Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks

Archives
Archive 1 Poll 2004 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 See also the talk pages of the subpages
Subpages
current list of subpages
Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Death threats Wikipedia:No personal attacks/Extension

NPA:External Links should be removed for the moment

Once the arbitration is concluded, the disputed section should be removed from the policy page. Maybe it would be a good policy, maybe it wouldn't-- but as of this moment, it clearly isn't policy-- i.e. it is highly disputed, and is not, in its current form, not supported by consensus. --Alecmconroy 01:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you had the chance to read my recent re-write? Privatemusings 01:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The sentence you added is true enough "Linking to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against Wikipedians is controversial, discouraged, and many editors consider it to be in violation of this policy." But the remainder of the section just reiterates BADSITES basically, and doesn't have consensus.

Not to debate what the policy should be here-- but whatever it should be, it doesn't seem like the current text truly has consensus. There's widespread argument, edit waring, and arbitration over the text-- it doesn't have consensus right now, it isn't part of Wikipedia policy, and we should get it off the page until there's some policy that DOES have consensus.

When a policy on external harassment does achieve consensus, it makes sense to summarize it here. But first you get consensus for a policy change, then you institute it / incorporate it in pages that are listed as Policy. Inserting something that doesn't yet have consensus and then edit warring over it-- that's not the way to do it.

Granted, while arbcom is in progress, it makes sense to freeze the page. But I think we can safely predict that the arbcom decision isn't going to be one which makes this text have consensus. On the other hand, maybe BADLINKS will have achieved consensus by then, in which case we can just change the text here accordingly. --Alecmconroy 03:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Per the above, i've removed the section. Primairly my motivation is to encourage participation in, and discussion of, the new policy page. Privatemusings 08:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this removal. The content has been there for a long time and there has been little input or discussion about this removal. I'm going to restore the material pending a more significant consensus to remove it. Its presence should not affect the ongoing drafting at Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment, and if this material is superceded by another policy then obviously it will be removed at that time. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you know where consensus was formed to add the section in the first place? Could you link it for us? Not trying to be contrary, I'm actually unaware. Picaroon (t) 19:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not aware offhand. But I do see that the text has been here since April. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I won't revert because any escalation is a bad thing, but I would note that consensus is necessary for inclusion, not the other way around. Also, I'd like to encourage as much participation as possible in the policy proposal which renders this passage redundant. Privatemusings 21:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

purely on logic if there is no agreement on whether there is consensus for this policy, then there is obviously no consensus for it. It should be removed. Unless perhaps someone can show that there was consensus for it when it was added. As i remember, it was challenged from the first. DGG (talk) 03:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Look at the talk page and you can find debate from the very beginning. Just look at the edit history and you can find many removals even at the very beginning. [1][2] The NPA#EL proposal policy just hasn't achieved consensus as of this time. After the arbcom case is concluded, one of the first orders of businesses would be to restore NPA text to only the parts that have consensus, and to start over trying to build consensus for a policy about the links of this kind. --Alecmconroy 04:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If other editors agree with me that this section would be better omitted for the time being, then I would encourage them to remove it. I would also recommend that all editors here stick to 1RR as a good way of ensuring calm debate rather than any warring. Privatemusings 04:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not approipriate for a couple of editors to question a policy and remove a big chunk a day later. This material has been inthe polcy since April and should not be removed lightly. If there's no consensus for this then I don't see how there will be a consensus for Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment. If folks want to re-write this policy then they should do so properly, by soliciting opinions at the Village Pump, or an RfC. This is virtually a "stealth" deletion, made with little discussion and based on a little input. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the evidence that this has consensus, or has ever had consensus? So far, all you've offered is that the edit-warring over this text has been going on since April. That the dispute has been longstanding is not evidence that the dispute does not exist.

It's fine to say it should be policy-- as you well know, there's lots and lots of debate over this. But the debate DOES exist-- it's just not credible to claim that there's no major debate or controversy over this section. The section isn't just disputed, it's highly disputed. --Alecmconroy 05:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll make the ridiculous point that vandalism often stays in articles for a very long time, but that doesn't mean it should be there. Another way to put this is "Just because it remains doesn't make it valid." This debate has been somewhat of a war of attrition from the start and I've nearly gave up arguing or questioning any position.

I can only speak for myself in saying that I was naive enough not to edit war over it and hoped that discussion would take place on talk. Currently, I'm not sure if I am still that idealistic or just fed up with it. I participated in some of the discussion that took place and followed nearly all of it; I would say that this does not have consensus. As a matter of fact, many that edit warred over it got to a point where they hardly participated in talk page discussion. MONGO was commendable in that he at least had the courtesy to comment here and not ignore it completely. When I asked about the lack of discussion (when making substantial changes to this section), I was told that, among other reasons, that people aren't participating to protect themselves from harassment and that it is foolish to debate anyway because "attack sites cannot be tolerated" (my paraphrase, the response I got from MONGO is here) I'd say that if points are questioned over and over again by a substantial amount of editors there was no consensus, but I didn't argue about it then and I probably wouldn't now. It's such an emotional issue that I've found it extremely difficult to have a productive discussion. Or maybe all things on Wikipedia are like this and I just haven't been around long enough to figure that out.  :-) daveh4h 06:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to changing policy. But if it's going to be changed, whether by addition or by omission, then let's have a fair discussion, with proper notification of the community. If we need to determine the consensus we can hold a survey. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so, we agree that a consensus is needed amend policy. You just added in a section entitled NPA#External Links. Where is your proof that that addition to the policy is supported by consensus? --Alecmconroy 08:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Policies are not edited in the same way as articles. There's a necessary presumption in favor of the status quo applies. It is disruptive to have editors remove long-standing policy text and then demand proof of a fresh consensus in order to re-insert what shoudn't have been removed to begin with. Please don't change policies without first eliciting community input first. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see where you're misunderstanding me. I'm not demanding proof of a fresh consensus-- I'll accept any proof that the text has reached consensus and is no longer particularly disputed. But it has never had consensus-- as best as I can tell, it hasn't even had a majority.

Put another way-- there is a portion of this page that seems to be unsupported by consensus. The evidence I can point to, in order to prove that portion of the policy is disputed, is multifold. I can show you BADSITES, which was defeated using essentially identical langauge. I can show you the Arbcom case, where many many many people have disputed this section. And I can show you the edits wars that have occured on this page over the dispute text, and I can show you the debate that has occured. And if none of that convinces you, I can point out that if a number of editors are having a dispute about whether or not there's a dispute-- that's pretty good evidence that there's a dispute.

NPA#EL IS disputed. It does not have consensus at this moment. It is not policy. Maybe it should be. Maybe someday it will. But as of today, it is not. --Alecmconroy 09:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

So to prove the point why don't you post some notices in relevant spots, like the Village Pump and the ongoing RfAr, saying that you believe there's no consensus for a policy prohibiting the harassment of editors and that you're intending to remove the text from WP:NPA. That seems like the logical and reasonable way to proceed with a major policy change. Though you contend that it isn't a policy, it's been there for the past six months. It's sensible to spend six days discussing its removal. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't help things much to describe the proposed removal in biased, emotional language like "no consensus for prohibiting harrassment of editors", any more than it would to use biased, emotional language in the other direction like "no support of repressive suppression of politically incorrect links". Part of the problem is that both sides are trying to frame the issue in highly loaded ways that prejudice the results, and I've been one of those doing it; it's unavoidable, I guess, when you're passionate about something. What's needed is a statement of the dispute in a calm, rational manner that can be brought up as a survey question to determine where the true consensus lies. *Dan T.* 12:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's the proposal here. Folks aren't proposing to alter this provision, but to delete it entirely, and without any community input. As for passion, considering your history of posting links to your essay at every opportunity I'd say you're the most passionate advocate involved in this matter. If folks here actaully support he measure they're drafting, Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment, then the best thing would be to further it towards being a policy that supercedes this one rather than working to delete this first. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent)We're making this far more complex then it needs to be. Forget, for a moment, that there's a new proposed policy, forget about the arbcom case, etc.

Let's just consider NPA#EL, right now. Does it have consensus or not?

If you think it DOES have consensus, what is your evidence? If you think it does NOT have consensus, then it should go.

--Alecmconroy 18:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Your initial comment that started this off was "Once the arbitration is concluded, the disputed section should be removed from the policy page." So you assert a linkage between the ongoing ArbCom case and this policy. As it happens, the ArbCom case has not concluded so your own deadline hasn't even been met yet. Regarding finding consensus for an exiting polcy, can you prove there's a consensus for WP:NPA? It's not so easy to go back after months or years and determine what was what. The fact that the text was in the policy following a long discussion indicates that there was a de facto consensus to retain it. What's clear today is that there was no effort to inform the community of a plan to alter a core policy, and the deleton was made less than a day later after it was mentioned. A deletion is a change to a policy and shouldn't be made without reasonable notice and discussion. Is there a problem with letting the community know that there's a plan to remove all prohibitions on linking to harassment? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"Can you prove there's a consensus for WP:NPA" Sure I can. For one, nobody's disputing it-- whereas NPA#EL has been disputed by lots and lots of people in lots and lots of venues (as, of course, you well know). If you check the archives, you'll find ample discussion in support of it, along with a poll that had vast support for making NPA policy. In contrast, NPA#EL has no such poll or consensus in discussion, and when a functionally-equivalent policy was proposed at BADSITES, it was rejected.

There's no such thing as a "de facto consensus". There is no "home base" or "statue of limitations" where if you can just edit-war long enough, something becomes policy. Ya really do have to have consensus.

If you feel like this has just all been sprung on you out of the blue, then feel free to take a few days to try to generate consensus. As long as the arbcom case is in progress, I don't feel an overwhelming need to press the issue, just out of courtesy. But if you are going to argue that this section is supported by consensus, you should go about demonstrating such a consensus now. Personally, I think there's been ample discussion about this over the past few year that we all know it's highly disputed-- but if you feel a few more days will change that, have a few more days, after which you should be prepared to demonstrate a consensus or accept its removal.

Having looked over the whole issue, I can no evidence that NPA#EL is supported by consensus, nor have you offered any. (Nor have you even overtly asserted that it is, indeed, supported by consensus.) If I'm correct and the section isn't supported by consensus, then it is coming out-- it's only a question of when. --Alecmconroy 23:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact that something sat in policy for months is not evidence of a de facto consensus - it's evidence that the pro BADSITES group won the war of attrition. Being the last one standing isn't the same as having convinced everyone to agree with you.

On the other hand, there's no need to remove the section either, as it's doing no harm. I would suspect anybody trying to remove or re-add the section of silliness. As I've said from the start, the inclusion or exclusion of that paragraph doesn't affect policy one bit. Its inclusion doesn't protect anyone, nor harm anyone, nor does its exclusion protect or harm anyone.

Especially in its most recent form, what does it matter? It's practically content-free. What's at stake here, for those who would remove it? How about for those who would keep it? What do we imagine we're arguing over? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

For me, the main concern is that we are trying to adopt a policy that might have consensus. Doing so will be much easier if it's clear that there currently is no policy whatsoever on this-- not two conflicting policies, nor one currently adopted policy and one proposed change to that policy.

Additionally, by just allowing the text to sit here in the policy page, that only serves to validate it. Eventually, we see people like Will arguing that it's mere presence on the page is proof that it is, in fact, policy. There's no emergency hurry, but this sort of policy making needs to stop-- edit warring on an existing policy page when a proposed new policy is rejected. It's gone on since April, which I think is more than enough indulgence. --Alecmconroy 00:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Policy is what it is. There should be no question that policy includes anything unreasonable, nor any doubt that it includes whatever is reasonable. The existence of a paragraph on WP:NPA shouldn't get in the way of developing an independent policy, but such policy will be much better if it's simply a description of existing good practice. Most if not all of the dispute here comes from people believing in word-magic that doesn't really exist.

I'm curious as to what exactly is disputed about the paragraph in there now. It reads to me like a description of common-sense... so what's the problem? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the current version is certainly far closer to something that could be supported by consensus than earlier texts that have been here. But it's still seems to imply that merely insertingo otherwise appropriate links to controversial sites is a violation of NPA.

The word magic is a useful point, and I wouldn't be inclined to stress over it if the NPA#EL section hadn't already caused substantial disruption. So, for example, not to pick on Will, but in the past, he and other editors have felt comfortable purging dozens of links based on NPA#EL, then edit warring over the deletions. Substantial disruption over multiple incidents-- the people who run the website he purged are very upset by the whole thing. He hasn't been warned for his past actions, he hasn't promised not to repeat the behavior in the future, and the existence of the NPA#EL fauxpolicy is why.

Now, that one site isn't just the issue. The past is the past, but the future is the issue. We need to get some sort of a consensus on the whole thing, and the very first step to that is recognizing that NPA#EL does not itself have consensus in its present form-- and more than that, recognizing the inappropriatenss of forming new policies just by edit-warring existing policy pages. Until we get that cleared up, nothing else will ever get solved, I would think. --Alecmconroy 00:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The first step in creating a survey is deciding on the phrasing of the question. I propose: "Shall we delete Wikipedia:No personal attacks#External links?" Is that accptable? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

A survey would be one way to do things-- so long as we're clear that something NEEDS consensus to be policy, and proposed policies which do not have clear consensus either way are NOT policy. Ultimately, I don't really think a full-fledged survey is necessary-- it's most clear from all the discussion at BADSITES and Arbcom that the attack sites policies embodied by the earlier NPA#EL didn't have consensus.

If you would want another survey, I'd suggest proposing the text you want to reside here, and then seeing how that goes. "Should we delete" might be a little problematic, since most people feel we should eventually get SOME sort of policy on this. A nice straightforward "I propose X, what do you think" would work though.

Alternatively, we could just put something totally uncontroversial up saying that the applicability of NPA to articles has been a much-discussed subject, no clear consensus has emerged yet, and then directing people to BADSITES and the ARBCOM case for a more thorough discussion. --Alecmconroy 02:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Id assumed we'd mention the text in the survey. I'll post a survey request tomorrow and post notices in relevant pages. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it, here beith my reasoning: as worded the section means nothing. "Some people think it's against this policy" shouldn't be in a policy page; something either is against policy per community consensus or it's not. If there's not significant support to have it stated outright that "this is bad and you will be blocked", as is clear here and on a number of pages, it shouldn't be in there at all. The material was also very open-ended regarding what an attack site is. I think the link to the developing policy should stay though, as that page is sure to be more explicit on defining attack sites.

Actually, "some people think it's against this policy" is great in a policy page. We strive for our policies to be descriptive as opposed to prescriptive, and indicating what people think is a fine way to be descriptive. "You will be blocked," is inappropriate in a policy page. "People have been blocked," is much better. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no. How would you like to walk around a town where "some policemen think it's illegal to jaywalk"? What is some people's opinion belong in a WP:ESSAY not in a WP:Policy statement. We don't allow this sort of WP:Weaseling in articles because we know it's problematic. That goes doubly for policy. -- 67.98.206.2 17:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia policies are not laws, and should not be thought of as laws. I'm not suggesting putting opinion into policy. I'm suggesting putting in the factual observation that people have, at times, been blocked for certain behaviors. Others have not been blocked for similar behavior, therefore it would be inaccurate to claim that anyone using links in a certain way will be blocked.

As for walking around a town where some policemen think it's illegal to jaywalk, I do it every day. Yesterday, I jaywalked right in front of a cop. He didn't care. Neither Wikipedia nor life is a formal system. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the concern about "some people think" language is that, although true, it sort of circumvents the consensus process. What's needed is to reach some agreement on the basic principles about the subject. Is it okay to insert links for the purposes of harassing people? Is it okay to insert an otherwise appropriate links? etc. Simply saying "Some people think" leads to unending disagreement and disruption among people who both feel they're doing their best to implement the policy.

I would feel much better with a statement "Some people think the NPA policy_should_ forbid links..."-- i.e. saying "we don't have a consensus for this yet, but there is a group of people who want there to be one". --Alecmconroy 01:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Though I'm disappointed that someone charged with teaching the young would jaywalk, GTBacchus otherwise makes a lot of sense. Still, a re-write to consider the intentions of would-be linkers would be useful I think. I'm gonna have a go at it. Milto LOL pia 02:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

So rewritten. Comments? One thing I'll disagree with GT on is the appropriateness of the wording before, regarding "some people think it's in violation of this policy" - maybe would "some people consider it to be an attack" be better? Then it sounds like the opinion on the posting of such links is ambiguous rather than the policy... I wish I could word that better. Anyway, how do people feel on the new version? Milto LOL pia 02:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Big improvement. I think (hope)the text that currently is up as of right this moment is completely non-controversial, in the sense that-- everyone can agree that the sentences it says are true. Some people do consider links to be attacks, posting a link with intent to harass is prohibited, people should try not to post such links if they can help it,etc. I _think_ all those points are undisputed, right?

Obviously, the text itself is going to be a little controversial, since some editors would prefer a text that goes beyond this. But, keeping in mind that some people will want more statements-- 'can we agree that the statements in this version are noncontroversial??? '--Alecmconroy 03:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Meatpuppets

I've got a random question: is suggesting that two people are meatpuppets considered a personal attack? Ksy92003(talk) 23:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Depends on whether they're in or out of favor with the ruling clique. *Dan T.* 00:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean? For example, the comment that I'm referring to, one that I left and Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs) told me via e-mail (he's currently blocked) that it was, reads as follows:

I didn't do a thing wrong here, and you were the first to make a comment not related to the topic, so I haven't a clue why you're directing all the blame at me. Maybe it's because you and Chris are very good buddies and always side with each other and you want to defend him by making false accusations towards me, or at least that's what it seems like to me.

Ksy92003(talk) 00:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Calling another user a sockpuppet, meatpuppet, vandal, etc.. is acceptable and is not a personal attack if you have solid evidence for your allegation. Bandying those words around without basis may or may not technically be a personal attack, but it should be avoided regardless as it just poisons the atmosphere. Picaroon (t) 01:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

In this situation, I didn't have any solid evidence. All I did was raise the suggestion based on the fact that, by Chris' own admissions, he has conversed with Pats1 greatly via AIM, especially during times of Chrisjnelson blocks, as he has a couple times asked to talk to him via AIM when he was blocked, and I thought that the possibility existed. I didn't accuse them of being meatpuppets, and thusly, I didn't think that it was wrong. Ksy92003(talk) 03:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC: External links to harassment

Shall we delete Wikipedia:No personal attacks#External links, the current prohibition on external links to off-site harassment that is the subject of an ongoing ArbCom case? 22:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Previous version:

• Links to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against Wikipedians are not permitted, and should be removed. Such removals are not subject to the three-revert rule, though administrators may disagree over whether or not a particular link qualifies for this exemption. Attacking, harassing, or violating the privacy of any Wikipedian through the posting of external links is not permitted, and those who do so deliberately or repeatedly may be blocked. As with personal attacks, extreme cases of harassment by way of external links can be grounds for banning.

"PrivateMusings version" (note: this excerpt was earlier erroneously attributed to BenB4):

• 'Linking to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against Wikipedians is controversial, discouraged, and many editors consider it to be in violation of this policy. Many editors agree that removal of such links is not subject to the three-revert rule, though they may disagree over whether or not a particular link qualifies for this exemption

Miltopia version:

Linking to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against Wikipedians is discouraged, and is considered an attack by some Wikipedians. Editors may disagree over whether or not a particular link qualifies as a link to off-site harassment. Posting such a link with intent to insult or otherwise attack an editor is prohibited. As a matter of courtesy, editors should consider refraining from even good faith linking to such sites unless such a link is necessary to further discussion of an encyclopedic issue or is used as a source in an article. As with personal attacks, extreme cases of harassment by way of external links can be grounds for banning.

When other editors link to sites that may be inappropriate on these grounds, remember to consider the intentions of that editor above all. Appropriately assuming good faith can prevent needless escalation of a dispute, or other problems caused by misunderstandings.

Views in favor of retaining the prohibition on linking to external harassment

• There is widespread support for limiting the harassment of Wikipedia editors. Linking to off-site harassment is an extension of making on-site personal attacks. The current ArbCom case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites, finds that there is support for a policy which prohibits such links. While a potential replacement policy is being drafted at Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment, that proposal is not mature and has not been approved. Until a better policy is approved, we should retain the current prohibition on linking to external harassment. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Linking to an off-site attack makes the article about the person and ourselves instead of the subject of the article. It promotes drama, adds nothing to the project, and discourages those who are contributing real content. There is wide support for this, and the language should be kept here until it is replaced by the new policy. There are edge cases here as everywhere else, and those are best handled by reasonable behavior, not slavish rule-following. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• One of the big problems with Wikipedia is that we are too tolerant of trolling. Even blatant vandals are given 3-4 strikes before we block them. The end result is that countless hours are spent on nonsense like this and meanwhile this kind of SICKENING LIBEL doesn't get reverted for SIX WHOLE HOURS [3]. No, we shouldn't link to attack sites. No, we shouldn't tolerate trolling. Far too much time is spent arguing about how vile it has to be before it's an attack site and not enough time is spent worrying about the attacks here. Quit wasting time defending the indefensible and do something useful. --B 15:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Most external attacks on editors are aimed to influence content by putting pressure on editors and administrators. Wikipedia has every right to prevent that from happening. The alternatives to the current version are mealy mouthed and weak. There is no valid reason for allowing links to personal attacks on editors. Most such links are already prohibited by various other policies, including WP:EL. This policy makes it loud and clear that Wikipedia will protect its volunteers from harassment, and will not allow itself to be manipulated, or its neutrality compromised, by external efforts to influence content. Despite all the yammering about NPOV, in point of fact the very aim of these attacks is to undermine NPOV.--Samiharris 15:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• I support keeping the prohibition. I also think that BenB4's suggestion above should be stricken, as he is the banned sockpuppet of a banned user, and his contributions are not welcome to the project, and are subject to deletion, per the banning policy. - Crockspot 16:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• The scorched-earth, unperson, suppressive person policy towards any ideas believed to originate with a banned user is unbecoming of a community devoted to free inquiry. *Dan T.* 00:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Also, the names were somewhat arbitrary, based just on who had the last edit of the version cited. I don't know if BenB4 is the one who wrote the policy that bears his name or not. WillBeBack didn't write the WillBeBack version, for example. --Alecmconroy 00:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Right, in fact, the version excerpted above wasn't even present when BenB4 made the linked edit. It was the next edit by Privatemusings which is called "the BenB4 version" above. No big deal except for the banning part. Rdp45 01:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support and well. There must be some basic protection for our editors in place. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support. It's worth noting that the intent of the editor who posts links to harassment is not relevant in determining whether or not the links should remain, but only in whether or not to block the editor. If someone puts arsenic in the Christmas Cake because he doesn't know it's poison and he thinks it will improve the flavour, then you don't put him in jail, but you certainly don't eat the cake or serve it to others. The whole "intent" thing can be abused as well, with trolls pretending to act out of concern, in order to post their links. ElinorD (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Are you seriously claiming that links to information that hurts some people's feelings is in any way comparable to poisoning them with arsenic? *Dan T.* 23:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• No, of course not. But I might well reply by asking you if you really think that exposing people to threats of physical violence, sexual harassment, and attempts to get them fired from their jobs is the same as merely "hurting people's feelings". I am claiming that if something is likely to harm people, we try to prevent that harm, even if the person who did that something didn't intend harm, and that I used the example to help some people who seem to have extraordinary trouble in understanding that. I wonder do you really think that trying to get someone fired from their job is on the same level morally, and on the same level with regard to the damage done, as telling them that you think their nose is too big. ElinorD (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• And of course I don't favor getting anybody fired from their job or exposing them to physical or sexual harm... and I don't care about the size of anybody's nose. I do, however, believe that claims about links from here to any site actually causing any of these sorts of harm to occur are grossly exaggerated. *Dan T.* 00:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• And you say that having any consideration of good faith, etc., is prone to abuse... but having a draconian no-links-under-any-circumstances policy has proven to be abundantly prone to abuse, as shown on the evidence page of the arbcom case. *Dan T.* 20:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• ElinorD, you'll never be able to engineer Wikipedia process in such a way that no troll can ever try to take advantage of it. That's what trolls do. That's why people sort those who claim to have good intent out into good editors and troublemakers. Considering a person's good faith is definitely and obviously important, and nothing in the version you're reverting away from doesn't say anything about leaving bad links in anyway. Milto LOL pia 21:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support...Wikipedia doesn't exist for any purpose other than writing and maintaining this encyclopedia...if you are here for a purpose other than that, I suggest you try a blog.--MONGO 17:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• That principle is a double-edged sword, since it wouldn't give much favor to people on either side of the issue who make big fusses about adding, removing, retaining, suppressing, or doing anything else pro or con regarding links, for any reason other than an encyclopedic one. *Dan T.* 17:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you and the others who keep pushing to link to everything here to write an encyclopedia? All your time seems to be dedicated to trying to permit linking to websites that attack our editors. If that is all you have to offer this project, then I suggest you find some other website to play on.--MONGO 19:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Is that a (gasp) personal attack, on the talk page of the policy against personal attacks? Oh, the irony... *Dan T.* 19:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Did I "out" you? Seriously...do you have a purpose anymore aside from this neverending battle to be able to link to some of these capricious websites?--MONGO 19:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobody can "out" me since I use my real name openly. My stats show 5058 edits in main article space out of a total of 8547, so I'm still in a state of having done more edits directly in the encyclopedia than in peripheral stuff to it, though I'm sure my percentage has suffered in recent months due to my getting drawn into this silly debate to stop needless censorship. *Dan T.* 19:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Well, of course, yes, the linking to external harassment (in the terms of personal attacks and revealing real life identities, etc.) should be prohibited, but only the link to that material; not the rest of the site, its champions, and anything else with a passing resemblence. Everything else should be considered under WP:RS. LessHeard vanU 20:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

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

• Support a sensible, non-hysterical version that is concentrated on WP:ENC rather than fruitlessly crusading against trolls. Milto LOL pia 21:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Views in favor of deleting the prohibition on linking to external harassment

• Any sort of link ban, however worded, has been used as an invitation to overreaction on the part of some editors and admins, and the 3RR exception is an invitation for edit warring. The milder wording above is unobjectionable to me on its face, but doesn't seem to be able to stick before somebody insists on putting "more teeth" into it. Some sort of principle against using links for the purpose of harrassing somebody is fine (we don't want harrassment anywhere, any way... on a boat, with a goat, here, there, anywhere, or with a link), but it seems impossible to express this as part of policy without it being extended and misinterpreted in all sorts of ways that suppress legitimate commentary and criticism, so we're best off without any such explicit provision. Genuine, serious harrassment can always be dealt with no matter what the policy says. *Dan T.* 23:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm OK with the Miltopia version above. *Dan T.* 15:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

    Just one comment, Dan. You say above that "the 3RR exception is an invitation for edit warring." I would reply that it takes two to edit war, and there's no excuse for it in any policy. If you add material that someone removes, and you re-add it without first addressing the problem in a discussion, then you're in the wrong, no matter what any policy says, anywhere. There is a way to deal with conflict here that is both sanctioned and effective, and it doesn't involve anything that resembles edit-warring. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

    I actually agree; I refrain from edit-warring myself. However, giving one side of a "war" an exception to 3RR while holding the other side to it is just asking the first guy to keep reverting forever, which isn't a good thing even if the people on the other side of the war aren't being very good themselves. *Dan T.* 19:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Absoloutely, as per Dan's reasoning. Linking to a personal attack in the form of a personal attack is still just that, an attack which fits perfectly well with the rest of NPA without having to clearly assert it. It is a logical extension of the policy. However as soon as it is inserted into the policy, it gets hijacked for purposes that lack widespread community support (see WP:BADSITES) and are not logically part of a policy on personal attacks. We are better off without it. Viridae^Talk 07:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Linking is not special. Linking for the purposes of harrassment is already forbidden by NPA without any work. Linking for reasons unrelated to harrassment is only being done for encyclopaedic purposes. WilyD 16:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• A link to an external site for purposes of harassment is in itself a personal attack, and we can treat them as we would any other personal attack. A special prohibition on sites like this only opens up the potential for abuse, edit-warring, and even POV-pushing; the community already recognized this and rejected the failed BADSITES proposal for this reason, yet somehow more or less the same verbiage made its way here into WP:NPA, and indeed a vocal portion of our community has been consistently and systematically abusing it to quash legitimate concerns and constructive criticism all in the name of "no personal attacks." --krimpet⟲ 18:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, of course, yes, the linking to external harassment (in the terms of personal attacks and revealing real life identities, etc.) should be prohibited, but only the link to that material; not the rest of the site, its champions, and anything else with a passing resemblence. This is already covered elsewhere on NPA. Everything else should be considered under WP:RS. LessHeard vanU 20:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

None of the above

• The principle that editors shouldn't harass each other by posting links either is good, but the implementation is questionable. Using a paragraph that starts with equivocation like "many editors agree" but ends with immunity to the three-revert-rule and banning? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

As the editor who tweaked the more prescriptive text into the form above, I'm happy enough that it's clear about the status quo. My main priority would be to encourage all editors over to the policy proposal page, and I also mildly agree with the perspective that because of the work there, this para should be removed as redundant.

That's a firm 'don't really mind' then. Privatemusings 22:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: I've changed the text above to what was there before the undiscussed changes on October 1 [4], which I'd missed. This may change the views of you or AnonEMouse. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• The text makes it appear that linking to such a site at anytime, anyplace is a banning offense. The text should make it clear that linking to such a site for the purpose of engaging in a personal attack against another Wikipedian is prohibited and that linking to sites, any sites, for article content purposes, or in debates on the merit of such a site, doesn't constitute a personal attack. Linking to controversial sites in article space would be subject to the Reliable Source, Notability, and other content policies. Cla68 23:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This process, whilst no doubt intended to usefully address the matter in hand, could unfortunately be prone to causing productive debate to fork. I'd encourage editors to also contribute at the arbitration case, and at the policy proposal page. Privatemusings 23:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

A personal attack is a personal attack. The use of links (internal or external) to make a personal attack do not change that simple statement. There has to be a target of the personal attack for a link to be a personal attack. Making a personal attack using links is no different than making a personal attack using one's own words. The penalty to an editor making a personal attack using a link should be absolutely no different than the penalty for making the personal attack using one's own words. A link to material in some archive or talk page or project page or article unrelated to the supposed target of the personal attack is NOT a personal attack; removal of links from those areas should be under the auspices of WP:EL and this policy should have no comment on such link removals. I would propose a single sentence in the list of types of personal attacks that says that using links (internal or external) to make a personal attack is unacceptable. Risker 23:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

In terms of policy, I so far agree with the general shape of the proposed new policy, Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment. In terms of the text on this page-- the current text never went through the consensus-getting process-- it's just been editwarred to the point of attrition. It doesn't have consensus, it is highly disputed, it is not policy. It should be removed and replaced with something completely un-objectionable (like Risker's text), or a link to other policy proposals, or a summary of a policy that has achieved consensus (if one exists). --Alecmconroy 01:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC) The Miltopia version listed above also works for me. --Alecmconroy 11:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

But we've essentially agreed that Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment doesn't actually have any purpose beyond what's already covered in existing policies.[5] Why replace a useful policy with an pointless one? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

We have to replace the BADSITES wording here because it doesn't have consensus, has never had consensus, and I presume never will have consensus. Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment may not have everything everyone wants in it, but those things it does have in it probably are going to be supported by consensus, I suspect. --Alecmconroy 02:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I would concur with that. In retrospect, I think moving the original intent and purpose of BADSITES over to NPA was a tremendously bad idea, but as I've stated before, I attempted in doing so to preserve its intent rather than let my own concerns overide it. Still, I fully expected the text I inserted to be edited vigorously, and I did not expect the controversy to last this long. An initial argument against BADSITES was that existing policy already covered it, which I thought was true. Subsequent arguments pro-moral imperatives against "attack sites" appear to me to be a reinvention or resurgence of the prior arguments in favor of removing personal attacks as texts, as opposed to links.—AL ^FOCUS! 03:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I originally forked the BADSITES text into NPA expecting it to be struck down or modified for consistency with WP:NPA#Removal of text. I proposed this [6] some hours before I went ahead and did it, but other than User:MONGO [7] no one else involved in the discussion at the time objected. Now, while it seems obvious to me that doing this was a bad idea, some version of it should probably stay for the time being while the ArbCom case works out and as the discussions on the alternative policy proposal continue.—AL ^FOCUS! 21:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

To that effect, I also support Miltopia's version.—AL ^FOCUS! 22:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Well, of course, yes, the linking to external harassment (in the terms of personal attacks and revealing real life identities, etc.) should be prohibited, but only the link to that material; not the rest of the site, its champions, and anything else with a passing resemblence. Everything else should be considered under WP:RS. The problem with the above two stances is that far more than just the harassing link gets involved - the constant misrepresentation of the non-absolutist position regarding link banning is that it is pro linking; it is not, it is anti site banning via badly worded and vindictively applied link banning policy. LessHeard vanU 20:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Protection after edit warring

This is pretty unfortunate; while those who are trying to work out improvements to this policy, those who can't be bothered to discuss these developments more than voting in some poll get in the way. MONGO in particular has been empowered to revert anyone he wants as long as he states in the edit summary that the people he is reverting are associated with ED or Wikipedia Review. At what point will these excuses run cold, and MONGO and others be forced to give good-faith contributors due consideration? I'm honestly asking; how long is the community going to cater to MONGO's tastes just because he's been harassed in the past? Being called an "ED partisan" and an "Encyclopedia Dramatica troll" is truly getting tiring. Milto LOL pia 07:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I dunno if the protection is all that bad. Edit warring over policy pages isn't supposed to happen, protection is probably automatic response by any good admin, and as long as we're still in discussion, there probably isn't any "right version" to protect. lol.

I would be deeply distressed if it appeared that protection was being used to circumvent the requirement that policy get consensus. But I tend to think that the people here who support the inclusion will live up to their word and agree to remove the wording that doesn't yet have consensus. The straw poll results are turning out just like all the other discussions that have been held-- sharply divided, with no clear consensus for any principle that says "linking to a BADSITE is, ipso facto, a personal attack that should be purged" .

It would be the height of badfaith for them to keep insisting on its inclusion despite a lack of consensus after a certain amount of time has passed. Much less for anyone to use page protection to enforce that. I don't see it happening. We have a philosophical difference over a very thorny issue, but everyone here strikes me as a good and honorable person, and I honestly don't believe anyone here would even think of trying to pull such an outrageous stunt. --Alecmconroy 08:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

On a side-note, and I won't change it now lest your comments lose context, but it wasn't so much the protection that I was calling unfortunate as was the edit warring (in which I engaged as well). That was just what prompted my comments and I didn't have a good header. Milto LOL pia 08:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

"Just because he's been harassed in the past?" I'm delighted to know that you and your friends have taken down his article. Oh wait, I just looked. . . . ElinorD (talk) 08:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I have not been active at ED for nearly a year. This is exactly what I am talking about, Elinor, and you'd do well to know what the hell you are talking about before knee-jerk reacting to what I am saying. Futhermore what goes on at ED is irrelevant, I'm talking strictly about what has happened on Wikipedia. The ED threat has long passed for those who do not obsess over it. Milto LOL pia 08:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Elinor, you speak of that which you know not. Careful you don't speak untruths. Don't let your judgments of people fall behind reality. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

ElinorD (and especially MONGO, in his snarky edit summaries), I urge you to not resort to assuming bad faith and (particularly in MONGO's case) borderline personal attacks, all the while arguing about how to stop personal attacks. Miltopia is a member of the Wikipedia community in good standing, he's one of many Wikipedians who share the same concerns, and he's been trying to offer a reasonable compromise to the issue, yet his attempts have been shoved away using the common fallacious argument of association that because he was an active user of ED at one point, all his input is moot. This is completely counter to the Wikipedia community spirit of building consensus, was responsible for the silly edit war that led to this page being protected, and will only make this dispute worse. --krimpet⟲ 09:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hear. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, last time I checked, Miltopia also has an attack piece written up on him at ED, which if anything should qualify him for deferential treatment so far as his opinions on attack sites go. (Social networks sure do undermine association fallacies!) —AL ^FOCUS! 10:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I've had attack pieces about me be published in several sites, too. But, getting back to the point of the various smears about opponents of BADSITES and its relatives being "trolls" for the various "attack sites", one should note that another section of this NPA policy bars "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." This would seem to block the use of "guilt by association" regarding one's activities at external sites. One should further note that if the nature of individuals' participation in those sites is to be made an issue for debate here, then it follows that all sides ought to be free to present specific links to content in those sites contributed by or relating to those individuals in order to back up their points... which brings things full circle. *Dan T.* 17:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I know. You'd think that line of argument would have gotten old by now, given the numbers of editors involved and the sheer extent of this controversy and its impact on Wikipedia. I don't even post at WR or ED, and even quit posting on this subject for awhile as it seemed hopeless. While I do sympathize with those targeted by "attack sites," it's clear to me that the opposition is not propelled by "proponents of attack sites," or this controversy would have been dispelled a long time ago. Rather, the opposition seems to me to be motivated out of concerns for transparency and free speech, primarily by people who believe in the open-source movement as more than a social club.—AL ^FOCUS! 17:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Miltopia talks about his apparent reformation...in what way? I see no major article efforts, no major efforts to do anything but argue here and on arbcom cases. My recollection is of his wikistalking my edits, and his unabashed efforts to make my efforts to write an encyclopedia less than enjoyable. GTBaccus is also an ED contributor and always comes to the defense of his fellows. You folks really should get busy writing an encyclopedia instead of being angry that this policy was protected on the "wrong version"...seriously, 2 million articles await you.--MONGO 06:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You lie MONGO, and you've never spelled my name correctly. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Modifying my original comment, per AGF. MONGO, your statement presupposes certain falsehoods; I suggest you be more careful that your accusations hold water before you make them. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to briefly point out that the Arbitration Committee investigated my alleged wikistalking of MONGO and took no action. After I was unblocked from MONGO's block, and said unblock being endorsed multiple times on various noticeboards. Milto LOL pia 08:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

(reply to original) No Personal Attacks and Assume Good Faith exist for a reason. You would do well to follow them. Attacking other editors with personal attacks, ad hominem arguments, and guilt by association doesn't strengthen your case-- on the contrary, it reminds us all of how, once they feel attacked, almost all people tend to be come extremely vindictive, and hence, why we should place strong checks on such emotional attempts to compromise valuable encyclopedia content and NPOV.

ED is not the Nazi Party, where anyone who was ever associated with it is automaticaly an evil person whose ideas deserve to be dismissed and whose character deserves to be attacked with impunity. Come to think of it, even the Nazi Party wasn't actually the Nazi Party-- claiming guilt by association just doesn't work-- it only tends to make the speaker look petty and desperate. --Alecmconroy 06:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

GTBacchus says I "lie"...how odd, 'cause I always see whenever ED is brought up, there he is, defending present and past editors of that website...I am not a liar, thanks! Thanks also for alecmconroy's referral that I must be petty and or desperate...thank you...I never called ED the Nazi Party...what the on earth are you talking about? I think we're done here until you guys try once again to minimize the rights of our editors to be able to edit this website without being attacked by links to capricious websites.--MONGO 07:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, I retracted that statement per AGF - I suspect you weren't lying - but it's true, I did say it initially. I thought you had noticed the occasions when ED has been brought up and I've stayed the hell out of it. I guess not. Do I have to find diffs? Since they're occasions where I didn't contribute, it might take me a while, but I can find them.

I honestly don't know whom you're including in your last sentence's "you guys", so I don't know whether you're accusing me of trying to minimize our editors' rights. I've never taken any action in this area with any intent other than to protect our editors, so if you're accusing me of that, you're probably not lying, but certainly badly mistaken. I've never got the impression that you've even tried to understand where I'm coming from - you've certainly never indicated a correct understanding of my actions or motivations - so I guess I'm not surprised. Thanks for getting the spelling right, anyhow. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth. I didn't call you petty or desperate-- I said these sorts of arguments tend to cast you in that light. These kinds of "ED cabal" arguments are beneath you. This is a complex subject that reasonable people can disagree about without either side having to be satanic, conspiratorial, or acting on bad faith. By trying to reduce the argument to "Good Guys vs Trolls", you cheapen the entire discussion, and you just make yourself look bad.

The Nazi Party thing is a reference to Godwin's Law, where instead of engaging in intelligent debate, people just try to liken their opponents to Nazis. There seems to be a persistent misperception where people think if someone says "I have concerns about how BADSITES affects our encyclopedia" that it is an acceptable response to say "That dude has ties to ED". This is not an acceptable argument, it is just an attempt to attack the character of other editors-- by trying to "out" them as ED editors, ironically enough. --Alecmconroy 07:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I've never denied that I sometimes contribute to ED (at about 1/500th the rate that I contribute to WP). I have consistently opposed the idea that vilifying that website is an effective or sensible way to protect Wikipedia. Such demonization is folly because it feeds trolls and invites further trolling. Sometimes, MONGO seems committed to providing as many hot meals for trolls as he possibly can.

I would find it easier to work with MONGO if he showed some understanding that we're on the same side, but I'm pretty sure he's totally closed to that idea. It's not as if I haven't extended my hand in reconciliation. You're the one who's dropped the ball, MONGO. I'm always open to talking - you know how to get a hold of me, or you could just try to discredit me again.

In this case, I'm not even suggesting that any wording on the policy page be changed. I entered this thread just to point out that Miltopia is not an ED contributor and has no control over their content, and to agree that ad hominem arguments are unhelpful. Unless MONGO is arguing that Miltopia is an active and influential contributor there, or that ad hominem arguments are helpful, I'm not sure what beef he's got with me here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This page is supposed to be a place to discuss how we can prevent personal attacks, not to make them ourselves.Proabivouac 07:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, you are clearly trying to evade the opposing arguments presented against you, in favor of picking out individuals with links to ED and attacking their character, and ignoring everyone else. Why are you avoiding the arguments being presented – such as that linking to personal attacks is already covered by the rest of NPA, that the 3RR exception only causes needless hostility and edit warring, and that BADSITES and its ilk have been used as justification for edit warring and compromising our NPOV in mainspace? Miltopia and GTBacchus, whatever dealings they may have had with ED in the past, are far from the only ones with these concerns.

ED is scum, and their article written on you is quite bad. It's understandable that you would have a strong dislike and distrust for them because of this. However, this argument is clearly not only about ED; ED is a non-notable, unreliable source almost completely consisting of libel and personal attacks, and there is basically no reason we would ever have to link to them under any circumstances. The real conflict here is whether the verbiage against linking to external harassment has actually been twisted and appropriated to suppress legitimate criticism and transparency, and worse, influencing our encyclopedic content, which is required as a basic pillar of Wikipedia to remain neutral.

Unfortunately, at this point, it really seems like you have been trying to abuse the sympathy of the community to get your way, and use it as carte blanche to be consistently incivil and attack other editors. --krimpet⟲ 07:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Krimpet, I have yet to see how linking to a website that engages in outing efforts and harassment of our editors is at anytime helpful to writing an encyclopedia. So, as far as I am concerned, your argument is extremely weak. Furthermore, yes, if editors are know to have or are currently engaged in contributing to these capricious websites and are edit warring policy to try and wiggle some way to be able to link to them, then I do find their efforts to be circumspect. This fight is not for me...it is for all those that have been chased off this website by harassment, editors that have endured far worse maliciouness than I have.--MONGO 07:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for other editors here, but as for myself, I have no interest in "trying to wiggle some way to be able to link to" harassing sites, nor have I edit-warred anything. On the contrary, I've consistently argued that harassing or outing links have always been against policy, and that their removal is already sanctioned without the need for extra verbiage - that's actually a harder-line stance than MONGO's. So what's the point in attacking my character? -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I echo GT's lack of a desire to link to harassing sites. I'd remove any ED link I saw, have no desire to see it linked anywhere, ever, and my proposed rewrite of the section would describe the current forbidding of such links. Unnecessarily, as it's on the spam blacklist. And as I've said before, MONGO - you may recall - I no longer edit at ED. GTBacchus is not defending any ED contributers at the moment, nor has he ever stuck up for someone just because they are active at ED; rather, he has pointed out in several occassions when a person's ED activity is irrelevant to WP (as is the case most of the time). So MONGO, let's move one PLEASE and maybe you can start by describing what it is you don't like about my rewrite? Milto LOL pia 08:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Krimpet, I've yet to see one example of where our "encyclopedic content" has been compromised by this debate. To wit, external links are 1) either not encyclopedic content, in which case they should be removed as unencyclopedic, or 2) are encyclopedic content, in which case this content should be expected to comply with our internal content policies. Most real encyclopedias don't have any links. My feeling is we should link only to those things we'd be proud to publish ourselves: the New York Times, USC's side-by-side scholarly translations of the Qur'an, SIL's Ethnologue, etc. This special case, where there is now a constituency to remove them, only underscores to me the wisdom of this principle.Proabivouac 07:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Proab, I think that would be a very interesting way to run an encyclopedia-- where a link constituted a "endorsement" based on reliability, rather than notabilty. I think there definitely would be a place on the internet for that kind of a project-- a "news you can trust" project where people sifted the trustworthy from the untrustworthy.

If that was how Wikipedia did linking, if that was our policy, then I'd be totally fine with not linking sites that engage in harassment, since they would easily constitute "BAD" links. But for better or for worse, that's not how this encyclopedia is written. We routinely link to partisan opinion sites, satire sites, political pundit sites, public forums, and the rest. And instead of judging our content, sorting it into "Good" and "Bad", we're supposed to have a neutral point of view.

All we ask is sites that discuss Wikipedia be held to the exact same policies as other sites. No special exceptions to block out the stuff we don't like. If it doesn't help the encyclopedia, it goes. If it does help the encyclopedia, it stays. Just like all our other links. --Alecmconroy 08:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur. To me, the underlying question being debated here via the links issue is whether personal animosities between users (and whoever they may be involved with in real life or online) take precedence over principles of trust and good faith and neutrality (in the Swiss sense, I suppose) that are central to Wikipedia's functional collaborative culture.—AL ^FOCUS! 11:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Alecmconroy, I can't but agree that you've identified a certain hypocrisy in our policy. This was made most obvious to me in our link to this site which there are special warnings not to remove - it organizes IRL harassment against people who aren't editors to Wikipedia, and is anyhow junk. This isn't at all like depictions of Muhammad: the reason we should include these isn't to prove that we're uncensored, but because a serious museum would display them, because they're historically important.Proabivouac 12:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes-- the Westboro Baptist Church link is an even better analogy to ED. Your idea about a project only linking to, or referencing, sites that meets its own editorial standards is really intriguing. For some time now, I've thought that Wikipedia will ultimately partner with some other project which has stricter editorial standards. Wikipedia, always editable by the public, will have advantages of breadth and speed-- massive amounts of eyeballs able to quickly update the encyclopedia on all manners of subject. The other project, as yet nonexistent as far as I know, would perform a "peer-review" like task, producing only "good" articles where every sentence is 100% printed-encyclopedia quality. That project would be slow to respond-- new versions of article might be only infrequent, and not everyone could edit it, but it would be trusted. My interest is still with the Wikipedia side of things, but I bet it's only a matter of time before some sister project comes which exchanges along to do quality-control. Maybe such a project already exists, and if it does, it ought to seriously consider your idea of rigid quality control of external links. --Alecmconroy 13:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Websites don't attack people... people attack people! *Dan T.* 12:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Quick ENCYCLOPEDIA DRAMATICA (!!!!!!!!!) question

I need to get this out of the way: please list your name here yourself if you would considering linking to Encyclopedia Dramatica page(s) as encyclopedic sources. I'm trying to get my facts straight. Thank you. Milto LOL pia 08:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Definitely not as an "encyclopedic source" for anything, given that they care not a bit about having factual information versus achieving "lulz" (by being tasteless more than by being actually funny). In a sense, it's a bit of a shame that they're not a reliable source, given that their coverage of certain sorts of topics (like "Internet memes") is pretty comprehensive, but they are just not interested in being a factual source for anything including that sort of thing, so they don't work as a source for a factual encyclopedia like ours. The only place in main article space where it might ever make sense to link to them would be on an article about them if such a thing ever resurfaced, and there only as an "official site" link, not as the actual reference for facts about their history, since they're likely not even a reliable source about themselves. None of this, however, justifies a "scorched earth" policy for anything even referring to them on talk, project, and user pages. *Dan T.* 12:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Wikipedia is neutral; it also does not needlessly expose its own contributors to unhelpful and often unjustified illwill. This can reasonably include sites specializing in unjustified illwill, whether for satirical purposes, or some kind of "real life genuine grudge". However, the question is about ED in general. If there was an article that some page on ED was a useful, appropriate, and reliable source, and no better source existed, then that would be a different thing. For example, if it became necessary for some arcane reason to source and cite a statement that ED held an article on X at some date, or the original claim on some notable occurrance was on ED at date/link Y, or X was a founder of ED per their main page, or ED's stated policy on trolling is Z, then permanent links on ED would probably be a reliable sensible source for that. The problem is, I can't think of anything useful ED would be needed as a source for. Even claims like these could probably be sourced from more reliable sources if the matter was genuinely significant. The only place ED and Wikipedia cross over is questions about conduct and standing of individual editors. And in such contexts, the best resolution is often less drama, not more... so even there ED is not exactly helpful. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Hmm, didn't expect these results tbh... let's hope this one doesn't come back to bite me.

Well, I think it's good that you would possibly use ED if it had reliable informative articles about memes... but it just doesn't. The articles at their very best are nothing more than nonsense collections with overdone images. I wasn't expecting anyone to support any possible linking and I'm glad I asked this before saying "well no one is talking about linking to ED". ED will never produce articles worth referencing. Not anymore anyway. Milto LOL pia 13:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)