Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:14, 28 April 2007

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

Spoken Misplaced Pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestions of self-harm

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

Is this a personal attack

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

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

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

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

False Accusations

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

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

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

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

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

Censoring obscene comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggested addition

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal subsection

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

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

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

Complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is just allowing certain twisted people to gag others.

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

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

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

"Examples that are not personal attacks" boldly edited

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

This is what it said

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

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

And this is what it says now

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

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

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

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

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

saying "but he did it too"

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

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

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

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

Going overboard.

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

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

"Don't Feed the Trolls"

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

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

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

ad hominem

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

Polemics as personal attacks?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is this a Personal Attack?

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

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

Usage of real names

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

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

Proposed Edit (Jimbo quote)

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

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

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

Talk Page Attacks

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

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

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

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

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

Overuse or incorrect use of WP:NPA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't know how to deal with this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed shift in focus regarding remedies

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

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

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

Changes to Remedies

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

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

Substantial revision to WP:NPA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

brenneman 23:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Harrasment Issues

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

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

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

Thankyou.

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

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

Regarding profanity

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

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

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

Removal of userpage content and WP:ATTACK warning templates

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

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

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

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

personal attack noticeboard?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reporting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attack sites

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do we have to go through this whole thing again?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...To cite the Arbitration Committee:

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

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

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

Enduring precedent, inconsistency between sections

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Using a website in the course of a personal attack

I think we should have consensus for this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is an attack site

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed wording

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

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

Some criticisms:

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

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

My Itteration

Here is some text I edited:

Linking to attack sites

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edits disappearing mysteriously

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

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

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

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

Attacks and attack sites

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Existing links awaiting deletion

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

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

—AldeBaer 03:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The edit war here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another trip to the Wheel of Reality

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

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

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

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

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

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics