Wikipedia talk:Attack sites/Archive 3

Requests for clarification with regard to Requests for arbitration/MONGO
Requests for arbitration

Request for clarification filed. - Denny  ( talk ) 18:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Flawed assumptions
Much of this proposal rests on the assumption—noted explicitly by several editors on this talk page—that it's never necessary to link to sites that would fall under its purview. This is not, however, a valid assumption; it may apply reasonably well to purpose-built anti-Wikipedia sites (e.g. WR), but fails rather miserably in the general case, for a number of reasons:


 * 1) Some "attack sites" may be notable in and of themselves.  I personally know of cases where material covered by the proposal (typically defamation or harassment, with a few outing attempts thrown in) has appeared on such sites as Democratic Underground, Free Republic, Stormfront (website), and Slashdot; and I'm sure there are other prominent ones that I'm unaware of.  (This will doubtless become more and more common as Wikipedia becomes more pervasive.)  We cannot really write articles about such sites without linking to them in one form or another.
 * 2) Some "attack sites" may be incidental to Wikipedia.  The proposal fails to make the distinction between attacks directed against a "Wikipedia editor" and attacks directed against a person that happens to edit Wikipedia.  We have no shortage of prominent public figures editing (at least occasionally).  Do we need to check every site we link to in order to verify that there's nothing defamatory about, say, Roger Ebert on it?  And where does this end?  If George Bush were to sign up for an account one day, we'd have to delete pretty much every single link to a political forum, for example.
 * 3) Some "attack sites" may be of crucial importance to the dispute resolution process (particularly, to arbitration cases).  ArbCom has routinely been confronted with claims of editors maintaining "attack sites" against other editors; see, for example, the most recent Sathya Sai Baba case.  Such cases will be rather more difficult to conduct, to say the least, if links to said sites cannot be entered as evidence or discussed in the final decision.  (This will doubtless become even more bizarre in cases like the Bogdanov Affair, where the parties are engaging in extensive off-Wikipedia battles.)

I am concerned that some of this proposal's proponents seem not to have considered exactly how broad a range of circumstances it would apply to. There's more involved here than ED/WR-based harassment attempts. Kirill Lokshin 18:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Is it not that this proposal is designed to address the harassment of individual Wikipedia editors which are not notable besides being such? If that is the case, linking to these in talk pages should be very strongly discouraged. I understand your concerns, but I wold argue that not having a policy that discourages the linking to such sites is not a solution. Linking to such sites in ArbCom cases, could be set as an exception.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See Attack sites:
 * "Links to attack sites may be allowable in Arbitration hearing pages only. All such links may still be removed or edited from those pages, however, at the discretion of Arbitration clerks or Arbiters."
 * Just added. - Denny  ( talk ) 18:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

What about RfAs, as has happened? Should that be an exception, too? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? If you mean Cla96's RFA, there is still never a need to link to an attack site in the RfA. If they linked to it on-wiki, there are various ways to demonstrate that he/she violated policy by linking to old warnings, etc., or any number of things. Discretion is key in all things, and always with an eye to minimize contamination of attack/hate sites into Wikipedia. - Denny  ( talk ) 18:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it has happened, I just wanted this clarified. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Your latest edit makes no sense Denny. Why should arbcom cases be exe,pt and talk pages no? Are we here to write an encyclopedia or to police a Web 2.0 entity, ie surely making a good encyclopedia is more important than arbcom cases. According to your logic we now dont entirely ensure the safety and well-being of editors as anyone can read arbcom cases, SqueakBox 18:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Squeak, do you have issues with extending BLP-type protection to editors? Because, honestly, that is what it seems like. Please clarify if I am misunderstanding. - Denny  ( talk ) 18:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Why would you thjink that? Actually if we were to extedn BLP protection to editors that itself would be a huge policy shift that would need discussing and right now I dont have a fixed view on whether BLP protection should be given to editors, SqueakBox 19:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Denny re RfAs. However, I have my doubts about the arbitration exemption. --Mantanmoreland 18:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Another way to look at this
If we had an article on someone, they would be subject to BLP. If there was a website that said, "Jane Doe is an inbred cock mongler, and I will sue him for screwing with me! Also, his birth name is actually John Doe!" we obviously would not link to this site.

Why is it any different with a site that says, "User:Jane Doe is an inbred cock mongler, and I will sue him for screwing with me! Also, his birth name is actually John Doe!" Why should the editors here not be granted this protection from harassment? - Denny  ( talk ) 18:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * They're already got that protection. We can remove harassing links without any new policy, and all the unintended consequences that it carries with it. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You get it. This essay was to define what is an attack site--so that anyone can reasonably and without concern excise attack/hate material from the encyclopedia (as I wrote the essay, that is!). - Denny  ( talk ) 18:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * An essay is one thing, a policy proposal another and policy something completely different altogether, SqueakBox 18:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Anybody can already, reasonably and without concern, excise any kind of harassing material. No new policy is required for that. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There's the hitch: people ARE opposing removal of such content. Hence, this is needed to clearly define what can be removed without fear of partisan reversion. - Denny  ( talk ) 18:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Would it not be better to allow editors the freedom to make these choices on a case by case basis? SqueakBox 19:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Since when is NPA/harassment a consensus matter? - Denny  ( talk ) 19:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well since people opposed the removal of such content (ie you answered the question yourself in your above comment), SqueakBox 19:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Denny, example, please? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ,, , for example. It seems some editors are now watching my contributions, so I could I suspect generate more diffs of this nature, if you needed, by simply enforcing policy. -  Denny  ( talk ) 19:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thatr wasnt enfoprcing policy it was enforcing your proposed policy. Please get your facts straight before posting here, SqueakBox 19:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, those are good examples of your overreaching enforcement of this "policy" before it has even become a policy. *Dan T.* 19:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Denny, as for generating more examples, I wouldn't recommend it. The links you were removing were hardly "promotion". They look to me more like archived discussions and Wikipedians going about our business. Letting sleeping dogs lie is very smart, sometimes. Your removal of those links caused many more people to see them than leaving them alone would have. More importantly, those are not examples of harassment. If somebody is linking to WR for harassment, that's one thing, but that's not what we're looking at here. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Replying to all at once: I restored the first link that Sqeeak removed for some reason. This essay/proposed policy does nothing more than define what is an attack site. Everything else is already supporting such removals in other policies or precedent. I simply cited this page instead of multiple other ones. Links to hate/attack sites can be removed by anyone by existing policy and precedent. We don't provide advocacy for trolls and attack sites. - Denny  ( talk ) 19:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, dont understand that Denny. Which link did I remove? Diff please, SqueakBox 19:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Which of those links you removed consisted of "advocacy for trolls and attack sites"? Would you rather have good intentions, or bring about good consequences? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Not allowing such a link in an article is not to protect the biographed living person, but to protect us from getting sued - and because it has no merit for the article. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's both. BLP is intended to protect us, and the subject, from harm. I see no reason editors shouldn't have the same protections. - Denny  ( talk ) 18:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Your proposal doesnt protect editors from harm in a BLP way, SqueakBox 19:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Character attacks. Why are you opposed to giving editors protection? - Denny  ( talk ) 19:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Opposing this policy" does not equal "opposing giving editors protection" or "condoning harassment" or "promoting hate sites." That's the fundamental mistake you keep making in this discussion. Frise 19:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec)That's a rather cheap shot, Denny. To say that anybody opposed to making your essay into a guideline is opposed to giving editors protection is neither accurate nor fair. As noted several times, protection already exists; what doesn't already exist is a misguided policy that's prone to unintended consequences and to perpetuating the drama it purports to oppose. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (my ec too) Absolutely right. We all want to protect editors and ensure there safety and well being here (which is also a good faith assumption) and nobody has the right to assume those who oppose this policy do not care about the saftey and well-being of fellow editors (which would be to assume bad faith on the part of contributors here), SqueakBox 19:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Where does WP:BLP talk about protecting the biographed persons? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia." - Denny  ( talk ) 19:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What exactly is wrong with simply keeping this as an essay, anyways? --Conti|✉ 19:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "we obviously would not link to this site" - um, why is this so obvious? You're conflating "site" with "content" again; we obviously do link to sites that contain, among other things, content of such a nature. Kirill Lokshin 19:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Mangoe arbitration requested
User:Mangoe has filed for arbitration about Attack sites at this address. - Denny  ( talk ) 20:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I apologize for not bringing this to everyone's attention myself- wife wanting to know when I'll be home and all that. Mangoe 20:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know if its appropriate but I did the notifications. Shit happens, as they say. :) - Denny  ( talk ) 20:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Aren't there intermediate steps before going to arbitration? --Mantanmoreland 20:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You're generally supposed to show that other dispute resolution steps have been attempted. In this case, I don't believe there's been an RfC, or any attempt at mediation.  Perhaps I just didn't see it. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I confess to having shortcut things a bit, and if they say "take it elsewhere", that's what will happen, of course. However since the arbcom decisions on previous cases are being used as the basis for this, it seems inevitable that it's going to end up back there anyway. Mangoe 20:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not even sure there is really a dispute over this essay, at least by my reading of the Arb request. --Mantanmoreland 21:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't think there is, all the essay does really is clarify in a four sentences what an attack site is. The rest is just reiteration of what past policy/precedent already empowers anyone to do to that attack/hate content. The ArbCom as I read it is over actions on this talk page. - Denny  ( talk ) 21:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If there is to be a dispute I imagine it will happen when we start to discuss about making it into a real policy. Certainly some of us think it should never be a policy and some of us think it should but as we havent reached that stage I think an arbcom case is, at present, unnecessary, SqueakBox 22:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Spam Blacklist
I've removed the bit about the spam blacklist. The spam blacklist applies across all Foundation wikis and other sites that use the spamblocklist extension, but this proposal does not. We simply can't apply an en-wiki proposal to everyone else. Frise 21:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I see now that it's been reverted. How do we intend to push this proposal on all the other (many) sites that will be affected? Frise 21:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * While I don't think it would apply across every Foundation project (as it really only applies to such sites here), the blacklist section is completely unnecessary, not to mention goes against what the blacklist is for. Advocating abuse of the blacklist is simply wrong, and should not be part of this proposal. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It says on meta: "The associated page is used by the Mediawiki SpamBlacklist extension, and lists strings of text that may not be used in URLs in any page in Wikimedia Foundation projects (as well as many external wikis)." Frise 22:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess it would force it across things, then. Yeah, completely unworkable, I'm going to remove it again because there's absolutely no way it can be dealt with from here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The black list would only be used for egregious cases. And if some site in Xland in the X language viciously attacks editors in the X-wiki, I for one would have no problem to have that site blacklisted in en-wiki too. I don't see why any rational person would object. We are all human beings occupying one planet, regardless of our language or nationality, and we should protect each other. Crum375 22:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You can't blacklist a site on one project is the point. Not to mention that adding sites to the blacklist simply because of alleged abuse is an abuse of the blacklist function. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jeff. Also, there's a big difference between protecting other humans, and using the spam blacklist to do it.  I haven't seen any demonstration that our current policies are insufficient to protect editors.  It's really not fair to characterize those arguing against a new policy as being against protecting people from harassment. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "You can't blacklist a site on one project" - I am not suggesting that at all. Please read what I said - I propose to black list an egregious attack site that attacks the editors of one language across all languages and projects - I don't see why this can't be done, and I don't see any flaw with it. It is an excellent use of the spam blocking function, IMO. Crum375 22:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Initiative already tried and failed.
 * We can't dictate policy across other Wikimedia projects, nor should we. And no, it's an abusive use of the spam blocking function. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Attack sites are not spam, see Spam. Perhaps this whole proposal shopuld be moved to the Media Foundation and attack sites can simply be blacklisted there with no new policy needed here, SqueakBox 22:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

A recent attempt to add WR to the blacklist was rejected by two meta admins . I would suggest people favoring the addition of non-spam sites make their case on meta for altering the blacklist's purpose. As it stands, we can't mandate the addition of non-spam sites to the blacklist on en-wiki any more than we can change the speed limit in my neighborhood. This proposal's influence simply does not extend there. Frise 23:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the point of the proposal is that, if it becomes policy, a request will be made on meta. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And when the request is rejected as it has been in the past? This, of course, fails to address our attempts to create policy for the non-en projects, but that's beside the point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well lets not jump the gun and assume this page will ever become policy, SqueakBox 23:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The request should be made on meta first, otherwise this proposal is just making promises it can't keep. It doesn't make any sense to propose a policy that can't even be implemented. Clear the way first. Frise 23:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Mention of MONGO
I dont think it is acceptable to be mentioning a user on a proposed policy page. This could be interpreted as a harrassment of MONGO, SqueakBox 22:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's laughable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And of Badlydrawnjeff, SqueakBox 22:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * For reasons that are moot now, the case in which ArbCom first addressed some of the issues that are the subject of this essay was captioned Requests for arbitration/MONGO. If the decision is to be mentioned, there will be no way to avoid linking to the case, but I agree there is no reason to mention a specific user's name in the essay itself. Newyorkbrad 22:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So when people click, they see his username anyway. Again, how really silly.  How many contortions are we going to make here? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyone mentioned in that arbcom case might feel harrassed by having the page and their alleged wrongdoings made public in this way and it is especially unfair to PrivateEditor and Rootology who have been indefinitely banned and thus cant express their opinioon here. Perhaps the arbcom should comment on the fact that if Requests for arbitration/MONGO is to be used a s a policy or to justify a policy that a separate page should be linked to that avoids giving out personal and entirely unnecessary details of wikipedia editors. Otherweise we are in danger perpetuating the problem we are trying to resolve (ie making wikipedia a safe place to edit), SqueakBox 22:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This assumes there's a problem to perpetuate, especially when it comes to our own internal dealings. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think arbcom is a very difficult place for a user to be and that there are users for whom the whole process of being in front of the arbcom would be very difficult and to then have that publicised in a policy page would surely be making those users feel less safe, or some of them, SqueakBox 23:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * These are banned users, and they are not identified other than by username. The problem is minimal.  Unless, of course, some external site "outs" their real identity... Guy (Help!) 22:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please can Denny comment here befopre unilaterally inserting the name of a user in the proposal policy. How does this protect MONGO? It could be argued that syuch a move harrasses MONGO, SqueakBox 23:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh for heavens sake. I'll leave him a note asking him. If he doesn't think it's harassment it should go back in, if he does, it should go out. - Denny  ( talk ) 23:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If this is going to be based on prior arbcom rulling from my case, then there is no way to NOT link to it, though I don't want MONGO named in this itself. However, I don't live vicariously through MONGO, as, of course I only picked that username as a pun on myself. Not sure what I find that's laughable though, Jeff. Oh well.--MONGO 04:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, MONGO. I am still uncomfortable to link to the page at all as it is unfair on the 2 permanently banned editors whoise case is expounded there and if this page looks like becoming policy I will bring the issue up again as we must not do anything that could be inteerpreted as harrassing wikipedia users (albeit indefinitely blocked ones). I do understand jeff's humour, differen types of humour for different folk eh? SqueakBox 17:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We link to arbcom cases all the time...being indefinitely banned is their own fault anyway and Rootology has been banned several times since for sock puppeting/ban evasion. I can't see what there is to protect in regards to me or them. It's a easily located onwiki arbitration case and ot likely to be deleted.--MONGO 17:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not on policy pages we dont. And if I am wrong please give an example, SqueakBox 17:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit Warring
You know, leaving an edit summary that says "Don't edit war!" on a revert that's part of an edit war might not have the effect you're shooting for. Just saying, is all. Frise 03:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And just where and how is anybody supposed to "discuss" it before reverting again? Isn't that what we've been doing all along?  I think there are more people against that censorship than for it, but the pro-censor forces are more vigorous in their actions and threats. *Dan T.* 03:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And, it appears, have the powers necessary to carry out their threats. Frankly, I don't see that there is much more to say here. My offerings of evidence that the censorship is uncalled for are being censored in name of applying the finding whose refutation requires the evidence that I'm not being allowed to represent in the name of the finding. If that isn't a classic Catch-22, I don't know what is. The conflict of interest sits spang in the middle of the discussion, and it's quite clear that there's never going to be the slightest acknowledgement of it by the culprits. Meanwhile WP:EXR sails through this, with nobody daring to apply this supposed policy to it. Since that's what I was trying to protect in the first place, I suppose I should count my blessings and withdraw from the fray while I can still edit. Besides, it's past my bedtime. Mangoe 04:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm attempting to determine how the original edit of the comment in question conforms to WP:TALK, given that WP:BADSITES is not, to my understanding, currently an official policy or guideline. JavaTenor 04:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry if my edit was ironic but I was just trying to stop you guys from changing it so much and violating 3RR. I thought that one section for the discussion would be more appropriate than the discussion being all over the place and people disagreeing. The edit has nothing to do with my personal point of view. -- KZ Talk • Contribs 04:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Mine was a lighthearted comment. Frise 04:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Straw Poll
To see where the actual sentiments of the people here are (not just the handful, including me, that's highly vocal and repetitive about it), let's take a poll (yes, I know "Voting Is Evil"). *Dan T.* 03:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you favor the deletion of links to "Attack Sites" at all times and places, regardless of context or purpose, including on this very talk page where we're debating whether to ban such links?

Agree

 * 1) -  Denny  ( talk ) 13:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Disagree

 * *Dan T.* 03:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Frise 03:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * .V.: I don't believe that content on one part of a site should be used to judge the rest of the site.
 * Academy Leader 04:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Mangoe 04:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Risker 04:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Certainly not based on the definition given in this proposal.
 * &mdash; Michael Linnear   04:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * WAS 4.250 11:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 12:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC) There's a difference between "site" and "content", as noted by Kirill Lokshin above, and some such sites are even notable enough to have Wikipedia articles . Polling is evil, but there are much worse things.
 * SqueakBox 15:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That is far too broad and automatic a parctice. The individual circumatances of each such link or mentionm must iMo ber taken into account. DES (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure

 * Question is deliberately loaded, so not sure...since we are still discussing and this poll is meaningless, not sure.--MONGO 04:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But oddly enough, if those above want me to be able to link to attacks made on ED and WR about Wikipedians, this will only serve to ensure this does become policy, for there are hundreds of posts on those websites that attack and try to "out" many different people. Be careful what you wish for.--MONGO 05:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What we wish for is that attack sites most of the time not be linked to; but not to create a blanket rule that forbids thinking, use of facts and individual evaluation based on circumstances. We are against mindlessness. We are not for attack sites. WAS 4.250 11:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again, the pro-censorship forces make straw-man arguments. Of all the many links that have been censored in this reign of terror, I can't recall noticing a single one of them that was posted for the purpose of "outing" or harrassing anybody; rather, people posted links to the occasional constructive or thoughtful essay appearing in those sites, or posted commentary responding to criticism (both constructive and not) on those sites, or brought people's attention to a potential attack (vandal spree, lawsuit, etc.) originating from somebody talking about it over there... lots of reasons that don't involve hassling a particular individual Wikipedian.  The cases that do involve individual Wikipedians generally consist of pointing out what they, themselves did when they posted to one of those sites; for that matter, the pro-censors have liked to allude to my own participation in one of the "attack sites", though in this case making vague allusions is better for their case than actually linking to my writing there.  Have there been any recent examples of people actually linking to those sites with the purpose or effect of harrassing somebody?  (Well, I guess I can't ask anybody to provide examples, because that would itself be a violation of the ban, I guess... it's probably only a matter of time before they start saying that making a link to a Wikipedia diff that involves a link to a banned site is itself a violation.) *Dan T.* 12:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Silly question

 * Except within the context of mentioning the attack site for administrative purposes, such as on this page, on ANI, or in an Arbcom setting, links to attack sites should be removed. But it would be silly, for example, to say "we're desysopping someone because of what they said at a site that we can't talk about." --BigDT 04:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * polls are evil. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ditto, a poll is not a good idea. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Polls are evil, and if you ask a loaded question expect to get a non-representative answer.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with others above. Polls based on loaded questions are misguided and counter-productive. Crum375 11:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The "loaded question" happened to conform precisely with the way this non-policy is actually being enforced. It's telling that even the pit bulls of censorship themselves didn't see fit to directly agree with this statement when it's put this bluntly. *Dan T.* 12:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC) [Update: I see that Denny has now voted 'support'; I'm glad to see this honesty.) *Dan T.* 14:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)]
 * I don't agree with Dtobias' wording, but with the spirit of his message. Granted, polling is evil, but there's much worse things. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 12:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Polls are undesirable. (Bin Laden is evil. Undercooked bacon is evil.)--Mantanmoreland 14:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Loaded question. How would the other side feel about a wording that said "Do you agree that it should be permissible to post the URL of a site that may lead to real life stalking of editors and their families, so that all of Wikipedia can visit the site and see the names, addresses, and photos of editors who are trying to remain anonymous so that they can have an informed discussion of whether or not the site really does contain information that could lead to harassment?" ElinorD (talk) 13:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion
Based on the above discussion, I'm pretty sure we can make a few conclusions here. (If I get it wrong, don't sent any hate mails, but just discuss why it might be wrong.):
 * 1) Polls are evil. (It has nothing to do with this policy but who cares?)
 * 2) From the above, I think we need to change the "consequences of breaking the guideline" section, as someone says that it may be too harsh.
 * 3) No links to hate sites will be made in the user and user talk namespaces. Consequently, no links to attack sites will be made in the article namespace. Every attack link made to the project namespace will be removed unless determined by consensus (<-- That one will cause hate mails). -- KZ  Talk • Contribs 07:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That is not unworkable. I prefer no links, but in extreme circumstances some might be needed on a temporary basis. I really think, as much as possible, that wikipedians should be penalized/promoted/awarded based on their wiki contributions and that what they do and or say elsewhere should not be used either against them or for them.--MONGO 07:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I was saying that based on what I think everyone, or most of the people meant... -- KZ Talk • Contribs 07:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * KZ, everyone will claim they have a valid reason. We're not allowed to link to sites if we have reason to believe they violate copyright, and so I see no problem with saying we also shouldn't link to sites if we have reason to believe they libel Wikipedians. Also, bear in mind that the ArbCom has already ruled on this. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I see the flaw in my line of thinking... I've modified it so it might be more suitable. -- KZ Talk • Contribs 08:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sleeping well, and who knows what's going to happen if I edit in this state, but what the heck.... Two points lurch to mind. First, as far as I can tell the references to article space are more or less a strawman. None of the outbreak of WP:POINTed erasures byUser:DennyColt that set this all off were to articles proper; they were mostly on user talk pages, with the remainder in project/talk space. So in practice a ban against article space references could be noncontroversial as to effect, if not as to principle.


 * It's the other point that is the focus of the action. It would seem an obvious principle that links can be suppressed based on what's at the other end, and indeed no new policy nor clarification is needed to justify it. The problem is that this proposal is for "guilt by associated URL", where it appears that the content of the specific link is irrelevant. That has set off the whole "can we then ban (major news source) for identifying Essjay" side of this. But the target of this is one specific forum (Wikipedia Review); every single enforcement edit has been to erase some reference to it. The sticky wicket is that there was already a link to it in a project talk space discussion of the expert retention problem. This link had nothing at all to do with the MONGO or Brandt affair(s), and it alone is enough to prove that other editors here find that the site is more than just a base for launching personal attacks.


 * That alone is enough to justify vacating findings of "attack sites", but then we get to the conflict of interest. Right now User:SlimVirgin and User:Crum375, who are both administrators, are using their ability to block people to defend SlimVirgin's and MONGO's (unsupported) claim that there is nothing on the site worth linking to.


 * Please stop this mirepresentation. We're upholding the ArbCom ruling, no more, no less. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The obvious rebuttal is to link to something that could be considered of value, but the campaign of erasures by these administrators is preventing that. Since none of the main objectors to this are admins, they can and have used threats of blocking to WP:OWN the discussion. But the other problem fact about the site-- which of course we can't cite, under threat of blocking-- is the motivation behind the actually objectionable attacks: their thesis that the very admins who are trying to control the proposal discussion are part of a pattern of administrative abuses. On one level, I think this is exaggerated; some of the people who they banned seem to have deserved it. But on the other hand, the campaign to make sure that none of the WR material against them ever appears in or is even referenced in Wikipedia, for any reason, reeks of unenlightened self-interest. It is, in essence, an acting out of the charges made against them in the Unspeakable Site. And while I am inclined to think that User:DennyColt is not necessarily part of any cabal, his allegation that User:Dtobias's opposition is grounded in his participation in WR is particularly laughable. Anyone who goes to the Unspeakable Site and reads what Dtobias has written there is aware that he is an opposing voice there, and not in sympathy with their claims or methods. But of course I cannot present evidence to that effect, because SlimVirgin or some other enforcer will swoop down, erase the link, and perhaps (I think probably) block me. Mangoe 08:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not an administrator and I haven't threatened to block you.--MONGO 08:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Mangoe, please assume good faith as noone here is going to block you over this. Noone has even threatened to block you over this. Since everyone is objecting to other's comments and proposals, maybe this should go to RfC? -- KZ  Talk • Contribs 08:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a matter of record that after I restored the damage to my statement here, SlimVirgin reverted it and left a "warning" on my talk page (diff). As far as good faith is concerned, I have been open all along to the interpretation of this as an exercise in excessive zeal. What I've been trying to get across, unsuccessfully, is that since potential users and editors are not bound to assume good faith, the conflicts of interest in this are potentially damaging to Wikipedia's reputation. Mangoe 13:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There's no need for RfC/RfAr, or anything else. People should just get on with discussing the proposal, instead of sidetracking us with rows about actual links. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

On reading this, linked to by arbitrator Kirill Lokshin in the Mongo request for carification (see below), I changed my mind. ArbCom ruling seems not to be as unanimous as I assumed. The more recent ruling seems to imply a careful case by case evaluation, using common sense as opposed to full reverts and blocking warnings. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 12:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Real Conclusion
A poll with a loaded partisan question that is "decided" in <24 hours is funny. - Denny  ( talk ) 13:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Loaded partisan"? As opposed to the two rhetorical questions you're asking below? —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 14:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for clarification
I've found a number of forum posts on a site which could qualify that site as an attack site under the guideline being discussed. It's my understanding that it would be a blockable offense to link to those posts, link to the site in general, mention the site by name, etc. Should I also avoid linking to the site's Wikipedia entry? If so, what should be done about other pages linking to that entry? Thanks! JavaTenor 07:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course you can link to the wikipedia site as wikipedia is exempt from the Bad Site proposal and there is no precedent for not allowing internal links, SqueakBox 15:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In that case, the site in question is Free Republic. I'm not going to link to the posts there which might constitute attack posts, (for, I think, obvious reasons - if people want to find them, it's not especially difficult), but this does call into question how the proposed guideline ought to be applied to sites it defines as "attack sites" which are generally considered notable enough to have their own Wikipedia entries. JavaTenor 17:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarification provided
Below is from Requests for arbitration/Philwelch/Proposed decision. WAS 4.250 12:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Attack sites
2) The addition of links to or material derived from sites that engage in attacks and harassment against Wikipedia users into Wikipedia is inappropriate, and may be removed by any editor. Deliberate addition of such material may be grounds for blocking.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 19:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that the sites being those "that engage in attacks and harassment against Wikipedia users" - I don't think that this is at all "broad". James F. (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Linking to the site and the attack material is the issue addressed here not recognizing that these sites exist. FloNight 15:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Probably too broad, particularly as some sites that do this (albeit incidentally) are notable in their own right. Kirill Lokshin 19:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Too broad and generalized. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 20:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see this more specific. First off, sites don't engage in attacks and harassment; people using the site do. (Guns don't kill; people with guns do.) Secondly, intent and degree are both missing in the engagement; how much attacking is required before a site has crossed the line? This needs some language like "sites that commonly include attacks and harassment" or perhaps even "sites with policies that encourage attacks and harassment". --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Paul August &#9742; 17:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

Encyclopedia Dramatica
3) The addition of links to or material derived from Encyclopedia Dramatica into Wikipedia is inappropriate, and may be removed by any editor. Deliberate addition of such material may be grounds for blocking.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 19:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Kirill Lokshin 19:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * FloNight 15:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * I know that something similar to this has passed in the past in MONGO, but I'm just not comfortable issuing such a blanket ban on the site or its materials. I prefer 3.1, which is a bit more specific. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 20:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Per Flcelloguy. Paul August &#9742; 17:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

This action never passed--I don't see it in the final arbitration here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Philwelch

Either way, we don't get to decide what arbitration is valid. We have one that says, "Do this", and one that says, "Don't do this," possibly. Thanks. - Denny  ( talk ) 13:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You are correct, the Arbitration Committee did not support a broad definition of attack sites. That is why it is not in the decision.  Their discussion and lack of support for this definition is documented.  Risker 13:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And the MONGO case said the same thing: under "remedies" it mentions Encyclopedia Dramatica by name, and no other site. Mangoe 13:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Guys, we do not get to 'decide' squat about ArbCom. Unless they clarify, both are valid. If thats an issue, needs to be cleared up by ArbCom. - Denny  ( talk ) 13:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It effectively means that blocking warnings are out of place at this stage. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 14:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you, DennyColt, get to decide that arbcom's remedies authorize the deletions you have made, then we get to decide that they don't. The one thing this is not is a literal implementation of their remedies, so your exegesis thereof is eminently debatable. Mangoe 15:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

What about Google?
Google searches may be linked to, what about a search using innocuous keywords? (possibly problematic link to Google removed by myself, pending further clarification) —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 13:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No different than linking to a magic keyword that happens to pull up a link that personally attacks Kncyu38. Not good, not good. - Denny  ( talk ) 13:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a gigantic difference. We're talking about selectively censoring links to Google searches with certain keywords. You do see the dilemma, don't you? This was but an example, not meant to be elegant. Do you want to include this into the proposal? —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 13:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If we blacklist Google we will make ourselves look foolish. Google is used extensively in the creation of this encyclopedia and I dont believe there is anu consensus in blacklisting the site. There is nothing in policy about selectively censoring bits from a site, ie a site either is a bad site or iyt isnt. is Denny seriously suggesting Google is a bad site and should be banned from wikipedia (pretty richj given how much help Google give to wikipedia), SqueakBox 15:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Two questions for everyone.
Two questions for you all. I especially challenge all who voted disagree on Dan Tobias's straw poll to stand by your convictions and reply. - Denny  ( talk ) 13:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

1. What do you think of the fact that the sites try to 'out' editors identities there?

 * 1) I think its reprehensible. -  Denny  ( talk ) 13:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Not as big a deal as people make it out to be. Problematic?  Perhaps, in some cases.  A huge deal?  Not as a blanket issue.  Simple "outing?"  (i.e. badlydrawnjeff = Jeff Raymond, children's librarian) - not an issue, because anonyminity on the internet is not a guarantee, and should never be treated as such.  Vindictive outing, such as what happened with Katefan0 or with Linuxbeak?  Yeah, that's a bigger problem.  Thus why we need to figure out what's an "attack" and what's simply a nuisance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Badlydrawnjeff (talk • contribs).
 * 3) I'm with badlydrawnjeff. If you are active on the internet on a site visible to the general public, you run the risk of being identified. It's not out of the question that I've been active longer than anyone else involved in this, and there's enough out there to where someone could figure out who I am. People who appear to be using their anonymity to protect themselves from the consequences of their acts simply cry out to be exposed. It's not something I personally would do, but I cannot condemn those who do it simply on that basis. Mangoe 13:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Editors who wish to remain anonymous carry the larger responsibility in preventing their "outing." If people really do not want to be identified, they should not share any personal information about themselves on Wikipedia and should choose a pseudonym that they do not use anywhere else. I am fully cognizant of the fact that someone might possibly figure out who I am in "real life" every time I post anywhere on the internet.  Perhaps more emphasis on the inability of Wikipedia or any other website to guarantee privacy would be appropriate. (edit -sorry forgot to sign, where is hagermanbot when you need him...Risker 15:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC))
 * 5) It's a real shame that critics who sometimes have valid points to make so often get diverted to destructive tearing-down rather than constructive criticism... if they were otherwise, they might be a force for good instead of evil. Still, the actual cases of somebody being unjustly harmed by such "outing" are fortunately few. *Dan T.* 14:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) I think that this is a gratuitous rhetorical question. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 14:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) I agree internet anonymity can not be guaranteed. Brandt complains he cant get privacy as he has an article and I dont really believe in either privacy or anonymity in this context. The Essjay situation has created the problem of the possibility of people claiming to be who they are not, obviously this is only relevant to people who make a claim about themselves (eg being a professor) while remianing anonymous and there is an argument that I dont disagree with that if some editor is lying about their identity then maybe their lies should be outed, SqueakBox 14:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) It depends on how and why "outing" is being conducted. In general I support people's rights to privicy and annominity. But if a person is amkign false claims (as Essjay did, and as othes may be doing) exposing thsoe falsehoods is not IMO reprehensible but praisworthy. And while malicious violatiosn of the right to privicy are IMO reprehensible, they are not the biggest evil on the net. DES (talk)
 * 9) What do you think of the fact that Wikipedia admins try to 'out' Wikipedia editors identities here at Wikipedia though use of accusations of being a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet or having a conflict of interest? WAS 4.250 19:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) I recall some people trying to some thing like this to Lir here on Wikipedia, and boasting about how his name and "is a troll" got a high Google rank. &mdash; Michael Linnear   20:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's another question. We could also address the many people who have been harrassed off wikipedia by other people on wikipedia which, in contrats to WR, is a site anybody can edit, and with complete anonymity (other than WAS's point), meaning that I have had to suffer hateful attacks like this one (I bet no one will demand I remove this link or be blocked but this is the kind of hate-spew that is publicly available on wikipedia), SqueakBox 19:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

2. Do you think think this is harmful? If not, why?

 * 1) Yes, it can cause material, personal, emotional, and tangible harm. Note that some editors such as User:Katefan0 even were harassed via their employers due to these monsters, and had to leave Wikipedia, and others have had IRL friends, associates, and employers also contacted. The anonymity of Wikipedia means that any of us should never, ever, never 'encounter' another of us in real life in any fashion unless we choose to. These hate site stalkers seek to take away that protection and hurt us. -  Denny  ( talk ) 13:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia and "real life" are not different things; editing Wikipedia is something people do in real life. Indeed, a lot of the controversialism in Wikipedia can be traced directly to people trying to use it to advance their "real life" causes. Mangoe 16:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Denny, I am having a hard time balancing the concern about this user's experience with the fact that people keep making searchable links to her name, thus perpetuating the situation. Can we please stop using this person's name as an example? I will leave it to you to decide if your comment should be edited Risker 14:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Risker has a point. Wikipedia can also be used to harrass individual editors and we must be aware of this. Even if in this case you are using his/her example in a good faith way, well people link to WR in a good faith way too, SqueakBox 15:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I guess I answered this above - no, not always.  Someone who attempts to be anonymous here and simply loses part of that anonyminity is not hurt, only inconvenienced.  Someone who's "outed" in a way that is designed to threaten their lives or livelihood is a different story and the two simply don't equate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes, in some (fortunately few) cases.  Harmful to the people who are harrassed in this way, and also harmful for everybody by poisoning the whole debate about Wikipedia policy and diverting it from constructive criticism and rebuttals thereof, to personal attacks and recriminations. *Dan T.* 14:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) I think that this is a gratuitous rhetorical question. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 14:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) In some cases though I also think on-wiki harrassment can be at least as harmful and at least as distressing, SqueakBox 14:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) I mostly missed the Kf0 controversy, but from what I can see I hesitate to presume to judge the motives of her employer. Wikipedian Brandt can of course be expected to forego such activity as the price for editing, but private citizen Brandt, pursuing a principle of accountability, cannot really be faulted for applying that principle to reveal what was by all accounts a barely concealed identity. And while I can't see a reason for her employer to object to her editing off-hours, I'm no journalist and I'm not in a position to second-guess them, especially since I don't know the details that well. Obviously something that someone can call "harm" can result. But since anonymous activity is inherently risky behavior, those who do it put themselves in harm's way. It's unreasonable to expect the rest of the world to respect rules of discourse set up for Wikipedia; and it's doubly unreasonable to have that expectation of people who argue that the current Wikipedian rules and/or culture encourage beahvior that is detrimental to the society it is intended to serve. Now, some things are just malign. The repeated attempts to put up a picture of a certain person of strange countenance are just cruel. But the situation we are trying to address is nothing like that. Mangoe 15:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) I find myself agreeing pretty well with Mangoe here. The people who are at greatest risk of harm by "outing" are people who are doing something they probably shouldn't. I know an author who edits here under a pseudonym - and she uses the pseudonym because editing here would invalidate her publishing contract.  I know a record company A&R guy who edits under a pseudonym because his edits are essentially on behalf of his company - his fellow music editors apparently just think he's really knowledgeable. I won't even go to the issue of fake personas. Even people with real-world personal security issues (who may potentially suffer the greatest damage) are aware of the risks of using the internet. I know personal responsibility isn't a very popular concept anymore, but since Wikipedia cannot guarantee anonymity, more benefit would come from educating editors. Risker 16:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) It can and sometimes does cause harm as has been said above. it often causes more annoyance than harm. Cases vary widely. And in the case of a person who is not merely trying to protect privicy, but tryign to get away with misrepresentation, exposure is a net good. DES (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this distracts from the useful above. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 13:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

A few more questions
The two questions above hardly encompassed all relevant questions. *Dan T.* 14:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Assuming "attack site" can be well defined, links to such sites should be (banned in all contexts | banned with rare exceptions | judged on a case-by-case basis | permitted except when done for explicitly harrassing purposes | always allowed | other/misc)...

...within the main Wikipedia article space?

 * Only where absolutely necessary, which probably extends only to an article specifically about such a site (where the site itself is sufficiently notable for this), and possibly where necessary to cite the specific things said by a specific person on such a site when that is judged to be a notable issue in another article. Otherwise, such sites are not reliable sources and shouldn't be used as such, and certainly shouldn't be "spammed" into irrelevant places. *Dan T.* 14:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Concur with the above. Mangoe 15:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If a legitimate source, absolutely. We shouldn't allow our own prejudices get in the way of comprehensiveness. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Judged on a case-by-case basis, SqueakBox 14:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Judged on a case-by-case basis. Where it can be used as a source, it should be allowed, except for specific subpages with attack content. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 14:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Judged on a case by case basis, but avoided if reasoanble alternatives are available. Where such a site is notable, links to it and mentions of it ar inevitable in proper articles. (For example, if official Scientology sites started to out wikipedia editors we couldn't stop linking to them on relevant articels, adn might even wish to mention such actions). If the site is a WP:RS onm issues unrealted to the outing, prticualrly if the source material is on pages other than the apges where the outing takes place, links should not be prohibited. No link in articel space should ever be for the prime purpose of "promting" any outside site, person, or cause. Links and mentiosn should be there as a way to cite references, and when they are useful to the reader. Links to "attack sites" should carry an extra burden of proof that they are there to fulfil these functions. DES (talk) 17:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Judged on a case-by-case basis, WAS 4.250 19:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with WAS and others here: a blanket rule is not going to work. Each link has to be judged on a case-by-case basis.   Buck  ets  ofg  04:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In most circumstances, I find it unlikely that there would be a need to link to such a site from the main article space, as from what I've seen, they tend to be blogs, personal websites, or discussion boards, none of which are generally considered reliable sources. The obvious exception would be sites notable enough to merit their own Wikipedia articles, as it would be relatively absurd not to link to a site in an article about that site, as Dan T. mentioned above. JavaTenor 09:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

...within talk pages?

 * Judged on a case-by-case basis depending on relevance to the discussion and that it is not being used in a harrassing or abusive manner. *Dan T.* 14:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Per Dtobias. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Judged on a case-by-case basis, SqueakBox 14:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Per Dtobias. Well said. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 14:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Concur. Mangoe 15:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Per Dtobias and concurring others above. DES (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As per Dtobias. Case by case. &mdash; Michael Linnear   19:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Judged on a case-by-case basis, WAS 4.250 19:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Case-by-case, per WAS et al.  Buck  ets  ofg  04:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

...within user pages and userspace?

 * Probably not, when used on a user page to try to promote and encourage such sites, or even conversely to promote and encourage people to go to such sites and disrupt them; this isn't a productive use of Wikipedia. Maybe when cited as a reference in user essays, if relevant and non-abusive. *Dan T.* 14:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If non-abusive - and by non-abusive, I mean the differences I laid out in a question above. To use an example, to write "I am a regular contributor to Wikipedia Review" with a link at your userpage is not abusive.  To write "I think Wikipedian is a horrible person because of what he did" with a link to an abusive thread at WR, that's a different story. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Doubtful, user shopuld be first requested politely to remove link with explanantion, SqueakBox 14:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Parotting Badlydrawnjeff. Everything except for explicit harassment and personal attacks should be subject to politely asking to remove a link before any blocking warnings are handed out. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 14:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this is more or less the same as the talk space situation. The main difference is that the chance of such a link being relevant on user page is pretty low. Mangoe 15:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Judged on a case-by-case basis, WAS 4.250 19:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Case-by-case, per WAS et al.  Buck  ets  ofg  04:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Case-by-case, as per above. Here is an example of a link that I imagine few would argue with, for example, although it was not placed by the user in question. JavaTenor 05:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

...within project pages such as AfD, RfA, etc.?

 * When relevant and constructive to the issue at hand. *Dan T.* 14:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Per my response in article space for AfD, for RfA/ArbCom, no ban whatsoever - these issues are important to discuss in the context of user conduct and user reliability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Judged on a case-by-case basis, SqueakBox 14:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Judged on a case-by-case, preferably allowed. In the context of anything process related, it's important we know what we are talking about. Wikipedia debates should not be censored. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 15:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Badlydrawnjeff re discussions of incidents relating to individuals; the fact that an editor is using anonymity to conceal a problem with their editing makes even "outings" germane (unless there is a strictly procedural decision to refuse such evidence, which I personally feel would be a major mistake that could only lead to another Essjay incident). More general activity (e.g. WP:EXR) should follow the pattern of talk pages. Mangoe 15:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Per Dtobias. As per Badlydrawnjeff such issues may often be important, but i have seen lots on extraneous and gratuitous issues dragged into such debates. Dragging in such links when not clearly relevant, and particularly if done in obvious bad faith should be banned. So Case-by-Case judgment is needed. DES (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Judged on a case-by-case basis, WAS 4.250 19:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Case-by-case, per WAS et al.  Buck  ets  ofg  04:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

...within a page that is specifically debating a ban on linking to attack sites, where it may sometimes be considered by some to be useful to present specific examples?

 * Certainly... this is a canonical example of how a flat ban on such linkages is senseless and unfair, and tending to stifle one side of an argument. *Dan T.* 14:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, SqueakBox 14:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course. Fully reverting in such a context could well be considered diruptive. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 15:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A no-brainer. Obviously discussion of the merits of a site ought to be backed up by citations. I hold that existing policy on these discussions already forbids the erasures we are seeing here. Mangoe 15:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Judged on a case-by-case basis. I object to mindlessness in all cases. WAS 4.250 19:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Case-by-case, per WAS et al.  Buck  ets  ofg  04:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Styles of argument
Can people in this heated debate please try to avoid ad hominem arguments, arguments from authority, attempts to whip up moral panics, and so on, instead of rational discussion? I know I've sometimes been guilty of getting too emotional and need to tone down my rhetoric a bit, but that should also apply to the other side. *Dan T.* 16:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The very essense of this debate is whether to reject claimed good content based on claimed tainted source. I submit that in each case the evidence must be examined rather than to allow a claim to go unchallenged as to the validity of either claim. WAS 4.250 20:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Something I think some here have forgotten
Websites such as wikipedia review and encyclopedia dramatica completely fail WP:RS. Not sure if this has been overlooked, but since we are here to write an encyclopedia, referencing is the same, across the board. Personal information that is published is reliable in most cases...ED and WR aren't published.--MONGO 16:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It hasn't been overlooked; I mentioned this explicitly in my comments above regarding links in main article space, where I concluded that they are in most cases not desirable due to the unreliability of the sources, except in special cases like where the site itself or the author of specific comments on the site are what it is being used as a source of. However, talk and project pages are a different thing, not subject to the same standards (for instance, comments on a talk page aren't expected to be NPOV). *Dan T.* 16:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * (ec)That is entirely relevant for main space but I dont believe it is relevant outside the main space, eg we link to google searches on talk pages though clearly a google search isnt a reliable source for main space so while WR fails RS for the main space for talk and official pages RS doesnt apply, SqueakBox 16:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not entirely true. Reading WP:RS, these qualify as sources that can be used in limited circumstances, and the section that's probably most relevant quantifies it with "generally," noting that there are exceptions. Besides, the verifiability policy is the one that's the true directive, and it doesn't go against these in certain cases. And yes, those things are published. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't like correcting you Jeff, but ED is not published, nor is WR.--MONGO 16:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Then you don't understand the word "published," unfortunately. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See Publishing where it appears jeff is correct, SqueakBox 16:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that WW (hivemind etc) would not fail RS? SqueakBox 16:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hum...no, that is actually not the case. Since they have no editorial oversight they are unreliable in all cases, no matter where they are posted. They fail WP:RS...it really is that simple. Unpublished opinions are useless to us.--MONGO 16:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * According to RS that is only so for BLP. Just because a (non-attacking) link on a talk page doesnt meet RS does not give any editor the right to tamper with another user's comments removing that link, and such a move would be considered vandalism. Users do not have to worry about RS for links to their user space either, SqueakBox 16:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you might want to reconsider your wording, Mongo. Not being obstructionist or anything, but clearly if they are on the internet they are published - self-published, perhaps, but still published.  They might not meet the standard for WP:RS, but that is a different matter. In any case, I don't see what blocking users for linking to a particular source has to do with the reliable source policy. We already have policies in place for harassing people, and for tendentious editing (if they keep inserting an unacceptable source).  Risker 16:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I stated that these websites fail RS and they do.--MONGO 16:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Except when they don't. They are acceptable in some cases. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So we are to cherry pick which slander is reliable and which isn't? That won't work.--MONGO 17:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No. I suggest reading WP:RS and WP:V to find your answers. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have in fact read them...thanks. It appears you are confusing reliablity of sources with verifiability of the information. If a website has posts made by anonymous "people" and/or is deliberately designed to be "comical" then they are useless as a reference base aside from to reference that the websites, etc. exist.--MONGO 17:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Good, so we're on the same page - they are acceptable as sources in some cases. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ....but since we have no article on ED, we don't have a reason to reference them, so yeah, we are on the same page.--MONGO 17:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * One never knows. That's why WP:RS and WP:V exist. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * and sadly:( we have no article on WR either so I guess we can scratch that one off the list of reliable sources too--MONGO 17:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * MONGO can we please have the specific statements in RS that back up your assertion because I cant find anything on WP:RS thast confirms what you are saying re non main space, SqueakBox 17:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus?
From the many sections above, it is clear there is nothing resembling a consensus in the community to make or enforce a draconian, zero-tolerance ban on linking to "bad sites". That seems to be why the proponents of such a ban are resorting to insisting that no consensus is needed or relevant because the ArbCom has spoken, and the law is the law... so siddown and shuddup! Unfortunately for their side, ArbCom has hardly spoken with one consistent voice on this (only one site has actually gotten a majority decision for banning all links to it, and that not even unanimous; an effort to extend this to other sites was explicitly voted down), and ArbCom is not supposed to be the source of policy anyway. *Dan T.* 16:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Arbcom dont make policy, they enforce current policy. They arent the lawmakers, they are the interpreters of already existent policy, SqueakBox 16:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

One member of ArbComm has spoken
See this comment. Seems relatively clear-cut to me, but I'd appreciate thoughts from others involved in this discussion. JavaTenor 18:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This seems to me to be a finding that the Unspeakable Site is not identified as an "attack site" by arbcom, and that the various deletions of references to that site cannot be supported by reference to Requests for arbitration/MONGO. Indeed, if the principle is to be followed that arbcom's decision is to be honored in the construction of this proposal, it is now dead, because as it stands this proposal is intended to ban the Unspeakable Site, and arbcom here opposes that. In any case the deletions of my reference to the site within this discussion are untenable. Mangoe 18:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Statement by one of twelve arbiters. Keep in mind, this has no bearing on the success/failure/acceptance of the proposed policy. It's just a clarification specifically of what that ruling meant. The community can and will still adopt any other policies it deems appropriate. - Denny  ( talk ) 18:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would suggest, however, that this posting implies that you may want to stop citing the ArbComm principles as a precedent in changes to established policy (and in general, I'd probably be cautious about making changes to established policy without first establishing a consensus for that change on the policy's talk page), and perhaps stop citing this proposed guideline in making changes to other users' talk-page comments, which appears to me to be a potentially disputed action based on WP:TALK. JavaTenor 18:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Very slippery... when it seems like the ArbCom is on your side, you'll say that consensus is irrelevant because The Law Is The Law... but if they seem not to support you, then suddenly it becomes a matter for consensus. Unfortunately, consensus doesn't seem to support you either. *Dan T.* 18:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * (ec) Two ArbCom members, Denny. Remember Kirill Lokshin's comments above? And what Fred Bauder wrote is an official comment on behalf of the Arbitration Commitee. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 18:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia may be an attack site too
Should we perhaps add wikipedia to the list of hate sites. I am thinking about its failure to remove tens of thousands of hate-spew attacks like this one, which is available in the public record for everyone to see just by snifing around a bit and which are surely intolerable attacks that make life unsafe for wikipedia editors, SqueakBox 19:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That was reverted, and the abuser was indefinitely blocked forty-one minutes later. That shows the difference between Wikipedia and the what Denny calls "attack sites", SqueakBox. When Wikipedia administrators see that kind of stuff, we block and revert. If there's a privacy violation, rather than just a serious insult, we delete from page histories. The problem with the kind of sites that Denny seems to be talking about is that when privacy violations are posted, they're not immediately removed &mdash; in fact, they're not removed at all &mdash; and the abusers aren't blocked. In the case of one website, people who try to remove privacy violations are blocked. SqueakBox, if that link is causing you distress, please let me know, and I'll be extremely happy to remove it from the history of your page, even though it does not, as far as I can see, contain any personal information about you and your family. But speaking as someone who has been severely stalked in real life, as a result of someone discovering her identity here, not from an external site, I have to say that there are no "insults" posted to Wikipedians that can compare with the kind of harassment that can result from a sexual predator getting hold of your identity, workplace details, and elderly parents' address. A, it was removed, though not deleted from the history, and B, it was not something that could lead to real life stalking, as far as I can tell. Musical Linguist 12:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's pretty horrible stuff. &mdash; Michael Linnear   20:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup. I havent seen anything as bad in terms of attacks at WR. And while we do remove the attacks we dont mostly remove the history so actually the attack is only removed from public view not from wikipedia itself. My point also being that this former policy proposal wass unworkable and we should be looking at the logs in our own eyes before the specks in the eyes of others, SqueakBox 20:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's also posted by a user that's since been blocked for obvious reasons. While such attacks do exist on Wikipedia, the site certainly doesn't promote or glorify them in the sort of way that WR and ED do. Besides, such a classification does nothing to help clarify this policy - this policy is supposed to list sites which should never be linked to; listing Wikipedia as such a site would be absurd. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 20:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And where appropriate a user can request that an administrator delete the edit&mdash;or if personal information or other grossly inappropriate content is present, request WP:OVERSIGHT to remove it altogether. Newyorkbrad 20:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well perhaps we should be seeing much more deletions of the record for this kind of material, ie lets get our own house in order rather than just focussing on those sites outside our control. I dont want to work for a project that is fundamentally seen a shypocritical and given we just bury rathert han delete personal attacks for the most part I would have thought we shopuld clean our own house first. Perhaps Denny could draft a proposal to enforce the deletion of all questionable attacks from the history log. It would make the arbcom's job much more difficult of course but that is another question, SqueakBox 20:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We cannot just erase what we don't want to see. User page is a part of GFDL, and therefore unless it violates privacy, we can't remove it. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 14:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's true. GFDL requires that we keep a record of who has contributed to the text of an article (and frankly, even so, arguments that problematic things need to be kept for GFDL considerations are generally based on a purely theoretical argument rather than a practical one). If a comment is going to be completely deleted, there is no need to keep it in the page history. Newyorkbrad 15:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected?
I support WAS's latest rejection edit and belueve the page talk consensus reflects this, SqueakBox 20:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Premature to reject? I am not sure. What do others think? SqueakBox 20:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I struck the tag for now because I believe that further discussion might be beneficial. I do agree though that a strong consensus in favor of the current version of the page does not seem to be imminent. Newyorkbrad 20:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Further discussion wont do any harm and could indeed be useful but at least WAS has opened the debate and perhaps we should reject where, if anywhere, we are going with this, SqueakBox 20:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Rejected" doesn't necessarily mean that discussion is over. Changes may still be made to bring the proposal closer to being in line with consensus. However, I don't believe that this proposal has even come close to achieving consensus in its current form and major changes will be needed for that to happen. I believe marking it as rejected for right now is appropriate. Frise 20:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Second that. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 21:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Definitively premature. There is a vigorous debate about this, let the debate continue. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing isn't going to help. Frise 21:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's premature...besides, I recommend this as a guideline anyway and if furtherance to policy is decided later then that's fine too.--MONGO 21:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please clarify: Is it your position that consensus has been achieved regarding this proposal based on the current state of the discussion, or are you simply expressing your preference? JavaTenor 21:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Subject to correction, I read it as a statement that it's not yet clear that consensus on some version won't be achieved. Newyorkbrad 21:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Premature, but inevitable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no hurry to reject it or promote it. I prefer a reasonable solution since it is essentially a guideline that has been followed anyway for a long time...there just wasn't a specific page to address the issues.--MONGO 21:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * (ec)So how are we going to decide if it should become a guideline or not? And is it ready to potentially become a guideline right now? And if not what changes need to take place before it is ready to be considered as a guideline? SqueakBox 21:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe everyone step away from it for a day and then reconvene...if nothing fruitful comes from a break, then it will likely end up rejected.--MONGO 21:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Good idea but probably would need enforcing (eg with a full lock for 36 hours which would be justified in reducing all our stresses on this one)). But if nobody else edits here I wont either, SqueakBox 21:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Tricky to tag it as rejected when the first wholesale removal of attack site links was undertaken by an arbitrator, in response ot an arbitration ruling stating that linking to such a site constitutes harrassment. Also premature, since thus far I see very few of the regulars on this page, although I do see a few people who have certain views with respect to at least one currently banned site. we may not be seeing the full range of views proportionately represented here. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, since the the arbcom ruling disallowed the interpretation by said administrators, that aspect of this is dead as a doornail and impossible to resurrect. There is no sense in waiting for that. Mangoe 11:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Its been on the arbcom page since yesterday with very little extra input as a result so I dont think we need give it more than a few days more in terms of allowing the full range of comment. Perhaps you would care to post its existence on other critical pages, SqueakBox 23:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have suggestions on how best to alert the "regulars" to the discussion here? Has the proposal been underpublicized, and if so, what are the normal avenues by which to publicize such a discussion?  I notice it has been mentioned on wikien-l, but there may be on-wiki locations to which it ought to be added. JavaTenor 22:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * For example, would it be appropriate to add this page to Centralized_discussion? JavaTenor 22:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm just curious why it was so forcefully tagged rejected so fast. Rereading various other policy proposals don't they usually get debated for weeks or longer before being tagged dead? Seemed rather forceful, as if some wanted talk to cease. - Denny  ( talk ) 22:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It was clearly a conspiracy, my dear Denny. La Rouche! La Rouche! &mdash; Michael Linnear   23:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to WAS? I think he just thought the proposla was being so roundly rejected and wanted to reflect that. I think more discussion is good if we are precise about what else needs discusssing and how we are to make this proposal policy or reject it outright but to suggest something improper in the reject tag is ridiculous if not an bordering opnj being a sign of bad faith, SqueakBox 23:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * We can go after this further, but I have to say I can't see how this proposal is going to recover from having the central justification for the offending edits shot down. Either a rationale for excluding Wikipedia Review from the banned sites is going to have be constructed, or the discussion is going to have to create a consensus to overturn the arbcom clarification. The latter isn't going to happen as long as the principal players here remain the same, though this seems to be the current course of discussion. The former is in principle possible, but in practice nobody seems interested in pursuing it. So sure, we can let this sit around longer, but I'm not going to count on its successful revival. Mangoe 02:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, this appears to be dead in the water and I have tagged it as such. &mdash; Michael Linnear   06:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup, and I reverted it...let's have a little patience...this is hurting nothing either way, so cease tagging it as rejected.--MONGO 07:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected may send the wrong message, but this remains a worthwhile essay. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 14:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Is rejected the wrong message, really? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That is: "Rejected"? Ahh, guess it's all right to harass users by constantly linking to slander. By that I mean the essay makes a good point, and the point would be unfairly diminished by the trite "community doesn't give a fuck" template. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 14:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, now that I think about it, Attack Links might be an appropriate compromise. Clarifies the stance on posting links to abusive commentary without  committing to an overall judgment of any site. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 14:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted WAS's reinsertion of the rejected tag. WAS, please accept you have no specific authority in matters over others, and restrict your tone to not try to intimidate others as being in any position of power/authority. Thank you. - Denny  ( talk ) 14:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Referring to his addition of a tag that is probably true is not trolling behavior, as your edit summary claimed. Please do not try to intimidate others by using perjorative and obviously improper language such as "trolling behavior" when reverting good faith edits. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we should work on improving this. Marking it as "rejected" might just put an end to the discussion, and there's still a lot of discussion. I don't think it should be policy as it stands. But I think there's definitely something there that can be worked on. Let's discuss it for a little longer. ElinorD (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is my view that the discussion above shows a clear lack of consensus behind the current version of the policy, or anything similar, and no likelihood that such consensus will emerge. i think that a rejected tag would be appropriate. A significantly different proposal might well gain consensus, and even a rejected tag need not end the debate, consensus can always change. DES (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I also don't see the rush. Crum375 16:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, there is no consensus for adding the rejected tag.--MONGO 17:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Reject would be premature, SqueakBox 17:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to rush to put any tag on it - the whole tagging fetish is not actually helpful, and tends to get us arguing about things that are several steps removed from improving Wikipedia. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this page?
I'd like to ask: what is the purpose of this page? As in, this page? I'm well aware that the practice of unlinking/blacklisting "bad" sites of a variety of... varieties has the purpose of protecting Wikipedians from internet goofs who may or may not want to track them down and push into the gutter, or something, but what does the actual page accomplish? So far it seems to do three things:
 * 1) Cause a bunch of fighting, in the form of sharp sarcasm, accusation of hidden, evil motives, and outright insults
 * 2) Promote and advertise the various attack pages on the talk pages of what has become one of the most actively read and edited Wikipedia/Wikipedia talk namespace pages

So, what is this page actually doing that is helpful? If it's anything, I'm missing it. Milto LOL pia 01:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've wondered that too. If someone is posting links to the unspeakable sites for the purpose of trolling, there is already a suitable instruction page for dealing with the problem - WP:RBI.  We don't need another instruction page to tell us to do that. --BigDT 02:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:RBI is an essay. And 'goofs' can cause real life harm. This page essentially codifies and explains existing practice. Crum375 02:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's current practice to add "attack" sites to the spam blacklist? Frise 02:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur, Miltopia, that it has not been helpful; there is policy and guideline already in place to cover every aspect of this issue, except of course to actually ban the use of references to (apparently) one particular website and stick it on the spam blacklist. Although I am relieved that the other similar websites weren't really named during this debate for WP:BEANS reasons, I found it very curious that it all seemed to center on WR.  Risker 02:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Because, none of the other sites that have been brought up here are even remotely defensible, as far as i can tell (though, it's not clear what WR's done that wikitruth hasn't). --Random832 03:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

4. PROFIT!!!!! (Oops, I forgot I wasn't on Slashdot.) *Dan T.* 11:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)