleted list of comments that are "never acceptable:" (emphasis in original). That was in the policy before MONGO readded the rejected paragraph today. Nothing more than that needs to be in the policy. GRBerry 22:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, he was part of the consensus above. My question still stands: What changed? The bottom line is we are playing whack-a-mole with policies. We have existing policies that cover this very situation (WP:HARASS, WP:EL, WP:TROLL, etc). Taken together they are more powerful than the text that wishes to be inserted. spryde | talk 23:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't miss that language, but unless I am very dense, I don't see how this precludes someone from linking to an innocuous message on some vicious attack site, where just next to it, perhaps a click or scroll away, there are vile attack messages. This could be an easy ploy, and a huge loophole. This is why the language must be about attack 'sites', not just 'attacks'. Crum375 23:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Easy. If someone does that, we remove the link, explain clearly in purely encyclopedic terms why the link has been removed, refrain from making any ad hominem comments, and deal with the situation as adults. There are no loopholes on the Wiki, period. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

That has been rejected. SchmuckyTheCat

(ec) If that is the concern, accept that there is not and will not any time soon be consensus for that becoming policy. Unfortunately, certain users have abused the concept of attack site too much to let it into policy. This is exactly why we compromised on the language that was in the policy before MONGO returned. It is far too easy to claim a valid and encyclopedically useful website is an attack site because a single item somewhere in it is an attack. We've seen this form of abusive claim made for article references that meet WP:RS and the websites of the article's subject. Find a definition of attack site that doesn't damage the encyclopedia, and then we can talk. But not before there is a restrictive definition of an attack site. GRBerry 23:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Roughly speaking, there's already a policy that says no loopholes: WP:IAR. So if someone uses a loophole to get around it, ignore the loophole and follow the point of the policy. No attacking people. No wikilawyering. WilyD 23:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Precisely right. There is no excuse for people to harass one another, with or without a misguided policy addition. If someone's doing it, deal with it intelligently instead of dealing with it in a way that feeds trolls, raises heat, and creates drama. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

BADSITES seems to be like the monster in a bad horror movie... it just keeps coming back from the dead. *Dan T.* 23:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry...just seems better if this is spelled out. I have yet to see an argument that makes a case that linking to websites that have a preponderance of their efforts geared towards harassment and stalking is good for our contributors or our efforts to write an encyclopedia. There isn't any reason to create ways to do a two-step around what amounts to common sense.--MONGO 00:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, it's almost as if you wish to misdirect the discussion. The conversation on this page has NEVER been about whether it's ok to use links abusively. You have NEVER addressed the point that harassment is ALREADY disallowed, and that your proposed addition to this policy is a big can of BEANS. I can't even count the number of arguments I've made that you've failed to reply to, because you can't. You've never given a coherent reason that your persistent ad hominem attacks are anything but destructive, because you can't. Now, are you going to accuse me of supporting links to "badsites", even though I've removed them myself, more effectively than you have, because I removed them for purely encyclopedic reasons? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe the only reason we don't have a clear prohibition to linking to attack sites, is that there are too many aggressive and vocal users, who support the trolls, attackers and harassers, and who would like to allow them to link to such attacks. There is no other logical explanation that I have heard. Crum375 00:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ever heard of BEANS? Ever heard of not fixing something that ain't broke? Ever heard of using this project as an encyclopedia, and not as a way to legislate some kind of Internet justice? If you've not heard logical arguments against explicit site-bans, then you haven't been paying attention. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

For some logical arguments on that score, see my essay. *Dan T.* 00:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

And somebody else's essay too. *Dan T.* 00:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

What about mine...User:MONGO/Why linking to harassment is BAD? It was written by someone who is not a participant in websites that stalk people, nor an advocate of restoring an article about encyclopedia dramatica, as Alecmconroy has been suggesting on the mailing list lately.--MONGO 00:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Lies, lies and more lies! I explicitly weighed in against the restoration of an ED article at this time. Mongo, you have a serious behavior problem, and you need to stop this nonsense, rather than make someone else stop you. --Alecmconroy 03:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Funny...my reading of your postings there don't indicate you understand that it would take a lot more than a few reliable sources to justify recreating that article...comments as can be found in that link you provide such as " I do hope reliable sources will emerge for ED so we can cover it..." are convincing. Please don't call me a liar or tell me I have a behavior problem again. Please see WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.--MONGO 04:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be some sort of miscommunication here. Alec's point as I read it was precisely that he wished there were a few more reliable sources so we could write a decent article on ED. But yes, Alec doesn't think it should take more than that. Are you claiming that there is something inherently wrong with arguing that if we had more reliable sources that would be sufficient cause to recreate an ED article? JoshuaZ 04:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

He seems to have been discussing that very issue[1]..and no, I do not see any rational reason to have an article about that website unless it were somehow miraculously become infinitely more notable than it currently is...we are not here to run our hardworking contributors off this website just so we can sit back and say we are all encompassing.--MONGO 06:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thats the second time you have used guilt by association today MONGO... Ho about you drop your prejudices and behave as an adult, discussing things rather than flinging accusations around. Viridae^Talk 00:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you think you can please try not to violate the NPA policy while you're discussing it? Bringing up people's outside associations ("mainstream or extreme") to try to discredit them is specifically barred. *Dan T.* 00:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

What's this? Here I thought I wasn't going to be commenting here again. Whatever happened to WP:LINKLOVE?—AL ^FOCUS! 00:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

BADSITES is only about removing encyclopaedic links used to write an encyclopaedia. It has nothing to do with harrassment and never has. Harrassment is already forbidden, whether done on wiki, via external links, by post, telegraph, telephone or in person. WilyD 00:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe this argument is still going on. It has said "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done" for years now, so what is the point of all this? 1 != 2 00:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It WAS resolved, through nice calm discussion on the talk page. It is now not, because MONGO broke is own self imposed 1RR and edit warred again. Viridae^Talk 00:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You're incorrect...I added a newly worded position on external links and did one revert. If you aren't familiar with the policy on 3RR, then please read up on it.--MONGO 02:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Then I trust you won't do a second revert if/when the page is unprotected? You didn't answer the other point, though; how come you come in well after peace had come to this page, through a consensus endorsed by many diverse people (including you!), and re-ignite the battle? *Dan T.* 02:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

We don't need this. We've been over this many times now. Linking to deliberately harass is out. We can tell when people are doing it. We don't need a general ban on any website. We've seen many times now that that simply creates drama and other problems. JoshuaZ 00:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a little embarrassing to have to say 'hear hear' again. Privatemusings 02:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

At least you say it correctly... lots of people mis-render it as "Here Here". *Dan T.* 04:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Where was there a general ban on any website in MONGO's edit? Did any of you actually read it before you jumped up his rear end? I support the edit. - Crockspot 04:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't. It reads like a lurid ad for scandal and drama. I mean, do we really have to specify what kinds of harassment are obviously unacceptable? It screams, "there's a dirty, dirty history behind this paragraph: Google for it if you dare!" Why would we try to fix what ain't broke? What does this paragraph add to policy, other than BEANS? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh good grief. MONGO, Crum375, Tom Harrison and ElinorD, give it a rest. It is becoming more and more difficult to assume good faith in this discussion. The readdition of this section does not strengthen this or any other Wikipedia policy in any way, shape or form. A personal attack is a personal attack. Period. Doesn't matter how it is rendered. And before I get accused of being someone from one of those nasty websites, I have never even once considered participating in any of them. And I have no sockpuppets either, for the record; although many of the IPs I edit from are shared and there may be others who have edited Wikipedia from them (I don't know, I have no way of checking). Risker 02:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh not again!!! What do we do about people who keep repeatedly adding text to policy pages that does not have consensus? I really think we've cross the point where this is no longer a policy dispute, but has become a behavior problem of tendentious edit-warring of a policy page against consensus. Until people have to face at least the potential threat of consequences for actions like this, I suspect we can expect to see this edit-warred into policy pages indefinitely. --Alecmconroy 03:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

As someone who has intentionally stayed out of this dispute, I would like to say there is a rather healthy consensus here that this re-addition is not a good thing and that the previous version was better. I can't help but notice that the accusations of editing with stubbornness over consensus are not entirely baseless. 1 != 2 06:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"Humiliating them sexually"?

Seriously? You want this language in the policy? That's like begging for people to go straight to Google to find where there are websites engaged in "sexual humiliation" of Wikipedians. I can't believe people want to advertise this crap. MONGO, ElinorD, et at: Why do you want to draw attention to attack sites? I can't think of any other logical reason for wanting to adopt such a superfluous and misguided policy. What have you got against discretion? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There are beans in my ears. That said, in fairness to Mongo et al. one could have very similar language without the specifics. So that's more of a detail issue than anything else. However, it does indicate an interesting issue about how Wikipedia has changed (and to some extent how certain people are thinking). If someone believes that we don't have a policy that allows us to remove harassing links and moreover believes that we wouldn't have the common sense to do so without this sort of broad rule, then it does make some sense to believe that people would need to go down the list of check marks to see if it it met one of the removed types. Almost imagining something like "Hmm, it says insulting. It doesn't say anything about insulting ancestry, so I guess the link can stay"- and to some extent I see where they are coming from. The first time I ever got a death threat on Wikipedia, one of the first responses on the ANI discussion was about how it wasn't unambiguously a death threat and someone else said more or less "hey. It isn't a legal threat so who cares?" Now, I'd like to think that as a project we've matured beyond that, and that we don't need this sort of thing. But it is helpful to understand where people are coming from. (And incidentally, anyone who reads about a site that engages of sexual humiliation of Wikipedians and then goes to google for it, really, really needs to get laid). JoshuaZ 03:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like it if we could try something.... could those who favor BADSITES agree to a trial period, where we don't have the specific language in policy, and where we demonstrate, clearly and effectively, that we already have sufficient (non-BEANSy) policy to deal with this issue. If it becomes clear that we're somehow vulnerable without the special policy, then I'll withdraw my objections to it, but I think we ought to at least give the sensible approach a try first. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

GTBacchus, the consensus version of the policy was in place for two full weeks before this latest edit war. That seems like a pretty good trial period. Has anyone seen a discussion at ANI about having a problem addressing a personal attack made by external link to inappropriate material? No, didn't think so. Because there is nothing special about a personal attack made using external links. Inappropriate links can be removed using WP:EL or WP:HARASS and half a dozen other policies. Risker 03:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you know that, and I know that, but I'm hoping that someone from the pro-BADSITES contingent will say something to explain what on earth is inadequate about WP:HARASS, WP:EL, and WP:NPA (without an explicit "external link" clause). -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I am mystified as to what they are missing. Attack another editor on wiki in any way shape or form and it is a personal attack. Simple as that. Thats what was achieved by the last discussion, and that is where the consensus appears to stand. Why then do we need a specific clause to specifically disallow one form of personal attack, one of many possible forms, especially when a clause similar to that one has been misused by other in the past, to remove links to pefectly legitimate websites (I still can't believe someone suggested removing all links to michale moore's website). Viridae^Talk 04:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Concur that the re-write is not good. Support returning to the more stable version, which didn't seem to result in the wiki world falling down around our ears. Support GTB's proposal that we at least give the more stable version a chance, rather than rejecting it based on.... er... nothing more than an assertion? Privatemusings 04:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

MONGO's edit does not ban any websites, just linking directly to harassment. It also makes an exclusion for legitimate criticism, which could actually be seen as WR-friendly. I'm not sure what all the conflict is about. - Crockspot 04:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think people believed that MONGO was advocating a kind of blanket ban on linking to entire sites - a position he has maintained in the past quite passionately. I suspect that most opposition will now switch from 'that's been discussed and rejected' to 'that's unnecessary' (although it has been kinda discussed and refined also) - anyhoo... at least it's easier to talk about that aspect. best, Privatemusings 05:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

But that isn't what the text says. It tells me that no one bothered to actually read the text before they started objecting. - Crockspot 05:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it means that the wording issue is not immediate obvious and Mongo didn't initially say something of the form "Hey everyone, how about this compromise text. Here's how it's different." JoshuaZ 05:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that the text proposed may also be used as a bludgeoning tool against editors even though the intent of the passage may not be that. In my opinion, the plain, simple consensus that lasted for nearly two weeks took care of every possible situation where harassment was linked to. Nothing happened in those two weeks to warrant revisiting policy. spryde | talk 05:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Precisely, spryde. The policy already states "Linking to external attacks or harassment for the purpose of attacking another editor" is a clear personal attack. It took six months to hammer out that one sentence. That one sentence is sufficient. It doesn't invoke WP:BEANS, it doesn't heighten one kind of personal attack above all others, and it does not leave itself open to the MakingLight and Michael Moore issues. There may be a case for adding WP:HARASS to the "see also," but adding an entire paragraph on what is probably the least common form of personal attack is overkill. Risker 05:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Crockspot, the fact that it's not a blanket site-ban doesn't have anything to do with the criticism I'm making. I think it's foolish to put a pointer in our policy to the material that's out there, and to which we're trying to avoid linking. It's WP:BEANS; that has nothing to do with whether or not it's a site-ban. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

So, which types of harassment have not ever been used against editors? I think they all have been done before. Maybe no actual whips and chains were broken out, but words to that effect have been uttered. What ideas are we giving people? - Crockspot 05:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Imagine someone comes along who's never heard of WR or ED or BADSITES or any of this nonsense, ok. Imagine they find Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks, and they're reading it. Imagine they read the following text:

Attacking, harassing, or violating the privacy of any Wikipedian through the posting of external links is not permitted. Harassment in this context refers to cyber-stalking, offline stalking, outing people without their consent, humiliating them sexually, or threatening them with physical violence.

A certain percentage of people are going to be slightly piqued by that. It's pretty clear from reading it that it's created in response to external links that actually contain the type of content highlighted there. Someone to whom it had never occurred that there must be a Website collecting and publishing speculation about Wikipedian's identities... we've just informed that person that such information is on the 'net, and that it constitutes a biiig hot button for us. That's stupid. It drives traffic to the sites in question, while the policy without this paragraph does not. The proposed paragraph empowers and encourages trolling behavior. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

So what if people are piqued? How are we driving traffic anywhere? No editors names are mentioned, and no websites are mentioned by name, so how in the world is anyone going to find these things. That is as silly as claiming that WP:NOR should not exist, because people will be piqued about original research, and be looking for it on the innernets, and trying to add it to wikipedia. I guess someone who was REALLY piqued would look at the edit history, and see that MONGO added it, and start doing google searches on MONGO and various sexual humiliations... - Crockspot 06:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Then I guess we disagree. Nobody has to scratch the surface very far to figure out what that paragraph's about, and it sticks out like a sore thumb as clearly written in response to specific incidents. Your NOR comparison is a false analogy, because it does not call readers' attention to the very specific and not-necessarily-well-known fact that there are sites out there devoted, at least in part, to uncovering real-life identities of Wikipedians, or to posting offensive and embarrassing material related to editors here. People aren't born knowing that, but the way this page is worded now, they sure as hell leave here knowing it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[2] At least one supporter has said it's a BADSITES ban. Whether it is or not, it's clearly personalities and politics being played to get some extra words in from that side. SchmuckyTheCat

Personally, I don't even want to discuss the merits of the text which is being disruptively edit-warred into policy-- discussion are being held "at gunpoint" as it were. The simple fact is-- The text did not have consensus before it was added to a policy page, it comes out, end of story. When it's out, if anyone has a proposed change they would LIKE to make to the policy, then we'll talk. --Alecmconroy 05:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't support holding discussion ransom to anything. We're Wikipedians; discussion of content is what we do. If others refuse to discuss, then ModelDesiredBehavior. If that fails, there's dispute resolution. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

No no, as always you speak wisdom. I don't mean to suggest we actually shouldn't discuss, so much as expression my generic frustration with the behavior issues. --Alecmconroy 08:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I feel I have some experience in what can happen when discussion doesn't occur - I certainly would like any editor with any idea at all to feel free to bring it here. I also completely agree with Alec that one of the first points to make here is that there have been extensive discussions, which resulted in a sensible stable policy for a little while. I would have thought all editors could agree that the 'best faith' behaviour is to discuss all changes here first, develop a consensus, and then edit the policy. Please? Privatemusings 05:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I posted my wording and then commented here about it and have continued to. I won't hesitate to make it clear that I am against linking to most websites that attack our contributors...however, I understand that wording it that way is untenable. So, I came up with my compromise version, and perhaps it can be altered to make it less threatening and more encyclopedic...but I believe it is important, especially as we look down the road, that we state emphatically that we do not tolerate linking to harassment...so when someone does try to do so, we can then point them to the external links section...and remind them of the policy against such links. You people need to stop with this silly BADSITES nonsense and start assuming some good faith. Perhaps we can change "not to be tolerated" to something less threatening and alter the "banning" part to "block" or "blocked" Maybe add something about repeat offenses can lead to being banned.--MONGO 06:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't, in my opinion, demonstrated a strong reason as to why it is needed when the current policies already cover it. You are going to need a strong reason too, to overcome the possibility of it being used as justification for blanket removal... again. Viridae^Talk 06:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I just told you where I stand...no lies..and where I am seeing an opportunity for compromise.--MONGO 06:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the honesty, but I strongly feel that this addition lets in a potential for BADSITES-esque without gaining a thing. When it comes to newbie editors, they will also insult people before being told that it is not on. Simply explaining to someone who has used a link as a form of attack (because it is an attack) that that is not on will do the job because there is no way they are going to be fully versed on the policy before they are told off for it. Viridae^Talk 06:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, I agree with this: "It is important, especially as we look down the road, that we state emphatically that we do not tolerate linking to harassment". I propose the wording: "We do not tolerate linking to harassment." The lurid detail doesn't help. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me look at it again...maybe excessive detail isn't necessary.--MONGO 06:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with that. As with all other personal attacks, the intent matters as much as the wording. Someone can link to something someone else consider harassment for a perfectly innocuous reason, and as such they should not be told off for making a personal attack when they weren't. Linking to personal attacks/harassment for the purpose of attacking another editor is what was come up with last time before we decided that the policy prohibited this anyway. Viridae^Talk 06:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, I'm not advocating telling people off for honest mistakes. "We do not tolerate linking to harassment," does not contain the clause, "...and we'll assume bad faith if you link there without malicious intent." Would it help to add wording to the effect that we don't bite people's heads off for not knowing things? -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

We already have policy to not bite people's heads off. WP:BITE and WP:AGF. No need to repeat it. SchmuckyTheCat

I don't see how it would hurt, so if Viridae thinks it would help, I'm game. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hows this:

Linking to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against Wikipedians is a violation of this policy. Attacking, harassing, or violating the privacy of any Wikipedian through the posting of external links is not permitted. Harassment in this context refers to cyber-stalking, offline stalking, outing people without their consent, humiliating them, or threatening them with physical violence. This is not to be confused with legitimate criticism. As with personal attacks, extreme cases of deliberate harassment by way of external links are grounds for being blocked from editing.

slight word change.--MONGO 07:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

If we are going to have that, can we add "Linking to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against Wikipedians for the purpose of attacking another wikipedian is a violation of this policy". If that caveat is not added, I cannot ever see myself supporting an external liunks section. I also don't see why we need to specify the forms the attack can come in. Viridae^Talk 07:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. It can go in the first sentence and read now as:

Linking to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against Wikipedians for the purpose of attacking another wikipedian, is a violation of this policy. Attacking, harassing, or violating the privacy of any Wikipedian through the posting of external links is not permitted. Harassment in this context refers to cyber-stalking, offline stalking, outing people without their consent, humiliating them, or threatening them with physical violence. This is not to be confused with legitimate criticism. As with personal attacks, extreme cases of deliberate harassment by way of external links are grounds for being blocked from editing.

--MONGO 07:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Why not just "Linking to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against Wikipedians for the purpose of attacking another wikipedian is a violation of this policy." One sentence. SchmuckyTheCat

Well, I think that leaves the door open to blanket bans so I personally prefer a little more detail and the caveat about legitimate criticism.--MONGO 07:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the caveat is good. As for that sentence in italics, I'd shorten it to "Harassment in this context includes but is not limited to: stalking, offsite personal attacks, privacy violations, and threats of physical violence". Followed by the legitimate criticism caveat, how does that sound? -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

How's this look then:

Proposal

Linking to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against Wikipedians for the purpose of attacking another wikipedian, is a violation of this policy. Attacking, harassing, or violating the privacy of any Wikipedian through the posting of external links is not permitted. Harassment in this context includes but is not limited to: stalking, offsite personal attacks, privacy violations, and threats of physical violence. This is not to be confused with legitimate criticism. As with personal attacks, extreme cases of deliberate harassment by way of external links are grounds for being blocked from editing.

(proposed by) --MONGO 08:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm liking it more than ever before. It's possible the wording could be tightened up, but I like the direction this is going. Now I want to sleep on it, and see how it looks tomorrow. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Bolded so we know where we're maybe getting to.--MONGO 08:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Better, much better and a bit of common ground being reached. I would like to see more people weigh in though. Any change we make this time has to stick. Viridae^Talk 09:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• I support the proposed wording. If it gets gamed we can refine it later. It is entirely supported by two arbcom cases and is not ambiguous. The only minor change I would make is to use the word critique instead of criticism, since too many people mistake criticism in the sense of critique for attacks, and it's critique we want to enable. Guy (Help!) 10:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• To the shock of no one, I oppose the bolded text proposed above. I feel the single one line we had in the consensus version was better. Because:

• The expanded version isn't yet supported by consensus, whereas the prior version was.
• The expanded version's style, being in a separate section, implies that it is a departure from the rest of NPA policy, whereas the single line version emphasized a "business as usual, no attacks allowed". Insofar as possible, I feel it's good for us to look like we don't make up special rules for these disputes.
• The expanded version would probably be open to both more gaming AND more abuse.
• The expanded version is expanded-- and generally speaking, the rule is best which is least.
• At best, the expanded policy would be exactly equivalent to the current policy. At worse, it would be worse than the current policy. In either case, we're best with the simple one-liner.
• Beans.

Just my two cents. --Alecmconroy 15:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

But one line isn't descriptive enough...we need to add the other short sentences to be precise and without the criticism or critique (as JzG noted) comment, then we are again dealing with misapplication of the policy and someone will think we can do blanket bans just because we don't appreciate critique.--MONGO 10:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• It's certainly better than earlier proposals, but I still find it unnecessary. At best it just redundantly restates that use of links to harrass is wrong (already in the policy elsewhere now); at worst it may still be interpreted by some to mean that any link at all to certain sites, regardless of purpose or context, can be called an "attack". It can be improved by dropping the second sentence, "Attacking, harassing, or violating the privacy of any Wikipedian through the posting of external links is not permitted.", since the first sentence already says that links for the purpose of harrassment are not allowed, and that is sufficient. However, even with this removal, I fail to see the need for the section (though I don't find it highly offensive either). Really, as somebody said above, none of these proposed rulings do explicitly impose any blanket link bans that I would strongly object to, but the thing that has gotten my hackles up has been more the manner in which the section was suddenly inserted without consensus after a perfectly good policy had been hammered out, and the fact that some of the comments in support of this change here on the talk page have seemed to clearly imply that the proponents were in fact intending to impose a blanket link ban. *Dan T.* 12:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

  Agreed with your sentiment. I still see this particular section being interprected implicitly and used as the basis for rejecting perfectly good content based on the fact that other places or links on the site have content that fails this section. This is why I still think the above consensus version states it plainly and still has enough teeth to deal with problems effectively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spryde (talk • contribs)

• Dan, you are, quite simply, wrong. It states in big bold letters that this does not mean legitimate critique. You've already said that you support the idea that use of external links for harassment is unacceptable. So what is actually wrong with this proposed wording? It seems to me to be an excellent representation of the current consensus position in the project as a whole, supported by two arbitration cases. Why would we not say this here, when it is how the arbitration cases are already written and interpreted? Guy (Help!) 13:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Unless the point of the paragraph is to allow the removal of encyclopaedic external links that are not being used for harassment, it doesn't add anything to the policy. So one is forced to conclude that the purpose of such a paragraph is to enable editors to remove encyclopaedic links that aren't being used for harassment. Why do we want to allow that? WilyD 14:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• What a strange statement. The paragraph accurately defines present policy per ArbCom. If you want to add that links in the encyclopaedia are subject to sound editorial judgment, then propose that addition. Guy (Help!) 14:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Some of the comments above in this discussion make it clear that proponents of this addition are in fact doing it in an attempt to ban links to sites that contain harrassment, even if the links themselves are innocuous. Thus, concerns on this score are hardly frivolous. Meanwhile, in his comments on the MONGO RFC, Guy stated that he considered merely discussing on the mailing list whether an article on Encyclopedia Dramatica could or should ever be created, should sufficient reliable sources be found, to be inherently harassment of MONGO (who wasn't even mentioned in that discussion as far as I am aware). It's clear that some people distort the concept of "harassment" as through a funhouse mirror, which raises great concerns when the same people speak in favor of stronger policies against "linking to harassment". *Dan T.* 14:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it definitely appears that the currently proposed text is just a way-station on a road that leads back to badsites. Perhaps the theory is that if they can edit-war, little by little, the text into looking like BADSITES, it will eventually get there. Mark my words, if the current "proposed text" get accepted, it will either be close enough to BADSITES to be misused, or else the BADSITES proponents will come right back and insist the text be made even more BADSITES-like, until it's close enough that it can be used to remove all links to external harassment, even encyclopedic ones.

If there is to be "peace for our time", it lies at WillBeBack's version that might actually have consensus-- not this new proposed version which is just a mile marker on the road to BADSITES. --Alecmconroy 14:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Alec, I would appreciate if you refrain from speculating about the motivations of other editors who are working collaboratively. While I understand your frustration, repeating that the proposed text "is just a way-station on a road that leads back to badsites," it's no better than people accusing you of supporting links to harassment. Both are irrelevant, and should not be brought up here.

Now, there's a fallacy running on BOTH sides of this dispute. People who support more explicit wording seem to think that without it, the policy "lacks teeth" or "has loopholes" or some such nonsense. People who oppose explicit wording seem to be under the misapprehension that the wrong wording will somehow excuse or allow abusive campaigns of link removal.

Both of these fallacies are based on a misunderstanding of WP:IAR. Our rules are not a formal system, and something being written down or not doesn't have all that much to do with whether or not it happens.

If we don't include the proposed paragraph, and someone starts inserting links, we can deal with them just as effectively and efficiently as MONGO, et al, would like. If, on the the other hand, we do include the proposed paragraph, and if someone tries to use it to justify deletion of links that aren't bona fide harassment, then we can stop them just as effectively and efficiently as Alecmconroy, et at, would like. This isn't statutory law we're writing; it's just a description of how we're going to run the Wiki anyway. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

GTBacchus is right here. Speculating on motives is a very poor substitute for looking at the text, which absolutely does not support the interpretation Dan suggests. It says "harassment", not "sites that contain harassment". In that respect it follows two separate arbitration cases. BADSITES is in the past, it's time to forget it. This proposal is about maintaining a safe editing environment in today's Wikipedia, and has obvious merit. Guy (Help!) 10:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Perfect Mongo gets my vote! ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I would go along with this version:

Linking to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against Wikipedians for the purpose of attacking another wikipedian, is a violation of this policy. Attacking, harassing, or violating the privacy of any Wikipedian through the posting of external links is not permitted. Harassment in this context includes but is not limited to: stalking, offsite personal attacks, privacy violations, and threats of physical violence. This is not to be confused with legitimate criticism in any namespace or links that add encyclopedic value to appropriate articles. As with personal attacks, extreme cases of deliberate harassment by way of external links are grounds for being blocked from editing.

Guy, everything ArbCom has said is already in this policy. So either the paragraph is redundant, or it's to cover something ArbCom hasn't said. If its the former, why are we doing it? If its the latter, why are we doing it? WilyD 15:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I still think that the single line version has MUCH more power to deal with issues like this. I also still do not like the way this was handled. spryde | talk 15:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems unneeded as the personal attacks are not allowed regardless of how they are made. 1 != 2 15:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry are you referring to my or MONGO's version? We edited so close in time so I am not sure... spryde | talk 15:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Both are not needed. Why not say "Using a large trout to attack another wikipedian is not allowed"? It already says that an attack is an attack regardless of how it is done. So what is the point of all this? Current policy is enough to handle this. 1 != 2 15:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Linking to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against Wikipedians for the purpose of attacking another wikipedian, is a violation of this policy. Attacking, harassing, or violating the privacy of any Wikipedian through the posting of external links is not permitted. Harassment in this context includes but is not limited to: stalking, offsite personal attacks, privacy violations, and threats of physical violence. This is not to be confused with legitimate criticism. Inclusion of links in articles is a matter for sound editorial judgement. As with personal attacks, extreme cases of deliberate harassment by way of external links are grounds for being blocked from editing.

OK, this variant quotes arbcom directly. How about that? Guy (Help!) 10:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

That looks fine to me.--MONGO (talk) 10:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I like the "for the purpose of attacking another wikipedian" bit as long as that refers to the intentions of the link poster not the person who made the page (ie the recent fiasco with a blog that was totally relevant but contained one attack of SV). As I have said If i am going to ever support an external link clause it will have to include that. I am tentatively for this policy, if we have to have an addition, but in my opinion the addition is not necessary. I don't think the need for the addition has been demonstrated. yet. I still feel that NPA already covers it as much as we need to (and no, this isn't to be construed as supporting linking to attacks to attack another editor OR a way to be able to post WR links) as well as the various sourcing policies when it comes to the main space. Viridae^Talk 11:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You won't fix the problem of people in good faith removing blatant attacks from any space, but the "sound editorial judgement" bit is the key here. If we can get away from the link wars and to a point where if a link is removed we assume good faith to the extent of at least discussing it for a bit before reflexively sticking it back in, I think we will be able to wave goodbye to external link drama. Nothing is lost by not having a link for a short while, they are only decoration really, not part of the main content. And even if you don't buy that, I still think this wording will make for fewer problems in that it does delineate a difference between article space and debate. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

No, they are not "just decoration" when they are used as a reference. Since writing the main content relies on verifiable and reliable sources, if you delete the references the next person will delete the content. Over-enforcement of this is, and will be, used as a whitewashing agent. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Yes they are. You can name a site, or cite a source, without a hotlink. It's trivially easy and has no actually effect on the merit of the content. It's just a minor convenience. But you are missing the point - the wording as stated seems to me to cover all the bases, so rather than refighting BADSITES yet again can we possibly talk about the proposed wording? Guy (Help!) 11:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• I struck three words as redundant and inviting gaming. Guy (Help!) 11:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I am liking this one more than before. My question is will this be a separate section or can it be included under things "never acceptable"? If the latter, we can drop the "is a violation of this policy" and tighten the wording up a bit more. spryde | talk 20:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Are we not discussing this issue anymore due to the possible arbcom case? I am starting to warm up to this a bit more but I would like a few more questions answered before endorsing it. spryde | talk 12:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Although I personally prefer Will's version to the proposed replacement, butI hope we're not letting the potential arbcom case affect discussion. It's apples and oranges. Nobody's asking arbcom to decide what this page should look like-- we have to figure that one out on our own. --Alecmconroy (talk) 12:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Another rewording

I like Will's version the best as anything more than that has the possibility of loopholes being introduced. If anything is to be added, I would endorse this modified version:

Linking to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against Wikipedians for the purpose of attacking another Wikipedian. Attacking, harassing, or violating the privacy of any Wikipedian through the posting of external links is not permitted. Harassment in this context may include but is not limited to linking to offsite personal attacks, privacy violations, and/or threats of physical violence. This is not to be confused with legitimate criticism. Inclusion of links in articles is a matter for sound editorial judgment. Intentional harassment by way of external links are grounds for being blocked from editing.

This tightens things up quite a bit and I think still gets to what the heart of MONGO is concerned about and addresses the issues I and Alec have brought up through the sound editorial judgment clause. I don't think stalking should be listed here as I am not sure how one can link to stalking (maybe via privacy violations). I think the sentence flows better and directly enumerates what is not acceptable when it comes to personal attacks and external links. Finally modification removes the modifier to "As with personal attacks" as we are currently on the personal attacks policy page and it seems redundant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spryde (talk • contribs) 14:12, November 20, 2007 (UTC)

Eeek, thanks! I did put this one up. spryde | talk 17:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"Harassment in this context includes but is not limited to linking to offsite personal attacks, privacy violations, and/or threats of physical violence." This sentence isn't, itself, true. Linking to Michael Moore, for example, was a link to an offsite personal attack and privacy violation, but the consensus is that it was not harassment. --Alecmconroy (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Mind providing a link or diff of that discussion? Maybe I can tweak this a bit. spryde | talk 20:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Umm, probably easiest would be for you to look over the evidence I presented during the Attack Sites arbcom case. There's just been a long long history of language of this sort being used to remove valuable encyclopedia material. So, in the Michael Moore case, Moore allegedly "outed" a wikipedia who allegedly had a conflict of interest. People started demanding that Wikipedia not be allowed to link to Moore's website anymore under this anti-harassment language. There have been similar purges in a number of other instances.

Will's text-- the single one line, went a long way to stopping this kind of abuse, putting the focus on forbidding BAD CONDUCT (trying to harass) rather than purging BAD CONTENT (linking to bad stuff).

I don't see how the new proposed text could help us combat legitimate harassment any easier than Will's one line version. But I DO see how the new proposed text would have a greater chance of being misused as a justification to delete legitimate encyclopedic content. --Alecmconroy (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Better? (Added the word 'can') I think this still retains the basic intent of the with a nod to the Arbcom finding of fact. Is there anything bad anyone can see with this? Any loopholes that a malicious editor can exploit? Any possible misuse or misinterpretation that a reasonable person could make? spryde | talk 22:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

A notable website "outs" one of our editors. Normally we have an article about that website, which has a link to the website in question. he link is valid encyclopedic content which was not added for any bad-faith reason whatsoever. But now that the website's frontpage contains privacy violations, is it automatically harassment for us to link to that site?

The proposed text is sufficiently ambiguous that there's a very real danger people will be tempted to still remove encyclopedia content based on this wording. This wasn't a danger I detected in Will's consensus wording. --Alecmconroy (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence in this version seems to lack a verb.

Alec, and others: I think you're overly concerned about introducing "loopholes", and you might be thinking of this as if it will be a statute or law. It won't be a law, and there are no loopholes on the wiki. You may trust that. No matter what text we agree upon, removal of legitimate encyclopedic material will never be ok. Links that obviously have no value other than as attacks will be removed easily, and gray-area cases will still have to be dealt with as gray-area cases. Nothing that any of us writes into "policy" will change any of that.

If somebody starts trying to apply some paragraph of this policy in a way contrary to the spirit of the policy, then they're wrong, and that's not so difficult to deal with. We just have to deal with it the right way when it happens, and then it won't happen more than once or twice. People with personal agendas about removing links may still try to apply those agendas, and they'll do that no matter what this page says. Whatever it says, they'll try to lawyer, and our job is to not let them. The same is true of people determined to harass others. Whatever the policy says, they'll harass others, and they'll be wrong. They'll try to lawyer, and we won't let them. This is all normal and good.

In the spirit of compromise, since the "pro-BADSITES" people are working with wording that is looser than they might like in explicitly prohibiting links to certain sites, maybe the anti-BADSITES people could agree to wording that is looser than they might like in explicitly probibiting abuse of the policy or "loopholes"? We're arguing over the color of the bikeshed at this point; we could just go ahead and build the darn thing. I think that the the value of settling on something and making the policy stable is greater than any remaining differences between your latest version and MONGO's. At the level of detail that people ought to read policy; they're already indistinguishable. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

All of that said, if I made one edit to the proposed paragraph, it would be to reword the last sentence more descriptively: "Editors have been blocked (banned?) for abusive use of external links." -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I worded it that way to fit into the context and prose of the 'never acceptable' section. Is your change to mine or Guy's modified version?

I hope you can see I am trying to work with looser wording that I would like yet resolve this issue somewhat definitively and for longer than two weeks for all sides. The more discussion that goes on, the better this will get for all sides. I am willing to let this go for a trial run and see how the other side interprets it. If this is used to bludgeon other editors and to remove previously acceptable content, then I will be one of the first back here to discuss and ensure that does not happen again. GTBacchus, do you see anything wrong with that approach? spryde | talk 02:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

My suggested change is to any version that people can agree to; the differences among the 4(?) versions we're currently looking at are insignificant enough that I could support any or all of them. Naturally, if consensus does not support my version of the last sentence, then I'll concede.

What are the differences at this point? As we step through the 4 versions, (1) we drop the phrase "extreme cases of", (2) we pick up the sentence about "sound editorial judgment", and (3) we alter the italicized sentence by adding "linking to" and removing "stalking". I like changes (1) and (2) and I'm not so sure about (3). Why is that sentence italicized, anyway?

The approach you describe, of giving one of these versions a test run, sounds great to me, once we get a good quorum of parties to assent to some particular wording. Shall we line up 4 or 5 of them and invite non-vote-like comments, and see whether there emerges a clear favorite? (We could include Will's one-line version; everything I'm saying here applies to it as well.)

Also, remember this: whichever version we choose will not be the cause of what follows. If someone abuses the policy, it's not because we chose the wrong words; it's because that person is not on board with the spirit of the project. It's not a policy problem at that point, but a behavior problem. Thus, I wouldn't expect to find a policy solution. We don't tinker with the words on policy pages until people get along; we teach people to get along by interacting with them, leading by example, and demonstrating the spirit of the policy through how we apply it. We can do that with any of the proposed wordings. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

For me, the spirit of compromise came two weeks ago when we accepted the inclusion of wording forbidding "linking for the purposes of harassment" without simultaneously introducing a statement explicitly allowing links NOT added for the purpose of harassment. We really didn't need a new rule on this-- plain old NPA and HARASS covered it. And if we did want a new rule, we should have also introduced a rule saying "But links added for encyclopedic purposes have to stay". But what the heck-- if adding one simple sentence would settle this thing, I'd agree to it. Even if it didn't explicitly allow encyclopedic links. So did everyone else.

Not two weeks later, the very same people who voted for Will's wording have come back and demanded an even stronger wording. Until the behavioral problems are settled, the shelf-life of a compromise is two weeks-- and if we all agreed on this wording, what's to stop another edit war in two more weeks demanding even stronger wording? I haven't heard a convincing explanation for what this new policy would cover that the other one doesn't-- leaving me to suspect the explanation might just be an incremental push back toward BADSITES.

Some people want there to be a policy that forbids linking to sites that attack us, even if the encyclopedia requires it. Until we make that policy, they're still going to want that, and they're going to strongly argue to make it policy. But the community's rejected that, and the proponents of BADSITES are going to have to learn to live with it, until such time as that changes. In the mean time, we might as well word our policies as simply and as clearly, to reflect the lack of consensus for such a BADSITES policy. I don't think the expanded wording will actually satisfy any dispute-- the people who want badsite will still want badsites. The people who don't want BADSITES will still not want BADSITES. Until badsites does have consensus, we shouldn't alter our policies in that direction.

Don't get me wrong-- if I'm in the minority view, I won't crusade against the proposed wording. But speaking only for myself, my personal opinion is that isn't an improvement, and that this wording is likely to greatly increase the drama.

If peace and compromise exist, I think it exists with Will's wording. Implement the proposed wording, and not a month will pass before another dispute over its wording flares up-- expanding or curtailing definitions, removing or weakening the "for the purposes of harassment" caveat, etc. --Alecmconroy (talk) 02:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Alec, I didn't mean to imply that you weren't already approaching the discussion in the spirit of compromise. If I came across that way, I apologize. I think everyone in this discussion has made concessions in the spirit of compromise, and I think that's courageous and admirable.

I think I'm understanding your concerns, but I would reiterate to you my final paragraph above: "Also, remember this...". It's very likely that another dispute will flare up, and then the true test will come: how will we deal with it? That test won't be passed or failed based on the wording of this page; it will be based on how we act as human beings in that situation. Our job is to apply whatever wording we pick in the proper spirit. If the spirit is right, the words don't matter, and if the spirit is wrong, no clever wording will prevent trouble. It's not about the policy, it's about us.

In that spirit, can you do me a favor? Can you please stop claiming that this is an incremental step towards badsites? I'm accepting the word of participants that it's not, and I think that, if you wish for them to accept your word that you don't support linking to harassment, then you ought to accept their word that they don't support blanket site-bans. Does that sound fair?

So, let's line up a half-dozen versions, comment on them all, and find a consensus favorite. Then we'll see what happens, and if things don't go well, then we'll cross that bridge. Sound good? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the words of a policy have more weight around here than you may give them credit for-- the difference between a "right wording" (my definition of right) that tends to discourages incidents like Michael Moore and Making Lights the "wrong wording" which tends to encourage such incidents.

That said, I do apologize to anyone if I implied that were "secretly" or "nefariously" plotting to "sneak" BADSITES back in. When I worry about "incremental steps towards BADSITES"-- that's not at all to accuse anyone of badfaith, and I really do apologize if I came across as implying otherwise. In all the hubbub, I sometimes forget to mention-- believe in badsites IS a valid point of view to have, even if it's not my POV, and even if it's a POV wikipedia has right now.

So, when I say people are just going to come back later and ask for the wording to be even closer to BADSITES-- I think the pro-BADSITES people are quite open about that. They have a point of view, a proposed change to wikipedia that they strongly believe in, and they're are going to continue to lobby for that change. There's nothing nefarious about it, there's nothing badfaithy about it-- but we shouldn't think the currently proposed wording is going to settle the dispute either.

I think (correct me if I'm wrong, guys) that most people who favor the proposed wording over Will's wording don't actually support the proposed wording. They just "oppose it slightly less", and so I don't think the proposed wording would actually do any good towards end the dispute.

I truly am willing to put "a good chance at ending the dispute" over "my own best judgment about what would make a good policy". When I supported Will's policy, some people privately advised me to stand firm against it, but I supported the compromise anyway. Now that the very people who insisted on it are railing against it and demanding more concessions-- after only two weeks no less-- I'm left feeling a little like Charlie Brown trying to kick a football.

I say this rather melodramatically, of course, as if my opinion mattered greatly-- it doesn't. I'll respect any consensus that come out, I won't try to edit against it-- the proposed wording just won't have my vote. Not even "vote" since we're not voting, heheheh.  :)

Anyway, I am sorry to the BADSITES supporters if my earlier comment seemed to imply nefariousness or duplicity on your part. A more tactful way for me to put it would be "I don't believe the Proposed Wording stands much chance of being a successful long-term compromise policy". --Alecmconroy (talk) 03:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let's talk about the idea that the right or wrong wording will encourage or discourage incidents such as Making Light and Michael Moore. First of all, I would say that the mere fact of such incidents is not a Bad Thing; indeed, it is through experience that we learn when we need to develop new principles. What we want is mainly to grow into a stable way of dealing with such incidents, and secondarily to document that in written policy.

Now, as for Making Light and Michael Moore, when those link deletions happened, was it really because of the wording of this policy page? I would suggest that the people carrying out those deletions were making an assertion of what they thought our policy ought to be, and that the outcome of those disputes was the community answer to that assertion. Do you really think the community will change its mind if the wording on a policy page seems to be different?

I suspect you may be underestimating the degree to which IAR holds sway over many experienced Wikipedians' understanding of policy. Regardless, I don't think we're saying anything that means we shouldn't line up five or six options in a section somewhere and comment on them. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The Michael Moore Incident could have been very very bad for Wikipedia. I feel like prevented purges of that nature almost approach BLP-like urgency-- as bad as it would for the project for us to accidently publish falsehoods about someone, intentionally purging notable figures from the encyclopedia could be a public relations disaster that would make Essjay look like a bedtime story.

It's true-- it might well be that Making Lights and Michael Moore incidents would have occured no matter what the wording on this page-- but instead of being able to simply block someone for vandal-like deletions, the people who made the deletions could point to this page and say "just following policy". That there were never any consequences (not even a firm and clear warning of "DO NOT DO THAT AGAIN") for the people who caused either incident could be is a recipe for more of the same.

(outdent)I am going to have to ultimately agree with Alec. I am not supporting the new wording as opposing it less. Wikipedians have a boat load of tools, guidance, and history to direct what actions around here are acceptable and not acceptable. Linking to a website that adds content to an article: Historically acceptable. Linking to a website that harasses/out/attacks another user: unacceptable. Those bent on doing the project harm do not care about our tools. They do not care about our policies. They do not care about our history. All they care about is destruction, disruptions, and drama (The three Ds). They will ignore any rules we put into place and not care about any consequences we may impose on them. They will work around it.

I can't help draw a similarity between this debate controversial topics that suddenly prompt new laws. When something bad happens, people immediately start asking "How did we let this happen?" or "Who is to blame?" and "Where did we fail?" These are perfectly valid questions to ask but many times the answer to the last one is often a new law being proposed. The new law is really not of concern those intent on doing harm. It merely makes life that much harder for those abiding by it. I am about to add another section below that may be a radical, yet novel approach to this whole matter. spryde | talk

Well, it is there.

Instead of adding the "not acceptable" phrasing, could the section be moved to the "never acceptable" section up top? I am not 100% sure the dispute is over but from reading all the comments here, we pretty much all agree that linking to something for the sole purpose of harassing/outing/attacking another is not acceptable. The rest of it is the debatable part. spryde | talk 16:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

External Links, Redux

I'm forced to ask the question: What makes harassment by external links different from all other kinds of harassment? Why is it different from on-wiki harassment, harassment by email, harassment by post or by projecting comprimising images of the person on to the moon with lasers? Why is it so different that the usual NO HARASSING PEOPLE becomes insufficient in this one context? WilyD 16:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

We've had problems with harassment in the past, despite our "no harassment" policy, and people have lawyered, arguing that it isn't harassment because the policy doesn't specify that harassment by links is banned, so there's a perception that we should edit the policy to strengthen it and help prevent further such harassment. The idea is that people can be sent packing more effectively and quickly if their behavior is specifically forbidden.

I hope I've just done that argument justice. Since I don't find it convincing, I'm not sure how convincingly I laid it out... -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and failure to enforse this properly in the past may have been an issue. Of course, the undisputed text Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking another editor. now exists in the policy, so what's left? WilyD 15:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions about the proposed policy

After taking time away from WP and relaxing for a bit, I came up with a few questions about the proposed policy. Please take this as a good faith attempt to understand the new proposal better and somewhat less importantly, why this is being rehashed again after two weeks of peace. For simplification, I am going to call the version that existed for two weeks the previous version and the proposal as proposed by MONGO above the proposed version. An attack site for the purposes of the questions below is one that has content that defames, harasses, or outs a editor of Wikipedia.

1. What is the intent of the wording of the proposed version? (Obvious answer but I want it spelled out to ensure I am not missing what people are intending)
2. What is deficient about the previous version?
3. What situation would the previous version allow and the proposed version not?
4. A site has content which would cause it to be considered an attack site. The content that would cause it to be considered an attack site is very small compared to the overall content of the site. The rest of the content has encyclopedic value. Is the site prohibited from being linked under the proposed version if it has value to the encyclopedia?
5. A site has content which links to another site that is considered an attack site. The content that links to another site is very small compared to the overall content of the site. The rest of the content has encyclopedic value. Is the site prohibited from being linked under the proposed version if it has value to the encyclopedia?

I think my questions are reasonable and reflect my (and possibly other peoples) concerns over the proposed version. spryde | talk 05:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm discussing external links to harassment...not external links to websites. Under what circumstances would we need to link to ED or WR? If a real concrete set of examples could be provided, then that would be helpful. From my vantage point...I see no reason to link to those sites...but I also know that such a stance is not likely to be accepted in the wording here. But not spelling out that we do not link to harassment and similar external links has and in the future will likely lead to further drama and turmoil for some of our contributors. I have seen over 25 editors abandon this website after seeing harassment posted on other sites...harassment that includes "outting" real life identities...we should never link to that sort of stuff. Putting that in wording here ensures we can point to that section...and tell someone..here...this is policy...do not do that. Without it, people can just dance around for awhile until we argue on the noticeboards about whether or not the "outting" is an atttack or isn't..."outting" is always harassment unless it is welcome and that is pretty rare.--MONGO (talk) 06:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question, though. If there is something on Wikipedia Review that we would otherwise link to, should we not link to it because of other things on the site? -Amarkov moo! 06:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

My honest response is that I cannot see, aside from use in an arbcom case (in which links could also be emailed anyway) any reason to link to that blog...but I also recognize that this is not acceptable in wording on this policy. Therefore, I created the version that is about external links to harassment. We still have numerous links on Wikipedia to postings on WR...no one lately has removed them and I don't see any major effort to do so.--MONGO (talk) 07:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well there was straight after the most recent arbcom case came back so it depends on what you define as recent. Viridae^Talk 07:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Amarkov, I think the best answer to your question is that we don't know what we would do in such a situation, and that if it arises, we'll have to cross that bridge when we come to it. That would remain true no matter what wording we decide for this policy. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll be looking closely for a response to the question: What situation would the previous version allow and the proposed version not?. That's really the crucial issue. If there's no difference, simpler and less-controversial is undoubtedly the better wording. On the other hand, if the proposed wording would allow deletions the old wording would forbid, then it looks like BADSITES is the thing that just won't die. --Alecmconroy (talk) 07:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Mongo, thanks for answering some of my questions. It makes it a bit clearer (still need the rest answered to get a full picture for myself). You stated "Under what circumstances would we need to link to ED or WR? If a real concrete set of examples could be provided, then that would be helpful." Right now, there is no need to link to those sites or any content on those sites. Nothing they have done meets WP:WEB and the verifiable, reliable sources used to reference the site are shakey at best for meeting WP:WEB. However, if in the future, something should happen that suddenly makes WR or ED meet WP:WEB, then this policy would prevent us from creating that content (I still think it would be highly doubtful that would ever happen but weirder things have happened around here). That is my primary concern over the wording. We are here to build an encyclopedia with accurate content and proper entries.

Your next concern was "But not spelling out that we do not link to harassment and similar external links has and in the future will likely lead to further drama and turmoil for some of our contributors." I agree. There have been times in the past that people have deliberately linked to harassment and outing solely for the purpose of harassing and trolling our users (I have read both arbcoms that pertain to this whole issue extensively). Unless I am missing something (and please point out if I am), those who have done so and done it repeatedly have been met with bans, blocks, and other measures to ensure the integrity of the content is protected (and such our editors as well). My feeling is that we do spell it out under the previous consensus version by putting the simple and concise statement under the "never acceptable" section makes it clear we do not tolerate links that are solely to harass editors. People will ALWAYS dance around the issue on the noticeboards. Trivial things are danced around. People just love to dance around here it seems sometimes. But I would like to think we are smart people. Putting a link to a site to out someone that has zero business being in an article (fails WP:EL, fails WP:RS, fails WP:NPA under previous version) will always get someone smacked down and the person doing it will be smacked as well. WP:DUCK applies here as well albeit less so.

In the particular case linked above, my feeling is your version would prohibit that link when 1. it does add encyclopedic value to the page and 2. it meets our EL policy. The problem comes when there is a small amount of content that appeared after it was linked to the article. In your opinion, how would your policy handle a situation like that? Does the link suddenly lose all value to the encyclopedia? We always re-evaluate sources and links and I was wondering your take on it.

Finally, here is my take on WR. In terms of WP, it currently has little to no value. There is a concerned group of editors there that are hellbent on destroying WP at any cost. We all know this. People not even affiliated with WP or WR are using some of the allegations on there as license to troll here. I once saw it as a valuable tool to critique WP and the whole process. Lately, it fails miserably at it while costing us good editors, time, and content. My feeling is that if a user wants to link to the main page on a user page, that is marginally acceptable depending on the context (there are a few good points deep inside it). It should never be allowed into mainspace as it fails WP:RS and WP:EL. Direct linking to anything there except in extraordinary circumstances (and I mean they found out that an editor is submarining the project and have 50 pages of solid reliable sources to back it up) should be prohibited in all namespaces. Hopefully they will eventually realize what they are doing and change their ways but I do not see that happening anytime soon.

I hope you can see my concerns with your wording and use the above examples as consideration in any rewording. Thanks for your time and the answers to my questions again. spryde | talk 16:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the italized section in which it states Harassment in this context includes but is not limited to: stalking, offsite personal attacks, privacy violations, and threats of physical violence. ensures we don't confuse things as to whether they are citable. I would maybe add unwanted outting of an editors identity instead of privacy violations, since that seems more specific as well to the current proposed wording though. I also thing the caveat that external links that are indeed just critique helps us ID what si and what isn't permissable.--MONGO (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Spryde, you wrote above: "However, if in the future, something should happen that suddenly makes WR or ED meet WP:WEB, then this policy would prevent us from creating that content". No it wouldn't. If that's why you oppose the added paragraph, then you have nothing to worry about. When we add words to policy pages, we are not signing suicide pacts. We deal with things that come up on a case-by-case basis, no matter what anybody writes down anywhere. Wikipedia is not the sort of place where writing a mistaken policy somehow compels you to follow it later.

If, in the future, WR becomes a notable source, then we'll cross that bridge when we come to, whatever decision we might make on this page now. Nobody's hands are going to be tied at any point. Whatever policy we have, we'll apply with mindfulness and common sense. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say, rather than focusing on hypotheticals which are unlikely to occur, it may be very useful to focus on the many abuses of policy that already occurred, justified by false-polices with similar wording. To anyone who supports the new policy over Will's old consensus policy, we have to ask. Under your new policy, Michael Moore criticizes and outs a wikipedia editor for a conflict of interest. Should we go in and delete the references to Michael Moore's site, or do we include them in the article?

WR and ED notability aren't probably gonna happen any time soon. A Michael-Moore like case IS going to happen-- we've already had more instances of these disputes than we can count. --Alecmconroy (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thats not what happened, what did happen is tha MM.com oganised a hate campain against a wikipedia editor which included 100's of abusive emails, edit warring on wikipedia articles and signing the editor up for a morgage! The CoI issue was raised by THF himself (this being the stupid mistake he is punished for!) six months before the MM.com thing started. PS of course this editor was harassed off wikipedia and those that did the work for MM.com on wikipedia got off scott free. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

No Alec, abuses of policy are not justified by anything. Whether or not the paragraph goes in, abuses are not justified, and can be dealt with as behavior issues, not as policy issues. I know you're frustrated with the slowness of that process, but hang on a bit longer. We're making progress, very slowly.

We're not going to delete all michaelmoore.com links, and that's a decision we've already made as a community. The question was asked and answered, through the natural wiki process of BRD, with some static along the way generated by people being uncomfortable with BRD, or by people freaking out that some policy page was going to be a suicide pact. None of that freaking out was necessary, but it's spilt milk; we move on.

When another Michael Moore-like case comes along, we'll deal with it sensibly, no matter what any policy page says. If someone isn't sensible about it, they'll get smacked down, hopefully not too violently. Remember, we deal with everything on a case-by-case basis here; no paragraph will change that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It's true, abuses will tend to get dealt with case by case, no matter what the policy says. But, in sofar as we're going to actually discuss what the policy should be, we might as well consider whether a proposed policies is conistent or inconsensus wit hthe with the previously formed consensuses at MM (and making lights, don murphy, and prof black) or whether the proposed policy is inconsensistent with those prior consensuses. My suspicion is that the proposed policies, interpreted by their writers, would indeed support purging of Michael Moore. If so, the proposed policy fails the giggle test. --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, perhaps that suspicion can be either confirmed or laid to rest through some good-faith discussion. Or, we could try letting the paragraph, which is not worded abusively anyway, go ahead and sit in the policy for a while, and see whether it actually leads to abuse that we can't address by applying good dispute resolution skills. If a couple of people misinterpret a policy here, that isn't addressed by rewording the policy; it's addressed by talking with the person. Nothing about the proposed wording indicates that it will lead the average reader to start abusing it. Any problems will be with individuals we already know about. The struggle you want to have isn't over a policy page. It's over a few individuals' behavior. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

So long as a policy only forbids edits made for the purpose of harassment, I think it can be consistent with NPOV. So, I don't mean to get too terribly shrill about s any versions that have that language. That said-- not all wordings are created equal, and my personal opinion is that Will's single line version is far superior, but of course, that's just my two cents. If a strong consensus did emerge that the most recently proposed version is a better wording, I wouldn't throw fit. :)

I just would be surprised to see that happen. It looks like the people who support badsites would oppose either Will's wording or the proposed wording, whereas the people who oppose badsites tend to prefer Will's wording. Speaking only in generalities, of course-- no subsitute for peopel reading the discussion for themselves and assessing who things are working. --Alecmconroy (talk)

I much prefer Wills version. Short, sharp, top the point and not making a big thing out of a small part of the larger policy. Viridae^Talk

WP:TEA is very strongly recommended, especially for MONGO and his detractors. Also, bear in mind that WP:NPA applies to everybody, including proponents of WP:NPA as well as opponents of WP:NPA.

Disclosure: Yes, I have edited ED (well, for a few hours anyhow). I have edited WP far longer, and a review of the histories of MONGO and his detractors appears to suggest at least some intemperate arguing going on. I do not intend to take sides in this dispute. — Rickyrab | Talk 05:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do people stoop to making personal attacks on the talk page of the very rule banning personal attacks? LOL. — Rickyrab | Talk 05:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Minor Change

{{editprotected}} Hi, i just want to suggest a small change, that is that in the "What is considered a personal attack?", first bullet point, such as against disabled people ought to be rewritten as such as against people with disabilities because some people with disabilites may find it offensive, because it suggests they are defined by their disability. Thanks--Jac16888 (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I've made your suggested edit; thanks for pointing that out. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. — Rickyrab | Talk 07:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

A radical proposal

We already have many policies and guidelines on how to handle when links are present that are solely present to attack/harass/out an editor. We apparently are not using them to root out the problem. If we (meaning the project) are linking to harassment that is there for the purpose to attack/harass/out an editor, why are we not removing the links? If WR has to go, it goes. Why can't we remove the links that are causing this much friction in our community? spryde | talk 04:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you list the policies and guidelines you're thinking of? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Spryde, it's not clear that dormant links in archives somewhere present the same problem as the addition of new links. It is that addition that I believe supporters of the proposed policy wish to prevent. I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

To Will and GTBacchus:

Well, off the top of my head, Will's version of the policy plus...

1. WP:HARASS is obvious to kill any link solely there to harass.
2. WP:NPA without any EL provision is enough to kill any link that used to act as a proxy for the items listed under "never acceptable"
3. WP:PRIVACY kills outing for the sole purpose of outing.
4. WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:EL judge each links viability and appropriateness for any article that it shall be placed on.
5. WP:GAME is applicable to those who try to skirt the above.

Above all, use common sense. WR does not belong in mainspace at all and barely in userspace. ED belongs nowhere. Other links should be judged based on the WP:EL criteria. If a site suddenly turns into another ED, kill the links. If a single post occurs that happens to appear on a site we link to, watch it but don't go edit warring over the articles it is present. This applies to both existing links and any new additions that come to WP. spryde | talk 05:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the policies you cite are sufficient to remove links. The only point of contention might be whether common sense would have us wake sleeping dogs, and likely stir up controversy, by seeking out and deleting dormant links. Just because we can, doesn't mean we have to. If someone tries to lawyer other links in on the grounds that a few dormant links exist, then we can ignore their attempt at gaming. The fact of the sufficiency of existing policy is not necessarily an argument against adding a new paragraph, even if it simply reiterates what's already true. We wouldn't have to let people game that, either. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not completely sure that ED belongs "nowhere". It is closely connected to the 4chan culture and it also smacks a bit of the Habbo site. Furthermore, it is of the Uncyclopedia genre, and someone might notice it as another example of that genre. What prevents me from completely rejecting the idea that "ED belongs nowhere" is that ED DOES contain easily accessible long-term material that can be perceived as a blatant attack on Wikipedia editors. Nonetheless, the fact is that there are still potentially reasons to mention it, due to 4chan connections and Internet pop culture connections. — Rickyrab | Talk 07:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Rickyrab, you are right that there is a potential for ED to be linked in that manner. However, the reason 4Chan has an article and ED not is the fact that is infamy of some 4Chan's forum posts in some of which threaten to blow schools up, kill people, etc. Unless ED ratchets up the drama and harassment to be featured non-trivially in multiple reliable sources, ED will continue to be a site that should not be linked it. Speaking of the 4Chan article, that seriously needs a re-write spryde | talk 13:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a rather odd take, to say that what would be needed for ED to be allowed to be linked is for it to become more abusive, to the extent the outside world notices it. An odd take, but perhaps a true one. Anyway, what purpose is there to prejudging whether particular entire sites are proper to link to under any circumstances? The main point, as far as I am concerned, is whether a particular link is done for the purpose of harassment or not, rather than what site it happens to link to. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Each link needs to be judged on how it adds value to the encyclopedia. As for the odd take, I can't see any reason short of a complete redo of content to a different subject or a massive escalation of abuse for ED to become notable for inclusion on WP. The former is as likely as Osama Bin Ladin turning himself in and saying "My Bad". spryde | talk 13:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

As an example, would editors agree that rhe existing policies would cover removal of links to Brandt's Wikipedia Watch? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Beback (talk • contribs) 06:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Not under the current policy nor under the proposed policy. The editors at the article on Public Information Research have concluded that Wikipedia Watch is a notable website that merits mention in their article. Since the link is not being used for the purpose of harassment, neither the present policy nor the proposed policy would forbid it. --Alecmconroy (talk) 07:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, if I was going around spamming a specific link to WW for the purposes of harassing another user, then that WOULD fall under the policy and could be considered a personal attack. --Alecmconroy (talk) 07:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Alex. In the particular case cited by Will, it is a notable function of PIR and has been in the news so it meets WP:V and WP:RS. Adding WW to any other article would definitely be shaky unless we have a reference that meets WP:RS that explicitly links the article subject and WW. spryde | talk 16:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the key term here is "sole". It's hard to imagine any link that couldn't be argued to have to have some purpose besides harassment. "Yes, it outs an editor, lists her home phone number, and urges people to call her in the middle of the night, but it's not solely a harassment site because it also contains pretty pictures of daisies." So, while we may have policies to handle links whose "sole" purpose is to harass, those links don't seem to actually exist except as hypothetical creations. Every link, no matter how harassing, could be argued to have some other purpose. That's proven in this thread, where the extremely harassing WW is defended as also having a non-harassing purpose. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Will, you are making valid points. There are no 100% clear rules and each link should judged differently. I just went to WW and holy hell that place has changed. The last time I was there in late 2006 there were only basic issues such as plagiarism and the lack of oversight on the front page and not the fire breathing venom against numerous editors that is currently on the front page. At this point my support is waining for a link to that site but I stand by my earlier statements: it has some value as a external link refers to it, we have a section on it, and removing it would be violating our other pillars (NPOV, Encyclopedia). We are here to build an encyclopedia. Unfortunately we have to deal with shitty topics based on our inclusion criteria. Denying these things don't meet our policies damages our reputation by taking the POV that things against us even though they meet our criteria are verboten. The issues I have dealt with are the outlier cases such as Professor Black (one post in a 150+) versus an entire site dedicated to editors (ED). At this point, WW is closer to ED than Black on the spectrum of issues.

To address your specific example of a direct link outing an editor along with threat to welfare or person: Remove. Without hesitation. We do that for direct threats made here on WP. We even call the police for serious enough threats. Once the issue passes (if the issue passes), we will need to reevaluate if we need to link to that site again.

The rest of the scale between that and Professor Black is where we must use sound editorial judgment. We will have debates. We will have further issues. This will be unavoidable even if we have an iron clad policy saying no external links to harassment ever. spryde | talk 01:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected

I've unprotected this. Reading the debate there seems to be a decent amount of common ground and a spirit of co-operation. Let's try not to reignite the dispute. Guy (Help!) 17:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Section move proposal

Knowing this may not be kosher with some people, I am proposing to move the new section from the "Responding to Personal Attacks" section to the "What is considered a personal attack" and tacking it on to the end of Will's proposed version. I propose this as this section does not deal with how to respond to a personal attack but clarifies what is a personal attack. I would claim WP:BOLD and do it but this is a hot topic and I would rather not touch off another edit (and less importantly become a hypocrite for criticizing another user at the same time for a similar action). spryde | talk 17:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable suggestion to me. Others? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Fine by me. Guy (Help!) 20:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless I hear any objection in the next day, I will move it and attempt to come up some sort of intermediate text until WP:LINKLOVE is approved or a similar item is there. spryde | talk 20:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. Could you use better descriptions of the text? Are you referring to the "External links" section? What is "Will's proposal"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I plan on moving section 2.5 in its entirety without modification to be an extension of the existing sentence "Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking another editor." as the text does not deal directly with how to respond to personal attacks. In the place of where 2.5 currently resides, I plan to offer an excerpt from the more stable sections of WP:LINKLOVE (probably the nutshell and some supporting paragraphs) and eventually link there if/once the proposed text is ratified. Does that make it clear? spryde | talk 21:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't object to the move. I object to moving over text from Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment, which is a contentious proposal with no consensus written largely by sock puppets. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Understood. I guess the next discussion is going to be over any text (if any) that should be included in that section. spryde | talk 21:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Moved. I will comment further below. spryde | talk 04:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Concur

I concur with the version regarding external links as shown in this version. So long as this remains in place, I see no reason for my further involvement on this policy.--MONGO (talk) 02:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Seems likely to end up there, but since some people want (or need (or both)) it in a more extended guideline, we might as well make one. WilyD 02:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Sorry, but this is not a winner. The issue of using external links to attack is already in the upper (most likely to be read) part of the policy. There is zero benefit in adding in a separate section discussing it further. This addition is internally conflicted: the sentence "Attacking, harassing, or violating the privacy of any Wikipedian through the posting of external links is not permitted" conflicts with "Inclusion of links in articles is a matter for sound editorial judgment." Which takes precedence? It is still the carte blanche to remove a link anywhere if there is a possibility of a Wikipedian thinking they are harassed by a link. Risker (talk) 03:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll

Should we change from the single sentence version to the new section version? (diff)

• I concur with the version regarding external links as shown in this version. So long as this remains in place, I see no reason for my further involvement on this policy.--MONGO (talk) 02:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC) (this opinion quoted from above --Alecmconroy (talk) 03:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC))

• Oppose. The old version is better, simpler, and less prone to abuse. --Alecmconroy (talk) 03:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. The single sentence says all that's needed. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree that the single sentence covers the issue very well. If some editors feel really strongly about the harassment angle, I would be agreeable to including a link to WP:HARASS in the "see also" section. Risker (talk) 03:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support anything which will bring greater peace. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Nonlinking to the attack sites has been an established policy for a long time, it is good to have it spelled out here Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, Alex, neither the current version nor the proposed version would prevent linking to attack sites. Both wordings allow links, so long as they're not added for the PURPOSE of harassment. The question is whether the new version has a better wording, but both policies are equivalent. --Alecmconroy (talk) 03:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

What you say sounds as if one could link to an attack, as long as one could come up with a good enough excuse why the purpose is not to harass. I think it is more a prohibition on links to attacks, per se, and not a prohibition on links to entire sites. - Crockspot (talk) 03:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

If that's what you want-- a prohibition on all links to attacks, I'd say you need to propose a text that makes that clear. The proposed version I read only prohibits links added for the purposes of attacks --Alecmconroy (talk) 04:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a bit of a loophole that should be closed, no? An attack is an attack. How do we determine the purpose of an edit without being able to read the editor's mind? That seems very gameable. - Crockspot (talk) 04:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. If someone links to harassment in good faith, and if in our sound editorial judgment, we decide to remove the link, then we'll remove it. If they wish to re-add it, they have to overcome sound editorial judgment - a much fairer standard than perceived good intentions. By the way... why are we whispering? -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support sectional version. - Crockspot (talk) 03:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, do you prefer the version Mongo has proposed, or do you wish the issue of links to external sites to be only in a separate section? Thanks. Risker (talk) 04:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. Is MONGO's proposed version the same as the one labelled "New section version"? That was my assumption. - Crockspot (talk) 04:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support this new version - honestly, I for one am satisfied with this compromise version, since while perhaps redundant, it takes into account certain segments of the community's concerns on attack sites, but unlike prior attempts it focuses on the action adding links with the intent to harass rather than the highly gameable blacklist approach of BADSITES, and most importantly notes that inclusion of links in articles is still up to editorial judgment. --krimpet⟲ 04:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Not opposed. Let me explain further. I do not support the text being included as I feel the version we had from two weeks ago was clear, concise, and was able to deal with whatever came our way. I still intensely dislike the way this was introduced to the community. I still don't like the names that I and the other people opposing the new text were called. And the way the debate was framed was taken out of the dirtiest of American political playbooks which to me has zero place on Wikipedia. But I do realize there are some people who feel we need to strengthen the proposal and did listen to the concerns through the vitriol and from those who did calmly discuss. I don't think this version will solve the issues raised but I will not stand in the way of a trial run. If I see it being abused by either side, I will come back to revisit this issue. In the name of all that is holy, let this debate be settled for at least until the New Year. spryde | talk 04:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support - I fail to understand the reason for opposition anymore. Everything I didn't like about the proposed policy is gone. I'm open to arguments as to what's still wrong with it, but at this point, I think it looks great. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Separate section, please. It's a separate and clearly identified problem which has been addressed directly in two arbitration cases. Everybody seems to agree that linking to external harassment is unacceptable, including Dan Tobias in previous discussions I've had with him. There remains the minor issue of preventing the (extremely rare) article space disputes, but even this is addressed, and is addressed in more detail in a descriptive guideline under development at Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment. It's plain that we need to address this issue, and the text as per the new section version seems to me to fairly represent the consensus position, including what is clearly the supermajority view that it's time to achieve closure in this debate. As Spryde suggests, let's try this, and the descriptive guideline, and see how it works in practice. Well, actually, I sincerely believe that this is how it works in practice, but of course I would say that. Guy (Help!) 14:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Once WP:LINKLOVE get stable again and receives consensus, I envision some sort of summary and link to it in the previous 2.5 section area. By keeping the text where it was, it does not fit the context around it as it is not how to respond but what we do not find acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spryde (talk • contribs) 00:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Purpose

Let's discuss this a bit further, because the emphasis on "for the purpose of harassment" bothers me. I am thinking of a hypothetical situation similar to the recent Michael Moore situation. If a personal attack, or personal information, about a wikipedian is present on a page, but the claimed purpose of linking to that specific page is to link to something legitimate on the same page, are we saying that is not contrary to this policy? If so, I think that is a problem. This seems like an exploitable/gameable loophole. In the Moore situation, he had a personal attack and outing information on the main index page of his site. I supported removing links to the index of that site as long as the attack remained on the main index page, and would continue to hold that view. We should not link to specific pages that contain personal attacks of wikipedians, no matter what other legitimate information that page also contains. - Crockspot (talk) 05:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It is. However, see the discussion above. Sound editorial judgment must be used. An established editor adding a link to a page that contains an outing might hold more weight than a SPA or a potential sock account. No matter how we word this, no matter how many examples or caveats we add, there will be someone arguing over why what they did is right and everyone else is wrong. spryde | talk 05:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to sleep now, and will be off wiki until at least tomorrow night, so I won't let this concern stand in the way of the current proposal. But I will leave this as an open discussion, with the possibility of a further minor adjustment in the near future if it seems warranted. - Crockspot (talk) 05:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

A while back, I said I oppposed the proposed change because I felt it was just a stepping stone on a road back to BADSITE. When I did that, I wasn't trying to imply duplicity-- as Crockspot's comment here shows, for some editors, it is indeed a stepping stone to BADSITES. If adopted, we can certainly expect that a further proposed revision to bring the text more in line with badsites. If there's anyone who disagrees with hte proposed text, but is considering agreeing to it as a concession for peace, I wouldn't get your hopes up on that peace lasting too terribly long. --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Alec, if I was unfairly busting your chops over that comment, I apologize. I've got to ask you though, why are you scared of Crockspot? We're going to enforce the spirit of the policy anyway. It can't be gamed. We're going to exercise sound editorial judgment in article space, and we're going to stop real harassment outside of article space. What are you worried about, exactly? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

GTBacchus, if I may...I have no doubt that you personally would exercise sound editorial judgment in article space. There is plenty of reason to believe that others, including other administrators, will do so with a different result. We see Crockspot already suggesting he believes the link deletions for Michael Moore were not only acceptable but required, that he would repeat them, and that he thinks the wording of this section would permit it. We have yet to hear from WillBeBack on this specific variation, but his prior statements indicate that he still believes his delinking to Making Light was appropriate and would be appropriate under MONGO's most recently proposed version which is nearly identical. Now, both of those issues were eventually resolved with sound editorial judgment coming to the fore; but both of these issues resulted in a phenomenal amount of sturm und drang all over the place. And both of these users are respected editors who have demonstrated good editorial judgment in the past; they are simply interpreting the same words in a different way than other respected editors with good editorial judgment. From my perspective, I would like to see at least 20 or 30 people weighing in on this, with most understanding and interpreting this section as affecting only links outside of article/article talk space, with the full agreement that links within articles or proposed for articles must be discussed specific to that article and decisions made based on the applicable content policies. That should, one hopes, result in the discussions staying where they belong, instead of swamping AN/I and AN and Jimbo's talk page, and the talk pages of a dozen other places, every time someone finds a link they perceive as harassing. Risker (talk) 06:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that all happened, but it wasn't because of a policy error of some kind. It's because we're still learning how to deal with things, and we're going to make some mistakes along the line. Sound editorial judgment will win out in the long run, and people who are consistently against that will eventually have to change or go away. If Crockspot is wrong, then no amount of policy editing will make Crockspot right, and Crockspot will have to learn through correction that his interpretation is not in keeping with sound editorial judgment.

Links that could be construed as harassment are still a fairly new thing for us, and you have to expect that the first few cases will be awkward. I think we've learned a bit from that, and I think we'll be better at knowing the spirit of this policy than we were a few months ago. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

As an afterthought, I would also question this "phenomenal amount of sturm und drang." I didn't read about it in the papers. What happened, a few people on the Internet were upset for a few days, weeks even? When ebaum's world put their watermark on ytmnd's Lindsay Lohan picture, it was bigger news than the day Wikipedia delinked MichalMoore.com. Way bigger. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Same here. I would like at least one version be tested and tweak as needed than keep changing things. Enjoy your Thanksgiving spryde | talk 05:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I oppose extending it to ban links beyond those for the purpose of harassment, for the exact same reason Crockspot supports such extension: because it will be gamed by people out to ban links that have a perfectly reasonable purpose and are not there for the purpose of harassing anybody... like, precisely, the link to Michael Moore's official site on the article on him. *Dan T.* (talk) 05:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

So what if it's gamed? Since we do we have to put up with that kind of behavior? If people game rules, we point them to IAR, and we apply the spirit of the rule. Do you not trust us to do that? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally I trust some of you, but given the efforts made by some to purge "attack sites" regardless of their usefulness as a source that doesnt apply very far. Viridae^Talk 06:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

If we put nothing...the policy is gamed..if we put the proposed wording in, it might still be gamed...people (vandals) will still post links to harassment no matter what we have in policy...that's the nature of a open editing environment. But..if we at least have it made clear that we do not permit linking to harassment as that is a personal attack, then the admins can point to that section of policy and clearly state...see...you cannot do that Mr. vandal...do it again, and you will be blocked.--MONGO (talk) 06:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Viridae, the site-ban wording is no longer in the policy, so let's see how that goes, and if people go against their word and still attempt purges outside of the realm of sound editorial judgment, then we'll deal with that. None of us is going anywhere, right? I've watched the culture of this encyclopedia change quite a lot over the last two years, and this case looks like many others that seemed they would never end. Let's try this wording, and let's all be very alert and good-faith and polite and careful, and let's see where it goes. Incremental progress is progress. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I see a big difference between "linking to harassment" and "linking for the purpose of harassment", as big as the difference between a dog and a picture of a dog. The picture shows you what the dog looks like, but it doesn't bark or bite. We "link to harassment" all the time, whenever we describe or discuss real-world phenomena that involve somebody harassing somebody else. That's a world of difference from actually perpetrating it ourselves. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it's a matter for massive paranoia - Viridae's comment implies wide-scale disruption, but there were fewer than half a dozen articles affected. The answer lies in having a properly usable guide for implementation. A policy means it's enforceable and people who try to game it get short shrift; a well-written guideline ensures that the well intentioned don't go off and try to remove all references to disney.com because a Walt Disney employee says on his blog that we suck. Although we shouldn't ignore the problem of well-intentioned but clueless removal of Michaelmoore.com., we should view it in context. We are talking about very small numbers of articles, and a very rapid establishment of consensus for re-inclusion. To allow that incident to dominate consideration of the real-life problems caused in the past by harassment would, I think, be to fall prey to the misleading vividness fallacy. Guy (Help!) 17:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Replying to GTBacchus-- Oh, it won't be the end of the world if this proposed wording gets put up-- I just think it will lead to more problems in the long run. The proposed text IS consistent with NPOV, so, it will be okay, but I think it's a step AWAY from a solution to this-- not a step towards it. Two weeks ago, it actually looked like this was settled-- I can't say the same for this proposed wording-- half the people who support this wording may well be opposing it in two weeks time-- and I'm saying that not based on idle speculation but on their own statements.

Compromise is a good thing, but I worry this proposed wording is just compromise for compromise sake. I just think in some situations, compromise can actually result in more long-term drama than a lack of compromise.

I've been pouring through my brain trying to find an example of this in world history, and the only one I can think of is of course the Munich Agreement, which sucks, because there I go breaking Goodwin's law. So let me reiterate-- Nobody here is a Nazi, nobody here reminds me of Nazis, I'm not calling anybody a Nazi. I promise! :). It's just that-- sometimes a compromise wil only lead to more drama in the long run.

So I'd encourage people to support whichever version they personally feel is best. If that's the proposed wording, that's the thing to support. But if you look in your heart and personally think Will's version is going to cause less problems, go for that. I just would suggest no one support what they themselves oppose in the hope it will bring an end to this dispute. I doubt seriously this dispute will be ending until behavior problems get addressed, and I think this is an instance where anyone who offers to trades their preferred wording in exchange for peace will find that they wind up with neither.

In the long run, it'll be okay either way. It's just a question of how long the long run will be. --Alecmconroy (talk) 08:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Alec, you can call me a Nazi if it helps. I think Godwin was a chump.

I know you've got misgivings about the policy. I know you don't necessarily trust everyone in the room; that's okay. Tell me what you think about this, though: Let's give it another try. The other side has made a step; let's see what happens. This time, we'll all be very careful, and as soon as a situation arises, let's all be there, reminding each other "sound editorial judgment in article space, and be good to each other in non-article space." Let's show that we learned from the last one, and make the next one smoother.

Before you know it, we'll be good at this, and then we can look back and document our good habits on this page, with the perspective of hindsight. That's the order in which most of our policy is developed, eventually. We figure out how to do it, then we write it down.

I truly think we're at a point where we need to stop fiddling with the engine, and start worrying about what we can learn from our experience driving. Our driving failures aren't because of the engine settings; they're because we need to practice driving more.

Maybe they're because we're all Nazis, too, but we're working on that. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

If more people prefer the new wording to the old one, I'm 100% on board with that. It's not THAT bad a wording. It's just that after the "last" compromise, that basically smashed in my mind any idea that this thing will get settled without treating this as a behavior issue. I mean-- 19 edits of reinserting BADSITES back it without discussion or consensus??? I was willing to assume a compromise was possible when the count was 17-- I talked and talked and talked round the issue. But 19 edits is two too many, I suppose, for my assumption of the possibility of compromise.

If it does get solved, so much the better-- but in the mean time, there are some behavior problems that need solving, so I might as well get to work on those. --Alecmconroy (talk) 09:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The removal of links to encyclopaedicly useful supporting materials used in an appropriate context has already been rejected by the community time and again. When you're harrassing someone, that's not allowed. When you're writing an encyclopaedia, that is allowed. WilyD 16:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't expecting to kick off such a gore fest here, but I had a thought today while I was away from wiki. How about, instead of using the words "for the purpose of" we say "perceived as"? This way, we are not reading the mind of the editor who adds the link, or violating AGF by rejecting his "legitimate" reason for posting the link, but deferring to the perception of the person who is being attacked or harassed. Some people may not even care if their home address is on a web page somewhere, and would not perceive it as harassment, so no foul. But if someone posts my home address and instructions to come and kill me on the same page as, say, the cure for cancer, I ought to have the option of objecting and having that link removed. (In my case, I would probably find the cure for cancer to be more important than a feeble threat against my life, as I am perfectly capable of defending myself with extreme prejudice, and may not object at all. But a disabled editor who lives alone in a remote place might rightly wish to have that link removed.) I also have another separate thought about all of this. I have been trying to think of a situation where a link to a site like WR or ED would be legitimately encyclopedic, and I have yet to think of one. If someone can provide such an example, I would be eager to hear it. But that is going down the BADSITES road, which is not my intention. In the Moore case, there are obvious encyclopedic reasons to link to the main page of the site. But in the case where he chooses to post harassment, or further, a death threat (again hypothetical) on his front page, I cannot understand why anyone would object to removing that link temporarily, until the threat is archived or moved to a sub page of the site. - Crockspot (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Among reasonable people, that would be a fine policy. However, despite WP:AGF, one can't always be assured of having entirely reasonable people; there are some who find "harassment" under every rock. If the alleged victim's personal subjective feelings trump everything else, you grant drama queens (and kings) a lot of power over everybody else. Some form of the old FidoNet policy maxim where "Thou shalt not be excessively annoying; thou shalt not be too easily annoyed" might make sense. (But who is to be the proverbial reasonable person to judge these things?) *Dan T.* (talk) 00:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point. Some might find the mere mention of their name to be an attack. On the other hand, using just the word "perceived", without limiting/qualifying it to "perceived by the target" would throw it to more of a consensus perception. If a group of presumably reasonable editors perceive it to be an attack or harassment, then it is. I think that fits in with the "sound editorial judgment" concept, no? - Crockspot (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Agreed with Dan. Up until recently, an editor I interacted with was going around asking for cites for every use of the abbreviation "MS" and was removing the information from millisecond, master of science, etc. Reasonable is in the eye of the beholder. To him, it was perfectly reasonable. To others it was highly disruptive. Each link would need to be individually judged to see if it met the level of severe harassment or mere annoyance. A common example would be the repetition of the SV rumors. At this point should pretty much roll off her skin as too many times they have been mentioned on and off wiki (FYI, rumors should just be ignored in my opinion, WP:DENY and WP:BEANS and all that. Any actions on our part lend credence to those rumors). One item I do think should be removed temporary or permanently are actionable items such as advocating injury or death against editors.

As for linking to ED or WR, I gave a few examples above why they could potentially be linked. One reason in a nutshell was that acrimony was ratcheted up a few notches into actionable threats (ala 4chan). We have an article on 4chan because it has become notable based on some forum postings, general mayhem, and such that made national news (blowing up schools, killing people, etc). The other reason I gave was the content was radically changed. In either sites current form, neither would be linkable as neither meets the level of WP:RS or WP:EL for any article we have. spryde | talk 00:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing semi-protection

I have removed the semi-protection from this page. I don't see the point in blocking new users from editing when the edit warring was done by established users. No anon edits in the last month. 1 != 2 16:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Heh! Fair point. Guy (Help!) 17:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Nutshell is Nuts!

"No Personal Attacks" is in no way the same as "Comment on content, not contributor" - that seems more like Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks--Keerllston 00:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Making no personal attacks includes trying to prevent the impression or "construeability", by assuming good faith (among other basic traits like e.g. intelligence) and focusing on the content (of a message or an edit), not on the editor. I dorftrottel I talk I 16:36, November 25, 2007

Making no personal attacks is part of being wp:civil, and being civil includes trying to prevent the impression of contruability.

Assuming good faith is also wikipedia:good faith - not NPA.

Contstruability does not consitute a personal attack - it constitutes the possibility and/or interpretation of a personal attack. To be considered a personal attack it has to be rather explicit, not a possible, "construed" or imagined interpretation.

As I said, No Personal attacks is not in any way equal nor does it even include to "do not comment on contributor" - not commenting on contributor might soften somewhat - but then calling edits "retarded" or "nationalist" is the same thing.

Personal attacks are both Personal remarks and uncivil. If "Avoid personal remarks" is not policy, this page should not treat it as policy.

I suggest "Do not attack others verbally, criticize contructively and in a civil manner"

--Keerllston 15:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

My wording was suboptimal. I meant that an attack, and its severity, is in the eye of the beholder, and that the most generalised rule of thumb wrt NPA is therefore accurately and succinctly summarised in the Nutshell as the mild imperative relating to our modus operandi: focus on content. Your suggested wording is of course not "wrong", but it's less generalised imo and doesn't quite hit the "main nerve" of what NPA means, and why we have that page in the first place. I dorftrottel I talk I 18:03, November 26, 2007

Might I suggest alternate wording such as "Focus on content, be constructive and civil"?

or on the other hand "Aggressiveness against others is not tolerated in wikipedia" is not true - aggressiveness in the shape of banning/blocking users is in fact policy,

or on the other hand "Violence is not tolerated in wikipedia. Do not be uncivil, take care that your comments are not construable as insults"

--Keerllston 13:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)