Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Archive 8

Existing policies?
I've said it a dozen times, but maybe one more; can we all agree that linking to personally identifying info should be treated the same as posting the info directly to Wikipedia, linking for harassment should be treated the same as on-wiki harassment, linking to personal attacks should be treated the same as quoting the personal attacks directly, et cetera? I've never understood why there would be any need to re-create every one of our behavioural guidelines from the ground up separately for 'external links'. It is all the same nonsense which we have been dealing with since day one... the fact that it is placed one click away makes no difference whatsoever. Just go back to our old bedrock consensus policies on user behaviour with the, fairly obvious IMO, understanding that these prohibitions apply to nasty things done with external links too. There is no appreciable difference between telling someone, "You're a jerk. A complete kneebiter" on Wikipedia vs giving them a link telling them that. We've got long-standing procedures for dealing with that. Why do we need different procedures if there is a click required before you get to the nastiness? --CBD 00:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Except perhaps in the case of editors who are themselves notable public figures, I don't think there's much dispute how to deal with links that put the Wikipedia reader one click away from a page that harasses an editor. I think the broader disagreement is how to deal with links that put the user two or three clicks away. Newyorkbrad 01:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Many editors find restricting links in article space to be unacceptable even if it is one click away. JoshuaZ 01:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not just deal with on a case-by-case basis? You're never going to get a policy which governs all possible sites, or configurations of sites, or users, or situations.  Part of the context should be the intent behind the link; the THF/Michael Moore debacle comes to mind in this respect.  Many of the michaelmoore.com links which were removed had (1) nothing to do with the privacy violation and (2) were good-faith contributions to articles.  Only if they were immediately present to the personal attack would they be relevant enough to remove, and only possibly.  --Haemo 01:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with dealing things on a case by case basis. I mean, the vast majority of the time, we deal with obvious trolling just fine. I've removed many links that trolls have put on talkpages or elsewhere. The bottom line is that we deal with trolling effectively without this sort of policy. JoshuaZ 03:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

To refocus: What do you do with part of a policy that lacks consensus?
To refocus the issue. The main issue on THIS page is about the edit war we experienced today:


 * A number of editors claimed that since there aren't ANY policies on this matter that have achieved consensus, NPA#EL, by virtue of its current inclusion on the page, is de facto policy, and therefore should remain in the NPA policy page.
 * A different group of editors argues that since policy pages must reflect consensus, NPA#EL (which does not have consensus) should be removed from this page.

That's the heart of the current dispute-- a behavioral question, rather than a policy one. Is it appropriate to repeatedly reinsert text that lacks consensus into a policy page?

Meanwhile, there's a whole second question: "What SHOULD a future policy look like? The epicenter for that discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Linking to external harassment.  (with lots of splintering and overlap as usual).  --Alecmconroy 03:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

This one's easy. No consensus = remove. I agree that discussion about any ongoing policy should head to the proposal page, and hope that we can leave poor old NPA alone when the protection expires, and the awkward debate has moved on to that page. Privatemusings 04:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * FWIW, policy reflects concensus. If there's no consensus, there's no policy.  That said, the section is particularly silly because it probably makes it harder to enforce NPA with respect to external links than it would be without it (where "No harrassing people" would take over as the default). Wily D  13:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced the contentious section with a call for less disruption, and encouragement to focus the problematic discussion elsewhere. I'd entreat all editors to sitck to 1RR when editing this section. Let's play nice. Privatemusings 21:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Did we ever get an uninvolved editor to make the determination of the consensus? Or was it just deleted because a couple of folks are opposed to it? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, as I understand it, we are attempting to redirect the discussion/debate to WP:LINKLOVE, where it may do more good. Best,—AL FOCUS! 06:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hear Hear. It's a shame that MONGO has removed the infobox asking editors to minimise disruption on this page, and returned the troublesome section. I don't believe the text should be there, and I believe the infobox I posted was fair, and uncontroversial. I support returning the page to 'my' version. Privatemusings 06:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That "other" page is simply different altogether...I haven't looked at it completely yet, but I still see no reason to completely eliminate the NPA standard about linking to malicious websites.--MONGO 06:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well the other page deals in detail with Linking to external harassment, which really is the issue at hand here. I'm sure you'd agree that this page has been significantly disrupted - I believe that if we can shift disruption and debate to a more appropriate forum then that would be a good thing. Privatemusings 06:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I would also implore you to please please please stick to 1RR to avoid another silly escalation. (with one more please for good luck.) Privatemusings 06:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom's final decision
Requests for arbitration/Attack sites - please update your jargon/update catch-phrases from the asinine MONGO decision in your brains accordingly.

In all seriousness, let's use this as a guide as it's actually pretty well put together in my opinion. Milto LOL pia 07:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Here here. I'm _so_ relieved to see this end without a blanket endorsement of BADSITES.  In particular, the proposal to order the removal of all links to ASM was overwhelmingly rejected.  The days where people could say "BADSITES is policy because arbcom said so" are, thankfully, behind us. --Alecmconroy 07:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Once this page is unprotected, the footnotes quoting ArbCom (if any such thing is to be retained in the final version after all the edit wars are settled) should be updated to cite relevant parts of the new decision instead of the outdated ones currently in place. *Dan T.* 13:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Q: What was "asinine" about the MONGO decision? That we would no longer link to ED? WR doesn't even attempt to make an effort to declare they are "funny", yet they spend almost all their time catering to the likes of Wordbomb and company, stalking and harassing our contributors...and in that way, they are almost worse, frankly. I really do suggest you guys please read over the attack sites case...particularily this finding--MONGO 06:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Per the above section, it's a shame that you (MONGO) have chosen to revert, and maintain your battle footing. There's really no need! You ask in your edit summary why the section is being removed. Speaking personally, it's because I'd like to minimize disruption on this page, and focus debate at the policy proposal where it will be the most productive. I did mention that in my edit summary, and above, which you either missed, or ignored. Privatemusings 06:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My definition of disruption includes efforts to eliminate entire sections that clearly should be part of this policy.--MONGO 07:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You've been very clear about your opinion that the section should be part of this page, but I'm not sure that it represents a consensus for its inclusion, which is what we (as a community) require. You kind of also run the risk of claiming that any disagreement with your opinion is disruption, which is not the collegiate atmosphere we aspire to. Privatemusings 07:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Nah...I am pretty sure I am capable of fostering a collegiate atmosphere...my article contributions clearly demonstrate that. There is no reason to wipe out a section that needs to be in this policy.--MONGO 07:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we both value the vibe around here - but aside from your assertion, can you really say that you believe there to be consensus for this section? Privatemusings 08:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can say it..."I believe there is consensus for that section".--MONGO 08:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * MONGO, what're you trying to accomplish with snide comments like that? Milto LOL pia 08:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)  struck, Milto LOL pia 08:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Snide might be the right word for his joke, but he can't truly be seriously, can he? --Alecmconroy 12:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think MONGO's being snide, Miltopia (I did ask him a pretty direct question) - let's avoid escalation. I would like to ask MONGO if in establishing his view of consensus he has disregarded any editor's views for any reason? Privatemusings 08:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (it's hopefully self-evident that I don't agree that yours is an accurate reading of consensus here - sorry.) Privatemusings 08:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Though I don't have time to link-it-up with the arbcom notes, I definitely feel that the updated decision is more closely represented by my earlier rewrite. I'm not going to flat-out revert war over it again, but the arbcom has made it clear, now quite explicitly in response to JzG's request for clarification on WP:RFAR, that there is not a blanket ban on linking to these sorts of sites (except for the nastiest ones), and that the intention of a linker is relevant. Please bear in mind that "linking to a BADSITE" was proposed and shot down, while "linking to a BADSITE so as to harass" was (appropriately, to be sure) passed.

Surely the last bit of advice on avoiding escalation of issues is helpful too, I think, for those looking to avoid fights. This wording still describes accurately the prohibition on linking as a means of harassment, mentioning that folks can get banned for it. Milto LOL pia 08:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * For process sake, I would prefer us to just have NPA be silent on the whole issue until such time as there actually is a policy it can summarize. Right now, we're just summarizing what we expect will one day become policy, basically-- which is a putting the cart before the horse.


 * But, the text up as of this moment doesn't jump out at me as highly disputed, so in the interest of avoiding escalation, I'll let it sit if others will, since all that text prohibits is the intentional use of such links to attack-- something I haven't heard any objections to. --Alecmconroy 11:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to keep this page protected or otherwise come to an agreement to cease hostilities here in favor of working out remaining disputes at Linking to external harassment? As long as this page remains "live," attention is diverted from the replacement proposal that portends to cover the issues more thoroughly and actually has a chance of achieving consensus, if everyone involved keeps their cool.—AL FOCUS! 15:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think a protection is needed, but I can enforce 3RR strictly if it becomes an issue here. 1 != 2  15:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The dispute here does distract from creating a better policy, and hopefully it's settled now, and we can shift focus over to Linking to external harassment. But it was important to rip out the BADSITES garbage from this page.  As of this moment, it seems to be gone, and hopefully no one will try to reinsert the rejected text again.  When people reinsert rejected proposals into existing policy, they're just laying the foundation to treat the rejected proposal as de facto policy, and to act as if it were policy.


 * It was important to get it settled, once and for all, that as of this second, Wikipedia has NO policy on this subject. Until that happened,  you were never gonna get a new policy, because people would just say "no thanks, I don't think we need a policy, because we already have the de facto policy".  Worse, if we had let the rejected proposal sit in the middle of NPA, we would have risked having another embarrassing fiasco like the ones we've had in the past. --Alecmconroy 15:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey-- what do BADSITES have to do with 'personal attacks' anyway!?
You know, something rather revolutionary occurs to me just now.

Regardless of which policy proposals you favor-- why are we putting it in the middle of NPA anyway?

BADSITES, its ilk, and Linking to external harassment don't even involve personal attacks. Those proposals are about off-site campaigns of HARASSMENT-- outings, death-threats, cyber-stalking and the like. Neither proposal is meant to address simple off-site personal attacks of the form ("Jim is a big stupidhead and I hate his guts").

If we ever find a consensus policy and want to summarize it in the middle of an existing document, surely WP:HARASS is the place to link to it, not NPA. Putting it in the middle of NPA is just ASKING  for people to blur the distinction between actual HARASSMENT and mere criticism, rude opinions, name-calling etc (even though we all recognize harassment is a different beast entirely, going far far beyond personal attacks). --Alecmconroy 15:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I would agree with that. It was just a bit of dumb luck that I wasn't familiar with HARRASS before I forked the initial text into NPA, over MONGO's resolute objections at the time. No consensus then, either. Opps.—AL FOCUS! 15:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Gurch blocked for enforcing "BADSITES"
User:Gurch was just blocked for edit waring over a link to someone's blog on that person's user-page. While I personally don't endorse anyone's actions in this case, I'm bringing it up to show that any policy kept here or created elsewhere can't work from BADSITES or its functional equivalence as any kind of foundation or point of reference. Making Linking to external harassment into a really nuanced policy or guideline offers the only way out of this past history that I can tell.—AL FOCUS! 16:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * He was blocked for violating 3RR, not because there is any consensus to be able to link to attacks (though, I have not looked at the blog link he was trying to remove, so I cannot say whether it was an attacking blog or not).--MONGO 16:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, but (assuming good faith) he broke 3RR because he thought some de facto BADSITES exempted him from 3RR. Which it doesn't, because all such policies have been rejected. --Alecmconroy 16:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems like some sort of weird WP:POINT activity on his part... as far as I can see, the blog in question had no attack content at all, and contained only mild, innocuous discussion of Wikipedia among other topics. *Dan T.* 16:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a 3RR block, nothing to see here. 1 != 2  16:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Perfect case in point, User:Gurch was repeatedly removing a link based on the claim that BADSITES is de facto policy. . IF we assume good faith, Gurch probably thought he would be exempt from 3RR based on that de facto policy. Since it's NOT policy, he was blocked for it.

In the defense of such user, this myth of a de facto BADSITES policy is partially my fault (along with the rest of us here). I let text sit on NPA that didn't have consensus, and I let it sit there for six months. I figured "As long as it says disputed, what's the problem?  Besides, edit wars are so unpleasant, I don't wanna get involved.  Surely somebody else is gonna fix it."

We see now that letting rejected text sit in the middle of an establish policy leads to a general misperception that the rejected text IS policy-- even when accompanied by a disputed disclaimer. In retrospect, I should have taken a more deletionist approach and said "if it's highly disputed, get it off the policy page".

Oh well, live and learn. All in the past now. (Unless somebody is STILL crazy enough to come back here and try to reinsert disputed text back into the policy). --Alecmconroy 16:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Done...I guess I need to go get a mental health check up?--MONGO 16:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Alec, I like your arguments generally, but please don't try to provoke people. MONGO, please try not to take everything personally. Thanks—AL FOCUS!
 * Well shoot....  I really wasn't trying to provoke--  I actually thought we were done with that nonsense. --Alecmconroy 17:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't personally...just trying to see if indeed I am crazy by definition. I love everyone!--MONGO 17:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I was just going to post that link, ha ha. Only LINKLOVE can defeat BADSITES!—AL FOCUS! 17:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone insisting on reverting back to the version that cites ArbCom ought at least to revert back to the version of it that I edited earlier in order to put quotes from the recently-concluded case in it instead of the obsolete ones from outdated cases. *Dan T.* 17:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't totally disagree with your last version, but perhaps both are applicable...ED is still not a website we can link to and I doubt that will change in the near future, so that case isn't obsolete.--MONGO 17:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The current ArbCom had the opportunity to impose flat link bans on a number of specific sites, as well as the general concept of "attack sites", and declined this opportunity. Their final decision restricts links done for the purpose of harrassing, and gives a guideline (not a ban) suggesting against frivolously linking to things that bother people, but they pointedly refused to pass any remedies or enforcement provisions banning any particular links.  Hence, the current state of affairs is that there is no site, not even ED or ASM, that is totally off-limits under all circumstances.  Instead, case-by-case good sense must be allowed to operate. *Dan T.* 18:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I would not test the waters here, Dan...if you think I will stand for anyone adding links to ED, you are gravely mistaken...the older MONGO ruling is not superceded by the new attack sites ruling, so I have added those links back.--MONGO 18:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Since when is what "I will stand for" the basis of policy? I guess you're similar to the U.S. Army slogan "An Army of One", in that you consider yourself "A Consensus of One"? *Dan T.* 18:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you'll be shocked to see me backing up MONGO here, but ED was stated to be an "obvious case" in the recent ruling, and new rulings do not necessarily supersede older rulings of arbcom, unless they reference or specifically contradict the older ruling. ED links are verboten, as far as I have ever known. - Crockspot 18:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's moot until if and when, God forbid, it's deblacklisted. Milto LOL pia 18:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflicts) I agree with Dan here. The use of overly broad "attack sites" language in the prior decision lead to the recent and current conflicts. The recently closed Arb case, and all its related issues, was initiated on the very concept of "attack sites," and therefore has to superceed the prior MONGO decision so far as the concept of "attack sites," which the ArbCom invented, can be considered useful for any further policy propsals or guidelines. But this does not mean that "links to ED," for instance, would be necessarily permissible or impermissible, but that they would remain to be evaluated and reviewed on a case-by-case-basis. (I didn't know about ED being blacklisted. So what was the point of bringing up ED, then?)—AL FOCUS! 18:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Gurch was blocked for 3RR, not for anything to do with BADSITES. Altyhough it does reinforce the fact that edit warring over external links will get you blocked if you revert 3 times, because BADSITES was rejected, and trying to crowbar it in here makes no sense, when the applicable policy would be WP:EL, or maybe WP:HARRASS, not NPA. I've reverted MONGO's edit, as having two ArbCom rulings that say different, countermanding things makes no sense, and the logical thing is to use the one that was made most recently. And we also don't need the MONGO one because ED is blacklisted and will be until one hour after the crack of doom.  Neil   ☎  18:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, and and this sneaky editing coupled with "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" is something Wikipedians will have to combat for a while   Milto LOL pia 18:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe the crack of doom happened without me noticing it, but apparently that site is not automatically spam-blacklisted... this edit had no problem inserting it, though it was soon reverted. *Dan T.* 18:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I wonder how they did that? It still appears on the spam blacklist.  ???  Milto LOL pia 18:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * By misspelling. It was a bad link. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * ED is not included in Wikipedia because there is a consensus that it is non-notable. The day that changes and there is a consensus that ED  is notable, it will be removed from the blacklist and added to the encyclopedia.  But of course, I wouldn't expect that to happen. --Alecmconroy  —Preceding comment was added at 22:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

User:JzG is starting to suppress WR links from various old discussions and such, despite failing to get a "clarification" from ArbCom in favor of this. *Dan T.* 02:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's sad that a few bad apples end up getting all the attention. There's nothing wrong with a sincere attempt to protect u.ers-- compassion is a good thing.  But since the arbcom case overturned BADSITES, we've seen a disturbing trend for a few editors to throw the rules out the window and resort to vandalism & policy violations as a last-ditch effort to try to get their way-- be it through repeatedly reinserting BADSITES against consensus here, or through the vendetta-esque purges that JzG did when he didn't get the answer he wanted from Arbcom.   It does a real disservice to the rest of the the pro-BADSITES people weren't motivated by vigilantism, anarchism, or vendettas, but who just wanted made a good faith attemtp to propose a policy aimed at  protection, and who now respectfully abide by the community's decision to reject that proposal.   --Alecmconroy 03:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you think they rejected. This is still an encyclodpedia.  Purging links to non-reliable sources such as ED and WR that also have a history of maligning editors was not rejected by anyone.  MichaelMoore.com was at least arguable since the links were actually on an article about MM.    But WR and ED are not notable so I am not sure their links serve any purpose except to harrass or create drama.  Either way, their deletion improves the encyclopedia.  --DHeyward 05:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's baloney, there was plenty of evidence about WR in the evidence page and the arbcom specifically banned one site and specifically did NOT ban WR. Then when Guy went to them to try and get them to ban WR, they wouldn't have it.  They weren't impressed by the people who want to make a huuuuge deal about WR and play whack-a-troll in the dark, as a wise friend of mine once said, and you can't just wish that away and edit war over links without expecting resistance.  Milto LOL pia 05:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

All set
OK, everything's fixed. Let's all go back to building an encyclopedia. -- 146.115.58.152 02:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Crap, typo! OK, now. I knew I was being overly optimistic. -- 146.115.58.152 02:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I kinda liked the more detailed version but I've already reverted once today on this page. Why was it trimmed so?  Milto LOL pia 05:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the edits made by the IP editor...this is a policy page, so if you expect your contributions to a major policy to hold water, then use your username.--MONGO 09:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not exactly the kind of constructive criticism I had hoped for. Any comments on the content? -- 146.115.58.152 17:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's excellent, and have reverted to that version. MONGO does not have the right to revert good faith and valuable edits from IP contributors just because they didn't include his Arbcom ruling.  There is no law that requires policy page contributors to be logged in to edit any pages. Consider this reversion an endorsement of the IP's edits.  Neil   ☎  17:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Restored Dispute notice and info on policy proposal
Hi folks, I'm afraid I still consider this disputed, and I think the link to the policy proposal is useful. I certainly believe that this page should remain silent on the thorny issue of external links. Privatemusings 09:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * MONGO needs to accept that the old ways of doing things have been rejected, both by the community and arbcom, in favor of more reasonable methods of preventing harassment. And this is certainly disputed, so the addition of this tag, as well as the link to WP:LINKLOVE, is warranted.  Milto LOL pia 09:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Why are you bringing my name up here...are you attacking me, again? Please stop bringing my username up all the time.--MONGO 09:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I would imagine, Mongo, because you keep reverting to the against-consensus version of this page that includes your old ArbCom ruling, which has since been outmoded. Neil   ☎  17:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that is not the case. The MONGO ruling compliments the newer ruling...I did not ever once see an arbitrator state that the MONGO case was null and void.--MONGO 05:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * They rejected saying it was expandable to general issues. SchmuckyTheCat
 * Attention was called to its flaws in the arbitrators' accept/reject votes as well. Do not make personal attacks in edit summaries regarding users' offsite activities if you expect the same courtesy for yourself.  Milto LOL pia 06:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Likewise...if you are an ED contributor, then there is no way I can consider your efforts to suppress policy against linking to malicious websites as being anything other than malicious.--MONGO 06:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * MONGO, you really need to update your hostilities. Schmucky's last 50 contribs at THAT SITE go back to August 2006, and I have abandoned that site entirely, losing no friends but many enemies in the process.  SHOW.  SOME.  INTEGRITY.  ANd a little maturity would be nice too.  Stop obsessing about that website.  Stop reverting people for that reason.  Milto LOL pia 06:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Then someone has hijacked your username there...did you give out your password there? I think it is high time you showed some integrity Miltopia...start by writing some articles...please.--MONGO 06:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't you get it MONGO? Here:  I used to edit at Encyclopedia Dramatica in the past.  In the present, I am no longer active at Encyclopedia Dramatica.  There.  Now you have no excuse.  And if you ever say any different, you are a liar.  Milto LOL pia 06:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I just checked there...there seem to be some recent edits by you on that site...that is why I asked if you your username was hijacked or if you gave your password out to someone else. You don't look very active there, but there is some recent activity.--MONGO 07:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, MONGO; editing a template a week ago and MOCKING THE SITE for its suckiness two months ago is not "active". Milto LOL pia 07:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was just going by your constant statements that you no longer contribute to that website...to me no longer contributing means, zero edits, no involvement...maybe our ideas of no longer contributing are two different things.--MONGO 07:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * YOU WIN MONGO :-D :-D :-D :-D   Milto LOL pia 07:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * *yawn* AGF MONGO, you can at least pretend. SchmuckyTheCat
 * Likewise...you reverted me and have participated almost nothing to this discussion prior to that...you expect me to AGF and yet I can't ever recall you ever doing that for me...so tiring.--MONGO 06:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I'd back you in a minute if this was about some 9/11 truther bullshit. Everything I've had to say on this issue is in the archives.  This talk page is way too noisy with circular discussions for any meaningful participation, and recently that seems to be revolving around your daily 2RR. SchmuckyTheCat

Removed section and plead for disruption to be focused elsewhere.
At this stage, I don't think any editors would disagree that this particular section has caused unnecessary disruption and problematic behaviour on all sides whilst on this page. A policy page of this importance deserves to be stable, with strong consensus. Passionate debate has led to an unstable policy page, and I would like to move the instability over to the policy proposal, where it may help craft a long term solution to this problem. Privatemusings 12:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * May I second that. The text PM has up right now is completely neutral on the issue-- it  is neither Pro- nor- Anti badsites.  It makes no argument one way or the other, it's just a very calm, neutral, wise request for everyone to take this to the proposal page.  It would be a very very good thing if we could just keep something nice and bland and unobjectionable like this up, so we could devote all our energies to crafting a long term solution. --Alecmconroy 13:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not ideal to me but it's certainly something I can live with. Pus it might free up some time for me elsewhere.  Milto LOL pia 17:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Please engage here (or better yet, at the policy proposal page.)
I shall shortly make my 1 revert back to the version I sincerely believe to be in the best interests of a long term solution, and am now practically begging editors who wish to edit this important policy page to read at least the last few sections of the above, and engage here, rather than reverting with what seems to be to be at best a cursory explanation in the edit summary. Privatemusings 07:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Simply put, those revert warring to MONGO's version due only to ties with MONGO or sympathy for the same must cease at once if this is to go anywhere. Any personally-oriented edits of ANY kind are disruptive.  Milto LOL pia 07:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a game. MONGO has made 11 reversions in 4 days. Just under his "entitlement" of 3RR. It isn't about discussion or consensus. SchmuckyTheCat
 * Then please report him to WP:AN/3RR. Please avoid metadiscussions on the talkpage Alex Bakharev 07:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not so much a metadiscussion, or an incident that requires reporting, more just kind of unhelpful behaviour. That's what I believe it to be in any case, I'd really encourage all editors to stick to 1RR. Privatemusings 08:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Linking to the external attack sites
If we remove linking to the attack sites here we can as well delete the whole policy. The workaround of having a personal attack on an external site, blog or forum and then linking it here is well known and makes the same damage as a direct personal attack onwiki. Thus, we must somehow discourage people from doing this. Besides we have a relevant arbcom decision that we need people to know. The "Mongo's version" fixes those two problem; "Miltopia's version" does not. Alex Bakharev 07:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If the External Links policy proposal becomes policy, then we can probably just link to it from here...but so far, that effort is still in the proposal stages, so no reason to remove these arbcom decisions as they substantiate what the section discusses.--MONGO 07:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Alex, my version does state the prohibition of linking to sites to attack or harass someone. It also references the recently concluded arbcom case.  I don't even think you read my version.
 * Additionally, Privatemusings' "just link to the proposal" version links to a proposal which outlines the harm in harassment links as well. Milto LOL pia 07:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is silly. The old methods were not satisfactory and ended up in arbitration as a result.  This mindset was condemned by the community and by the committee; it's time for reasonable handling and prevention of harassment that focuses on Wikipedia as an encyclopedia above all other priorities to take the place of hysteria and battleground-oriented groupthink.  Milto LOL pia 08:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

(drafted as reply to Alex) If you are saying that you feel there is no way to have a workable personal attacks policy without expressly banning links to some sites, then I'm afraid I can't agree. Not withstanding the establishment of consensus (I, and others, do not believe that this section has ever had consensus), I hope you'll agree that the community, and specifically this page, has suffered significant disruption over this issue.

I believe it would be better if this page were stable, and discussion focused at the proposal page, where all parties are welcome, and the community consensus will emerge. Hence the contentious section should be removed, replaced with a netural note. Privatemusings 08:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Protected for the umpteenth time
This goes out to every single one of you. Stop edit warring on a policy page. The protection will expire in 10 days or I will remove it if I see some meaningful discussion by all parties. Take this opportunity to cool off and talk about it. Viridae Talk 09:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where to go from here as much of the discussion about this particular page has come to a consensus. Once someone comes and proxy-reverts for MONGO and reposts an older issue on the talk it generates a small response, but of course the conclusion is the same.  Where do we go from here, any ideas anyone?  Milto LOL pia 17:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There are areas where all reasonable people are in agreement. I'll delineate them.
 * Encyclopedia Dramatica is not a reliable source.
 * Encyclopedia Dramatica is not an acceptable external link on any currently existing article.
 * Community consensus does not currently support an article on Encyclopedia Dramatica.
 * Wikipedia Review (1-3)
 * Antisocialmedia (1-3)
 * Sites like the above (1-3)
 * However, this blanket "no" to the above sites does not extend to whatever the name of that authors blog is, or to michaelmoore.com.
 * Strive to document this understanding. MOASPN 17:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think your assessment of the Wikipedia Review is a little off, and "sites like the above" is waaaay open-ended and not that simple to document. However, the dispute is largely over wording rather than content.  MONGO and others either don't believe that or are just pulling another fast one.  Milto LOL pia 18:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Is Wikipedia Review a reliable source, an acceptable link on any existing article or does the community support and article on Wikipedia Review? I believe MONGO believes that your wording is designed to open the door to more people asking MONGO if he's seen the most recent harassment on his ED page. MOASPN 18:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult but I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. Milto LOL pia 18:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's operate under the assumption that MONGO believes that you are dishonest, and that Shmucky the cat is malicious. This assumption may be false, but let's pretend, because, and let's be honest, you both have a shitty history with respect to MONGO (regardless of his history with respect to you), and I don't think either of you have become the bigger man and apologized yet. Here is the revert - . Why do you feel that MONGO's version does not accurately reflect his important point that ED, WR, ASM and sites like the above are not to be linked maliciously, regardless of what some other page which is a proposal says? How does your pointer reflect the fact that the community does not approve - period - of harassing our users? MOASPN 18:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have reverted to two seperate versions:
 * - what I've mentioned in this verson is some extras that the old version lacks.  First of all, any policy on this issue, any at all, needs to make it clear that there is plenty of disagreement over what is and isn't an attack site.  Because there is.  There's no questioning that.  Additionally, the old version basically says that harassment sites are banned banned banned and 3RR does not apply; by failing to acknowledge disagreement about what sites are BADSITES, this gives any yahoo free license to edit war ad nauseum so long as they use "attack site" as an excuse.  This is the sort of behavior that was rejected at BADSITES.  Furthermore, the old way didn't take into account WP:AGF which is not indicative of actual practice.  While this blanket "don't link" was actually rejected by arbcom recently, "don't link to harass" passed.  This discourages people from doing something stupid like blocking people for linking to a site with questionable content on it, even when the PAGE linked was fine (arbcom made this distinction as well).  However, my version made it clear that harassing or attacking others with links was still prohibited under penalty of the banhammer, as well as noting that it is an act of courtesy to avoid even good faith linkage or mentioning of such a site unless really necessary.  Finally, it concluded with some advice on how to avoid needless escalation due to misunderstanding.
 * The most recent reverts have been to a version that merely links to a proposal regarding this issue. This is NOT to say that the section is null and void; the purpose is to aoid splintering the discussion while still effectively outlining the policies about external harassment.  Milto LOL pia 18:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not see that either of these versions makes it perfectly clear that adding links to Encyclopedia Dramatica/ASM (also known as "sites which exist substantially to harass our editors") is prohibited, that such links will be reverted without limit, and that repeatedly adding such links will result in lengthy blocks. We all agree that this is the current state of affairs, no? There is no substantial disagrement about these points, is there? You don't support SPA's showing up to remind MONGO he's got a page on ED, do you? MOASPN 18:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a feature, not a bug... flat link bans not sensitive to the context and purpose of the links are not a good thing to have. As for your strawman, no, I don't favor or support anybody posting anything for the purpose of annoying or hassling MONGO or any other editor, and support giving blocks to people who do so. *Dan T.* 18:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You have not yet commented on WR being an acceptable RS, EL or article subject. Please do so. MOASPN 18:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * For Criticisms of Wikipedia, maybe, if its status as a leading discussion forum for Wikipedia criticism is accepted. For Essjay controversy, it was used at one point to document an item in the timeline of the controversy that explicitly involved that site, but this was removed as a result of overzealous BADSITES enforcement, and hasn't been replaced since, and the timeline reference to it was recently scrubbed for lack of a source.  It's arguable that it ought to be replaced there.  There are also arguments against these points, but they're a content dispute fully subject to 3RR, not something with a flat policy trumping all else. *Dan T.* 18:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No version of the disputed section mentions these sites or links to these sites... the links themselves are not the issue, the question is whether "attack site" language is at all appropriate in NPA. In any case, specific remedies prescribed against a particular site never had sanction "across the board."—AL FOCUS! 18:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not the time nor the place to debate about Wikipedia Review. I hardly know anything about it.  The point is there is little support for total, unshifting bans on links to it.  Obviously pages intended only for harassment serve no purpose.  Milto LOL pia 18:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Links to ED are not only banend but impossible. Links to ASM have been forboden by arbcom.  But specific sites do not need to be mentioned here; they are mentioned at arbcom.  Wikipedia policy needs to be usable as a guide for possible attack sites that come up in the future, for one thing. We don't need to go into chaotic edit wars on this page every time another site is brought to our attention.  Milto LOL pia 18:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * To be precise, Arbcom, in its latest decision, failed to vote in any remedy or enforcement provision that explicitly bans any link at all, though you can "connect the dots" in the principles and facts it voted in to observe that they said you shouldn't link to harrassing sites, and that ED and ASM are such... but they then declined to actually impose such a ban directly. The whole issue of what was banned or not was remanded back to the community. *Dan T.* 19:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OMG, you're right. They did identify it as a harassment site though.  I for one don't think it should ever be linked but still don't see the merit in naming individual sites in a policy.  Milto LOL pia 19:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Just in the interests of keeping focus-- the question of what a proposed policy should look like is a little off-topic for this page, and might be better served at Wikipedia talk:Linking to external harassment. The trouble we've bumped into here is that NPA#EL was created to summarize a proposal that hadn't become policy yet (and which was ultimately rejected).   Since no proposal on this subject has yet achieved consensus, we shouldn't jump the gun and try to create a summary for a policy that doesn't yet exist. --Alecmconroy 19:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That policy is finished and has strong consensus, IMO. It, however, prohibits links to Wikipedia Review - see sections titled "No encyclopedic value," and "Routinely harass," which Wikipedia Review, neither an acceptable EL, nor RS, fails in spades. The summary of that policy on this page will make it clear that adding links to self-published pages or forums that serve substantially to denigrate our editors here is grounds for blocking. MOASPN 19:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You are completely missing the point of that page. It's not about witch-hunting entire sites; not every thread on there is harassment-oriented.  But again, this is not the place to be arguing about WR's merits.  Milto LOL pia 19:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No thread there is an acceptable EL or RS. As such, because of the "Routinely harass" key policy point those sites are, in effect, banned from inclusion. Untill ED/WR/ASM partisans here accept that we're forming language on this page that makes the blanket ban of links to their not-encyclopedic sites which routinely harass clear, we can't move past this edit war. When all of you have bought into the fact that the language that goes here will make it clear that site which routinely harass are not to have links to non-encyclopedic content added, we can move on. MOASPN 19:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not the place for this, unless you are suggesting this policy page should specifically name Wikipedia Review as a bant site. Milto LOL pia 19:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am suggesting that this page make it clear that linking non-RS/EL links on sites which "Routinely harass," is subject to sanction if repeated. I do not believe that the WR partisans have fully accepted this indicates a blanket ban on WR. My proposed language for this section follows. MOASPN 19:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The reinserting behavior problem
Protected again? I have to say, this is growing tiresome. Let's forget all about what kind of policy we SHOULD have here someday-- we can all admit this is a problem we haven't solved-- it's big dispute.

I'm not an admin, I don't usually get too familiar with behavior issues, but it seems to me some neutral person of authority needs to sit down and have a heart-to-heart talk with the people who keep re-inserting the old text that we all know is highly disputed.

Regardless of what you think the policy SHOULD be, it is NEVER okay to add text to a policy page that you know is highly disputed. You shouldn't do it even once. Knowingly altering a major policy page so that the policy text becomes highly disputed-- that's just never acceptable. Policies reflect consensus-- if you take a rejected proposal and add it into a policy page-- you're being disruptive, and I've seen people blocked for less.

Now, by my count-- MONGO has re-added text he knows is disputed something like 12 times recently. Usually, his edit summaries have included personal attacks against the other editors here.            

How many times are we gonna let him do this, before we stop treating this if it were an just an article having a content dispute and start treating it as a disruptive attempt to edit war a rejected proposal into being a policy in order to circumvent consensus?

Every second we spend dealing with the disruption of someone readding a rejected proposal into NPA just makes it all the harder to actually find a good solution to the question of Linking to External Harassment. I hope the 10-day "cool off" will end the behavior. Personally, my patience in the matter starting to wear thin. It's well known the BADSITES/NPA#EL text is disputed, it's well known it doesn't have consensus after ample discussion. Multiple warnings against readding it have been issued, but that doesn't hasn't seemed to stop a few very dedicated people from persisting in readding rejected proposal text into a policy page. --Alecmconroy 19:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * See also Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Milto LOL pia 19:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be suffering from a goose-gander neutrality problem. . MOASPN 19:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not reverting to rejected policy, nor am I ignoring the talk page, nor am I actively making it worse, nor am I attacking others in edit summaries and endlessly bringing up irrelevant offsite drama; MONGO is doing all of the above. Milto LOL pia 19:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. You are reverting to rejected policy. Your very existance here brings up (ir)relevent offsite drama - your editing career at wikipedia began with some good honest stalking of MONGO by you, which I don't believe you've apologize for. MOASPN 19:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are going to disrupt this talk page with your refusal to discuss the issue rather than my character and previous, resolved issues then we are through. Milto LOL pia 19:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It is the lack of resolution of said issues that is creating this problem. MOASPN 19:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Right now it's your trolling of this page that is creating a problem. If you have nothing more to say than "NO U" and "anything that reminds me of ED is bad now lets go over everyone's transgressions every time we disagree" then you need to excuse yourself from this topic.  Do NOT COMMENT ON ME PERSONALLY OR ON MY OFFSITE ACTIVITIES in this namespace.  If you're interested in getting a clue post to user talk:Miltopia and I'll take some time out of my day to give you a much needed enlightening.  Milto LOL pia 19:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It appears to me that it's the link-ban-advocacy group that's constantly mentioning ED here, not their opponents. And making a claim that another editor's "very existence here brings up (ir)relevent [sic] offsite drama" seems like an extreme personal attack. *Dan T.* 20:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, I don't see where Milo is "reverting to rejected policy." -- 146.115.58.152 20:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's just the tactic; if I say "so-and-so is doing X", this single-purpose account is just going to say "No, you are doing X". There's no substance to it at all.  Milto LOL pia 20:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My remarks were removed for being off topic? Guess what, this entire thread is off topic, and I suggest you all move it to a more appropriate venue, like a user talk page, or an administrative page (if it is MONGO's behavior being discussed). Shut it down and/or move it now. - Crockspot 20:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed replacement
Links that conatin privacy violations or malicious harassment may not be posted and may be removed if they serve no encyclopedic purpose.

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. Do not add external links of no value to the encyclopedia or the community building the encyclopedia from sites that commit privacy violations or which engage in malicious harassment. Deliberate addition of such links is grounds for blocking, and removal of such links is not subject to the three-revert rule. Wikipedia strongly discourages any links to web sites that routinely harass, due to the expected bias of authors on such sites and the potential of the material on the site, taken as a whole, to cause distress to innumerable editors. Information on these so-called "attack sites" should be treated with healthy skepticism. When adding links of any type, be certain to follow our policies on External Links and Reliable Sources.

Comments
Proposed. MOASPN 19:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Object on a couple of grounds. One is just out of courtesy, we shouldn't summarize Linking to external harassment until we're positive it has consensus, and it has transformed from proposal to policy.  Secondly, the text is an accurate summary Linking to external harassment-- Posting for the PURPOSE of attack is forbidden--- this text implies the links are blanket forbidden. ExtHaras evaluates by link.  This text claims site-by-site evaluation.  I don't think the summary properly summarizes-- something like the nutshell would do better.


 * And lastly-- I think it might be misleading to even summarize ExtHarass on NPA at all! Personal attacks don't even qualify as harassment, so summarizing here serve to conflate mere "personal attacks" with "wanton and malicious systematic campaigns of harassment".  And also NPA shouldn't be applied to article space-- we have lots of persona attacks all over article space.  But ExtHarass does address article space.  If we were gonna summarize it anywhere (which we don't have to), WP:HARASS is the place, not WP:NPA.  --Alecmconroy 20:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't this this is a good idea I'm afraid. Key point is that we don't want difficult and contentious portions of text on what should be a stable policy page. As you've seen, consensus on this issue has been hard to judge.


 * I also disagree with the para significantly, but would rather encourage you to take your thoughts over to the policy proposal page where our disagreement might help build a better policy, rather than here, because this policy, frankly, deserves a break. Privatemusings 21:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I basically disagree for the reasons I've argued at length about the old version, as this is basically the exact same thing. Milto LOL pia 21:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Is there any middle ground that you would all agree to, or is it your way or the highway? MOASPN 22:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll reiterate that I think the best way forward is for debate to shift to the policy proposal page, where your ideas can (and should) be discussed at length and in depth. Perhaps common ground is the easiest place to start, and certainly I support a very strong stance (I believe 'shoot on sight' is the phrase doing the rounds) on a specific kind of criminal harassment / incitement that has occurred on wikipedia. I'm also very firm that, where appropriate, to link to a critical view, no matter how vitriolic, is healthy for us. Privatemusings 23:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (ec, replying to MOASPN) Heavens-- there's opinions of all kinds flying back and forth over at Linking to External Harassment. Middle grounds all over the place. --Alecmconroy 23:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In reply to MOASPN: I can't speak for any "you all," and I don't have any suggested edits to your proposal, but I would suggest something in the spirit of compromise.  The suggestion has been made that it is possible to remove unencyclopedic links an keep them off of Wikipedia in an effective and low-heat manner under current policies.  Can we try that for a little while, and see how well it works?  I mean, Criticism of Wikipedia is an article where we successfully argued to de-link WR for purely policy reasons. Can we try that approach for a while, and see whether an explicit policy is really required?  We'll approach the situation with a resolve to do it strictly by the book, with no moral judgments, or outrage, or name-calling - just boring rules about sources.  I think we can be effective that way, and remain in harmony with our roles as encyclopedists, without accepting any bait to get riled up and feed trolls. If this doesn't work, after some period of time, then we can try writing direct references to off-site harassment into policy.  How does that sound? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This page is supposedly policy. As such, it is wrong to include here a either a proposal, or a summary thereof, that is either known to have been rejected by the community or has not yet gained consensus support. Policy pages are for guidance that already has consensus. That proposal may never gain any consensus, and we shouldn't even think of including a summary here before it does. GRBerry 16:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I was just looking through the archives here and read through Archive 3, where an idea to change NPA to address off-site attacks was first brought up. No consensus was reached then, either, but people then seemed to quickly agree that it was a fact, and let the matter rest. I never would have forked the BADSITES text specifically, back at Archive 5, if I had first read Archive 3, and it is conceivable that if I hadn't done that WT:NPA never would have gone though two subsequent archives and constant edit wars on the topic only to end again at no consensus. However, I stand by this earlier comment of mine:
 * "After turning over the two sections, it seems to me the only part of WP:NPA#Linking to attacks that could be consistent with WP:NPA#Removing text and also reflective of current social reality (re: a consensus) is a single, modified sentence:


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


 * That's it. No special permit to revert war past 3RR, no mandate to remove links everywhere including article space, specific links to specific off-site attacks could have been treated as any other NPA violation, and people could have continued doing whatever they wanted as long as all policies, including and especially NPA, were observed.—AL FOCUS! 19:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, will to edit war should not be confused for consensus. GRBerry makes a great point above and I'm all the more convinced that just linking to the proposal for now is the best way to go for now, even if I wasn't too enthusiastic about it.  Milto LOL pia 08:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The lack of discussion
I feel that the lack of activity on this page is due to it having becoming apparent that we have rehashed this thing up to (and hopefully not too far beyond) its potential usefulness, and I'm pretty comfortable saying that there is a consensus to have the current prominent link to the proposed policy WP:LINKLOVE, and we can deal with the issue there, perhaps summarizing on NPA once that page is sorted out. Milto LOL pia 19:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I, for one, have felt that my participation here has not been welcomed in good faith, and have felt discouraged from participating. - Crockspot 19:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that'll happen when your participation includes referring to other editors' input here as "jerking each other off". I've still got ears for comments about the policy page.  Milto LOL pia 20:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I had one outburst here, which was in response to two editors mocking me, asking me if I still beat my wife, and high-fiving each other for it. Hardly enough to characterize my overall participation as "trolling and flame bait". - Crockspot 21:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok both of you play nicely please. I personally am disappointed to see a lack of discussion, considering how much revert warring was going on. Viridae Talk 22:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We'll see when the protection expires. Cross your fingers!  Milto LOL pia 01:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well if everyone follows Dan's sentiments down below, then it should be good. Viridae Talk 01:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm ready to make nice
Unlike the Dixie Chicks, I've decided that the best way to proceed is to "make nice" and pledge to follow the spirit as well as the letter of the No Personal Attacks policy while discussing the future evolution of this policy and related policies. I'm aware that my own past contributions to this debate have not always lived up to such standards, and I apologize for this and aim to do better in the future. I hope others do the same, so that we all can be constructive and productive in working towards a consensus policy. Here are the standards I plan on living up to:


 * I will discuss proposals and the arguments for and against them according to the merits of the proposals, rather than by ad-hominem labeling or categorization of the people making them, such as trying to pigeonhole people into factions, camps, cliques, cabals, or partisan groups, or judging them based on their participation (actual or speculated, past or present) in other sites.


 * I will give all views a fair and constructive hearing without regard to whether the people espousing them have been in conflict with me, either on or off wiki. I will never use this debate as an opportunity to pursue grudge matches by defeating or belittling others I see as "enemies".


 * I will support or oppose proposals and viewpoints based on what I honestly believe to be in the best interests of Wikipedia, putting aside other agendas, ideologies, or feelings when they conflict with this.


 * I will not try to speculate as to the motives behind others supporting or opposing positions, but will judge and critique those positions independently on their own merits based on how they support or oppose the best interests of Wikipedia.


 * I recognize that others may disagree with my viewpoints, and may also believe in good faith that their position is in the best interest of Wikipedia, and pledge to conduct such disagreements in a constructive way free of smears and namecalling.


 * I am willing to praise people I've previously regarded as "enemies", should their conduct deserve it, and also to constructively criticize people I've regarded as "friends" if this is warranted. I welcome constructive criticism of my own proposals, arguments, and behavior.


 * If I ever regard my emotional state regarding the issues being debated as getting in the way of conducting a calm, rational discussion based on facts and logic, I will step back from the debate, either temporarily until I calm down or permanently if it does not seem I can ever gain the degree of detachment needed to be rational on the issue; in such situations it would be best to leave the discussion to people who are able to leave their emotions behind.


 * If I get personally attacked by others, I pledge not to engage in tit-for-tat retaliation; keeping my cool and refraining from descending to that level is more important than venting my frustrations unconstructively. If I conclude that action is warranted against another participant who has violated Wikipedia policy, I will pursue this through proper channels, but not use it to try to discredit opposing viewpoints and win "points" in the debate.


 * I hope others also agree with and follow these guidelines, but my own adherence to them is unconditional, based on a desire to be a good, constructive participant in this discussion; it is not conditional on anybody else agreeing to or living up to this same set of guidelines.

Anybody who agrees to conduct their future participation in this discussion along these guidelines can indicate this by signing below.


 * *Dan T.* 00:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This should be the entirety of the policy page! I could not have picked out better standards for self-improvement.  Milto LOL pia 01:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo's block of Ombudsman is the reality
restored a link to an external site that was harassment. He was banned indefinitely without warning (later reduced to a week). Jimbo considered that action a personal attack. That is the reality of the policy and I beleive he is correct. It needs to state that. There needs to be an external link section that explicitly says that linking to harassment is a bannable offense under WP:NPA. --DHeyward 04:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This may repeat what comes below, but I don't think the last two sentences follow from the one before them, which is one I agree with. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not the most accurate way of stating what happened. That user made (not restored) a posting that was a personal attack against an editor he was fighting with.  It included a link to a thread on an external site that made more attacks against that editor.  Doing such a thing, whether it is done with or without the use of external links, is an attack and is covered adequately by existing policy.  Indef banning, though, is rarely the immediate penalty on first offense for making such an attack; there are generally other circumstances involving that user to justify such an extreme sanction (which in this case was ultimately reduced anyway).  Saying that because somebody once got an extreme penalty for (among other things) adding such a link doesn't mean that the most draconian possible penalties against links like that in all circumstances are justified or should be written into policy.  The policy doesn't "need" to state anything at all unless we decide as a community that there is consensus to say it. *Dan T.* 04:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * He wasn't blocked for creating the link.   It was when he restored the external link, not created.  Here's what got him blocked.  I never claimed that the extreme sanction should always be used, but rather that the extreme sanction is possible even on a first offense with no warning.  That's simply a fact.  It's a shame that Ombudsman didn't have the ability to read the policy that would have got him banned or that JzG didn't have the policy to point him to.   It kind of sucks to learn of policy by blocks from Jimbo.  It's like driving by Braille.  It should be stated in policy with the gravity that it is being enforced with.  "Up to and including a permanent ban" is perfectly good language and describes what may happen.  It should explicity state that linking to external sites that harass editors is forbidden and not left as an interpretation as to whether external sites are really personal attacks.  I don't really care if you want to call it a BADSITE or whatever but it needs to be stated because people are being blocked for it and the reasoning is WP:NPA.  --DHeyward 04:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, as an aside the admin who protected this policy page on the version without the external links section participated in that offsite thread that was deemed a personal attack. --DHeyward 04:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That is so not relevant unless that same user posted that link himself. Maybe we should worry less about what people are gossipping about off-site.  WP:DENY doesn't work if you make a big show of DENYing.  Better to just ignore the content of the thread entirely.  Milto LOL pia 04:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I only found it troubling when an admin uses their tools to enable the people making the personal attacks or engages in the personal attacks themselves and then sets themselves up as a neutral arbiter. WP:DENY isn't intended for dealing with harassment either.  --DHeyward 04:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's say for the sake of argument that his protection was an endorsement of the current version; did it enable the retention of the link in question? It would seem not, since it was removed and Ombudsman was blocked.  Milto LOL pia 04:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Don't you think the written policy should reflect the actual reality of how things are enforced?  This isn't a new policy, it's just the words of the actual policy being enforced.  --DHeyward 05:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess I just don't see the contradiction between the policy and what happened to Ombudsman. Nor between my rewrite, which described the prohibition on links used for attacking or harassment, and what happened to Ombudsman.  The only reason I haven't been pressing for that version more is that there's a general agreement that the policy needs to be hashed out before being summarized here; I'm sure that this Ombudsman incident would be of great relevance to Wikipedia talk:Linking to external harassment.  Milto LOL pia 05:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that Obmudsman's block wasn't the result of any new policy. It was the same old policy, being enforced for a change.  I don't see that anything BEANSy needs to be written down in order for us to follow Jimbo's example and enforce WP:EL and WP:NPA as if we mean it. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That link he posted was clear harassment, a thread entirely focused on an individual. The link even included a feature to highlight the editor's name.  I believe WP:LINKLOVE would provide for such a block as it is currently worded.  This page need only link to that for now.  In fact, that policy wouldn't even be needed to justify such a block as I'm sure it's covered in WP:HARASS.  Do note that while many users have created or restored links to that same website without being blocked; certainly it's the content of the page being linked to that matters, as arbcom affirmed in their voting and as is commonly acknowledged by the community's treatment of such links.  Milto LOL pia 04:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A) that is just a proposal, not even a guideline yet and B) Jimbo didn't block him for violating WP:LINKLOVE, he blocked him for WP:NPA. I would think the policy Jimbo said applies to an external link of harassment should have a section that outlines it.  --DHeyward 04:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually the block log said he blocked for harassment, as well as in part due to the username issue, but since username is "indef or nothing" I guess he just settled on the harassment. Milto LOL pia 04:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * His reply to you mentioned civility . We can move the external links section to WP:Civility if that makes more sense and the community agrees it belongs there instead of here.  Either way, it's defacto policy.  --DHeyward 04:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * See my reply above for my thoughts on this being policy. Milto LOL pia 05:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Once the "LINKLOVE" policy, or something like it, reaches a consensus to be enacted, a summary of it can be added to this policy, and/or other relevant ones such as the ones on civility and harrassment. That would resolve all these issues. *Dan T.* 05:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In case it hasn't been made clear yet, I for one support the proposed policy, so long as it's executed in a way as not to cause disruption or further enable offsite trolls. I think some real progress has been made in developing a suitable policy, and encourage any other BADSITES skeptics to keep an open mind and see the differences between the two.  Milto LOL pia 05:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

From the Wiki-EN mailing list.

> At the risk of prolonging a discussion that's already rather > egregiously long in the tooth, what do people think about those? > One of the larger objections to BADSITES and its resurrection > in WP:NPA#EL concerned the prohibition of links to attack sites > even in talk and project spaces, even as part of sober discussion > of the alleged personal attacks. Is there still any sentiment to > keep trying to ban those kinds of links?

Yes, but we have to be careful and thoughtful.

One thing I have seen recently is violations of No Personal Attacks through the posting of links to abusive websites. [Jimbo] --DHeyward 06:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a good section to quote - it seems to be saying that violations of NPA through posting links won't be tolerated. I wholeheartedly agree. It doesn't stand logically however that every single link posting from a certain subset is a violation of NPA, and in fact strengthens the case for looking at the behaviour as a whole in my view. Privatemusings 06:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Violations of NPA aren't to be tolerated, full stop. What does it matter whether they are carried out through an external link or otherwise?  Jimbo said that people who can't treat other editors kindly should find another hobby.  How does that call for a specific type of link ban that carries the disadvantages of rewarding trolling behavior and calling further attention to offsite harassment? -GTBacchus(talk) 07:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hear Hear. Privatemusings 07:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the problem? NPA meens i cant call Dan T a cunt! (this we all agree on). Why should i be allowed to link to www.WR/DanTisaCunt? (its just as much a personal attack)? (Hypnosadist ) 07:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see how any of the different versions of the policy under discussion would permit such a thing. *Dan T.* 12:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think a one line amendment to NPA "Links to off-site personal attacks may be removed" could have entirely handled it. Creating exceptions to 3RR and seeming to mandate removal, which made links to off-site attacks seem more egregious than "plain text" NPA violations, contributed to the widespread resistance against the proposal, as it went well beyond the established wording in NPA which accounts for subjectivity and interpretation as to what is considered a personal attack, and why removing text can be problematic. If this single line does not seem to "have enough teeth," it is because NPA itself "does not have enough teeth" beyond the interpretative capacities and personal inclinations of editors and admins to observe and enforce the policy, rather than BADSITES in particular.—AL FOCUS! 14:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But i'm doing it in "good faith" (see Alecmconroy's argument below) so then its OK? (Hypnosadist )  14:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I know, but everyone is going to say that. It's always been up to the community to decide if anyone's particular action is appropriate or in good faith or not, not the individual committing the action. Acts committed in good faith could have unforeseen or negative consequences, or people could just be putting their own personal interests ahead of the encyclopedia, which is not unheard of.—AL FOCUS! 15:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As for AL's arguement off-site NPAs are worse, they are not only an npa but also the editor is trying to game the system so that he can't be stopped. The only way to deal meaningfully with off-wiki harassment is a "shoot first" policy on any questionable link not in article space. Editors violated 3rr to keep harassment by michaelmoore.com on talk space and there should be clear policy to stop that happening again(dispite it already being in the rule but hey). (Hypnosadist )  14:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, NPA isn't a "shoot first" policy, nor a policy governing article space. I know some attack pages against some Wikipedians are egregiously bad, but the matter of links to them in user space should be handled like any other NPA violation. A "shoot first" policy conflicts with NPA and contributes to the overall enforcement problem.—AL FOCUS! 15:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hypnosadist said, "there should be clear policy to stop that happening again". We have a clear policy that says, "don't edit war".  That applies to all circumstances, including the ones you describe, Hypnosadist. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to mention WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA (even without the badsites add-on), WP:HARASS, Don't be a dick, and god only knows how many other policies and guidelines.  We have plenty of tools to deal with bad-faith attempts to edit so as to harass. --Alecmconroy 18:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yet strangly these policies don't apply to micheal moore.com, its apparent that unless the policies are totally explicit and allow no other action then they are ignored. (Hypnosadist ) 23:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think the "attack" part of mm dot com was ignored, I just think it was determined that their encyclopedic value was more important. I wasn't around at the time however.  Milto LOL pia 23:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The links to michaelmoore were not added for the purpose of harassment. If a user had been going around adding the link for bad-faith reasons, you can bet that user would have been blocked. --Alecmconroy 23:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "The links to michaelmoore were not added for the purpose of harassment." BS (if you dispute this why did links to off-wiki harassment need to be placed time and again on talk space) and the harassment worked, the editor involved has perminently left wikipedia. (Hypnosadist )  00:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The links were reinserted by a consensus of uninvolved editors because valuable encyclopedic content, the links, were blanked without consensus or policy. And incidentally, you cheapen the word if you harassment if you describe michael moore's criticisms as harassment.  Honestly, it's insulting to the REAL victims of stalking harassment to suggest Michael Moore's criticisms was harassment.


 * But that's neither here nor there. If you want to argue about what the policy should be, go to Linking to external harassment or create your own proposal.
 * IF you want to argue that you don't need consensus to add a proposal text into a policy page, this is the place to have that discussion but you're not going to get anyway I suspect. --Alecmconroy 00:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "REAL victims of stalking harassment" yes thats why he does not edit anymore due to the REAL harassament. (Hypnosadist )  00:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * He was being contacted offline about this? I didn't hear about that.  Or was his online identity merely exposed as an asserted conflict of interest?  In that case it was actually beneficial to the encyclopedia, and the arbcom likely would've found him to be in conflict had they not dismissed the case.  Milto LOL pia 00:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * He was signed up for a morgage by his harassers! (Hypnosadist )  01:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh my... still, out of curiosity do you blame everyone on the internet who linked to em em dot com for that incident? Milto LOL pia 01:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No just MM.com, the person who did it and the wikipedians who helped the harassment by posting links to that call to action against a wikipedian. mm.com outed a wikipedian and called for action against them on purely political grounds, that goes against every on-wiki rule but because "MM is cool" it was ok because wp:harass is not a policy. (Hypnosadist )  04:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hypnosadist, are you arguing (and I don't mean that badly) with anyone in particular? I don't see anyone trying to justify links to pages set up solely or mostly for attacking others.  Milto LOL pia 23:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Apperantly Alecmconroy because hes trying to create wiggle-room to allow harassment. <font color="#000">(<font color="#c20">Hypnosadist )  00:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said in my "Ready to make nice" guidelines above, speculating about the motives of other participants is not a civil way to conduct a policy discussion. *Dan T.* 00:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The motives of people with a CoI due to there links with known harassment sites is important, infact those people should have no place deciding what should be done about off-wiki harassment. <font color="#000">(<font color="#c20">Hypnosadist )  00:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Enough of this now, the issue of conflict of interest and the motives of those who have been advocating change to this page have been revisted and discussed ad nauseam (spelling?) and have not been found to be a conflict of interest, nor nefarious motives. Post to WP:COIN if you like; this is not the place to be recirculating that.    Milto LOL pia 00:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hypnosadist, there's something I've learned about people with ulterior motives: their arguments fall on their own merits, without motivations ever having to be brought up. If you believe that someone has a conflict of interest with respect to this policy, and wish to therefore "out" them for that connection, you are unintentionally doing - at least in part - the same thing for which you criticize "outing" sites.  You can't use ad hominem attacks to show that ad hominem attacks are wrong.  Meanwhile, the actual arguments will get away from you if you don't keep your eye on the prize, which is the policy, not someone else's conscience. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

How is this relevant
Nobody's objecting to blocking people for being harassing, bad-faith editors. What's been at issue here is whether good faith editors may, for good-faith purposes, use links.

I almost wonder if this is part of some fundamental miscommunication that's been causing so much of the trouble here. DHeyward, you do realize that nobody is ever proposing that it's okay to link for the purposes of harassment, right? I'm not being snide at all in saying that-- I just want to make sure we're all on the same page. No matter what BADSITES-related policy gets adopted or not, Ombudsman is still gonna get blocked.

The debate is whether our articles and our good-faith conversations can link-- and under our current policies, they can and are. --Alecmconroy 14:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There is NO good-faith reason to post harassment. <font color="#000">(<font color="#c20">Hypnosadist )  00:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * People disagree on what constitutes harassment however. I know that you can see this, and you won't be able to just wish it away either.  Milto LOL pia 00:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course there's no good faith reason to post harassment. Now that we're all agreed on that, perhaps we can talk about how this fact has always been true, without any need for a special (BEANS-filled) policy to make it more true.  If there's been a lack of action in dealing with harassment, then that's a very real problem that should be addressed, but there's no sense adding a new rule to stop something that was already in violation of existing rules.  That's a strategy for failure. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No its a strategy of multiple lines of defence. There should be no wiggle room just like BLP. <font color="#000">(<font color="#c20">Hypnosadist )  04:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Show me the wiggle room. What is incomplete about "links of no value to the encyclopedia may be removed at any time"?  How is it dangerous to conduct the matter as a content dispute? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Alec - to what are you referring when you say, "under our current policies, they can and are"? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh-- I was just saying that under our current policies, good-faith links CAN be added, if they are of encyclopedia value. --Alecmconroy 04:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * To take the ambiguity out of what is harassment and what isn't, I'm afraid it does need to be spelled out. ED is not to be linked to...that was already determined. WR makes some really egregious stalking efforts and they do not claim to be a parody site as ED does, so the are definitely a malicious website, maybe even more so. Besides, aren't they also giving out the IP logs to a number of banned editors?--MONGO 06:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The concept of creating 'badsites' has been rejected ('righteously') and it's important that we accept that, understand it, and move forward, not simply get back up and attempt to implement it all over again. Privatemusings 06:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced there's so much "ambiguity" regarding what is harassment and what isn't. Even if it is ambiguous, I'm not sure that implementing an expanded definition will make it less so. -GTBacchus(talk) 13:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As I recall, badsites was rejected as policy. It still has broad support in the community as a guideline.  --DHeyward 16:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that's accurate - I don't think any 'badsites' variation has anything like consensus support anywhere. Privatemusings 19:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's relevant because a) Ombudsman was blocked under NPA and b) an external link was the personal attack. Certainly other policies may cover such an egregious outburts, however that was not cited.  NPA was and it was an external link.  The written policy should strive to reflect the reality that is being implemented.  --DHeyward 06:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't follow that because someone was blocked for violating NPA through the posting of an external link, that therefore the posting of an external link alone is not allowed. Further, as you'll have seen above, there is much active discussion in this area, and it's probably not going to help move things forward to assert that the policy simply 'is' a certain way. I'd encourage you to take a look at WP:LINKLOVE and join in there with your thoughts and ideas as to how things should be. Privatemusings 06:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The policy 'is' a certain way. The written policy should reflect that.  It is a personal attack to link to harassment even if it is an external site.  I think everyone agrees on that point.  we can point to the sub-article WP:LINKLOVE when it becomes policy, but right now if you link to external harassment that is a PA and you can be blocked for it under the WP:NPA policy.  I would hope we would be able to write that down.  --DHeyward 16:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, we don't have to specify all the various ways in which one can attack another. We just prohibit all of them.  How is it remotely necessary to add to "Do not make personal attacks," so as to specify that making personal attacks via a link is also prohibited?  Of course it is. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I'd be happy for a simple 'if you link to external harassment then that is a PA', given that harassment refers to criminal (or borderline criminal) behaviour. The challenge we've faced here is that many editors have disagreed (in good faith) about what constitutes harassment, and therefore a PA. Discussion of the definitions, and therefore our best policy, is best taken to the proposal page. Privatemusings 19:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's a personal attack then the language should be here, in the "no personal attack" policy. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The current state of the proposal doesn't define harassment, and appears to forbid removing links to harassment if the link provides any benefit to the encyclopedia. That contradicts the de facto policy discussed here. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As we've seen above, there is already disagreement over what the de facto policy is. The fact that aspects of the proposal relate to PA is the reason for linking to it in the appropriate section here. Also, this page could really do with a break! Privatemusings 20:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Why would a talk page need a break? Since the policy page is protected we should be discussing things here so that we can agree on what will be in this policy. The LTEH proposal doesn't seem to be addressing the core issues of defining harassment or prohibiting linking to harassment. A recent change once again forbid removing links to harassment if any benefit to the encyclopedia can be asserted. That's not a recognized exception in NPA (that is, there's no part of NPA that says, "personal attacks that improve the encyclopedia must not be removed"). On the contrary, LTEH appears to be shaping up as a defense of linking to harassment. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry, I meant the policy page could do with a break - this page is perfect for this kind of dialog. The 'improves the encyclopedia' bit is really important. It helps explain why you were wrong to remove so many links to Making Light (nothing personal intended, just a very clear example we're both familiar with), and why the editors who removed michaelmoore.com were also wrong. Additionally, to make a small specific point, I don't believe a 3RR exemption ever had consensus, or was ever a good idea, being the cause of significant disruption. Privatemusings 20:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said, there's no definition of "harassment", no definition of "improves the encyclopedia", and no indication of the consequences of linking to harassment. Your simple proposal of adding a line to this policy saying something like "if you link to external harassment then that is a PA" would cover most of the necessary ground. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think DHeyward deserves the credit for that one. I'm quite supportive of very concise guidelines though, and the addition of 'Linking to external harassment is considered a personal attack.' may be a good one. Is the lack of definition a concern? Do we need to explain further what does and doesn't constitute harassment? For example, I wouldn't consider a link to ASM to be harassment in every instance. Privatemusings 21:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I continue to not understand what we need that goes beyond a simple matter of sound editorial judgment. Are people worrying that "attack sites" might also be reliable sources, and that we therefore need a special rule about not linking to them?  How is, "links with no encyclopedic value may be removed at anytime," not enough?  Can't we try exercising "sound editorial judgment" before we give up and decide our problems can only be solved by legislation? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that almost any site could be argued to have "encyclopedic value". That's not a term used in any other policy or guideline. Getting back to PM's question, there does appear to be a need to define harassment, at least broadly. Something like, "harassment includes posting unpublished personal information and stalking". ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, almost any site could be argued to have encyclopedic value, but you're not going to convince a consensus of editors that almost any site actually has encyclopedic value. Once a consensus has decided a site has no value, then it has no value.  How is that not enough? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It'd be better to have an objective standard that any editor could determine by using their own judgement, rather than a subjective standard requiring discussion and consensus. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But the subjective standard is what we get, no matter what. We're going to have to discuss and come to a consensus, but then we'll be fine.  Writing more details into the rules doesn't prevent gaming and lawyering, it creates toeholds that enable gaming and lawyering. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If we didn't need details we wouldn't have WP:EL, WP:RS, etc. How would you define "encyclopedic value"? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * By consensus. Do you not trust the community to tell the difference? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the banning of posting links to such material. I don't agree that that ban should be extended to all posts on a specific domain, or by a specific user. Privatemusings 21:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Does "linking to external harassment is considered a personal attack" imply any of those things? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope not, and I don't think so. Privatemusings 22:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Good, so that language is acceptable to at least these three editors. To recap: "Linking to external harassment is considered a personal attack. Harassment includes posting unpublished personal information and stalking." So far so good?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * At this point we begin to have balance issues. I can agree with the statement, but wouldn't agree that because michaelmoore.com posted a personal attack that we cannot link to it. I believe the balance of priorities is best discussed at the proposal page. Privatemusings 22:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * are you going to consider the situation in which the link was introduced? I can think of situations which clearly don't qualify as a personal attack in which a link containing harrassing material might be introduced. ie "Hi Editor X, Fred wrote on his site XlinkX that he thinks you are a wanker - just letting you know. Clearly not a personal attack by the editor who was just notifying Fred out of concern - thus you can't simply define a link to harrasment as a personal attack because a personal attack must be made in bad faith. You can still call it a bad idea, and something that should be done but it shouldnt be labelled as a personal attack. Viridae Talk 22:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (EC) For me, I automatically oppose any litmus test that predefines something as a personal attack. The michael moore link, for example, would qualify as a personal attack under the rule you propose. So, to quote someone on the mailing list, it fails the giggle test. --Alecmconroy 22:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (outdent) So Alec and Viridae disagree with the simple proposal that "linking to harassment is a personal attack"? If linking to harassment isn't a personal attack, then what do you guys believe was the reason for tthe block of ? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Linking to harrasment for the purpose of attacking another editor is a personal attack/harrasment in itself. Viridae Talk  —Preceding comment was added at 22:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that one form personal attacks could take is linking. I do not agree that all linking is automatically a personal attack. --Alecmconroy 22:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * See a Dicto simpliciter
 * Cutting a person with a knife is a crime. Surgeons cut people with knives, therefore surgeons are criminals.
 * Linking to outings are a personal attack. The MM article links to an outing, therefore the MM link is a personal attack.
 * --Alecmconroy 22:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You both seem to be saying that it depends on intent. How do we judge intent? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In the same way as we always do on wp - its either pretty obvious or we ask. Viridae Talk 22:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Put it this way - I'm australian, and australians are renowned for using insults as jocular term of infection - calling a good friend an old bastard or a bloody wanker etc etc - we use the same insults as insults too, it rather depends on the situation in which the insults are used - I believe the same thing goes here. I would hate to see a good faith editor accused of personal attacks when they were using the link in good faith - so a blanket ban on posting them is simply the wrong way to go. Instead we treat them in much the same way as any other personal attack - if it actually is an attack then they are appropriateley warned and blocked for making an attack. If not then don't accuse them of bad faith when it wasn't there - perhaps counsel them that there might be a better to refrain from posting material like that in future because it could be taken the wrong way, but certainly don't accuse thmem of attacking someone when they haven't. Its basically assume good faith unless you have a strong reason not to. Viridae Talk 22:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec)Just judge behavior the same way we always judge behavior. Look at the totality, use commen sense, etc.   Meanwhile, judge content based on the content standards that we've always had.  It all works out in the end.  --Alecmconroy 23:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We don't inquire into intent of other forms of personal attacks. We don't say that calling someone an asshole is OK if the intent was not to make a personal attack. In fact, we say that "some types of comments are never acceptable." I think that if we need to qualify the provisoin that it would be better to base it on appearance, which is easier to determine than intent. If it looks like a personal attack then it is a personal attack. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * By those standards, a link to Michael Moore (or Teresa Nielsen Hayden, etc.)'s official website, under the link text "Official Website" in the external links section of the article on that person, would clearly not be, or look like, a personal attack even if the site in its present form happens to contain one. *Dan T.* 23:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Correct. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm confused by your agreement on that point-- I thought you regarded both the MM and the TNH links as personal attacks? --Alecmconroy 23:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This provision drafting isn't about me, it's about reflecting the existing consensus that linking to harassment is a personal attack. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If you really didn't think the intentions of editors is relevant in the consideration of their edits, I cringe to think how you'd use your admin tools. Civility and NPA are all about intention and context.  There is no set of words that we can just automatically blindly call personal attacks.  Look at the use of the infamous N word (on which we have an article, by the way).  Now if there's any word in english that is a a vile and unacceptable personal attack against an entire race of people, I dare say the N word is it.  If you seriously thought our articles shouldn't contain personal attacks, you should that article up on AFD immediately, because let me tell you, a word doesn't get any more of a personal attack than that.


 * At first glance, it'd seem like any use of that word would would have to be, almost automatically, considered a personal attack. In fact, however, some subcultures of african-american communities have co-opted the word and used it as a pseudo-term of endearment.  Intention and context are EVERYTHING.  If there were simple, clear-cut, iron-clad rules to human language, we could just write a fancy script to write the whole dang encyclopedia-- but it's not happening, because human communications is infinitely more nuanced than you suggest. --Alecmconroy 23:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In the case of calling people names, it's certainly possible in unusual cases that something could appear to be a personal attack even if it were not intended that way. It still has the same effect though. Saying, "I don't mean this as a personal attack, but you're an asshole" still looks like an attack and should not be tolerated, even if the poster is honest in claiming that he didn't mean it as an attack. Likewise, publising an editor's phone number may be intended as a helpful gesture so that critics can contact the editor more easily, but the effect is harassment. Obviously, every policy implictly requires the enforcing admin (or whoever) to use his or her judgement, and it should be implicit in this provision as well. So, to get back to drafting, how's this: "Links to external harassment which appear to have been made as personal attacks are not allowed. Harassment includes posting unpublished personal information and stalking."  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That seems fine with me. All I'm trying to prevent is the abuse of the policy by people who decide that any links to anything in some particular domain are automatically "attacks" regardless of context... I have no desire whatsoever to prevent the policy being used to prevent anything that a reasonable person would see as an apparent attack. *Dan T.* 23:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speaking only for myself, I would strongly object to that language. It use of the "mere appearance" standard seems to presuppose that some non-personal attacks will be covered under it merely by virtue of their appearances. "Linking to external harassment for the purposes of attacking another editor is forbidden" works for me though, and obviously, good judgment is implied. But that's not Badsites-equivalent, so I imagine that's not what you're going for. --Alecmconroy 23:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's ideal, or even workable, but it'll do for the time being and is better than nothing. So we have "Linking to external harassment for the purposes of attacking another editor is forbidden. Harassment includes posting unpublished personal information and stalking." Any objections to that? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What about "linking to external attacks or harassment for the purpose of attacking another editor is regarded a is personal attack and faces the same restrictions as an on-wiki attack. Harassment includes posting unpublished personal information and stalking."? Viridae Talk 00:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't object. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It was an attempt to completely intergrate that bit with the rest of the policy, so as not to have external links regarded as a special class of attacks. Viridae Talk 00:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We would also need to clarify that merely outing is not necessarily harassment in and of itself. The New Yorker has outed, but not harassed.    Harassment is something far more sinister.  How bout: "linking to external attacks or harassment for the purpose of attacking another editor is regarded as a personal attack and faces the same restrictions as an on-wiki attack. Harassment might include posting unpublished personal information and stalking." --Alecmconroy 00:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It sounds as if you're trying to complicate "do not attack other editors personally" far beyond the need for complication. I haven't seen a case yet where it isn't immediately clear whether or not we're talking about harassment.  It's as simple as "if you use Wikipedia to fuck with people, then we'll eventually block you," which is obvious from WP:NPA without any addition.  Any detail beyond that is like begging for lawyers to come along and find loopholes. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I totally agree. I guess I just don't see what's wrong with the current policies as they stand. Definitions and formal rules really would only serve to cause more abuse or gaming  --Alecmconroy 05:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (outdent) I don't think that there is a realistic scenario in which linking to an article in the New Yorker would be seen as harassment. Let's keep this simple. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I wish I could believe that it won't come up, but we've already seen many cases in which the mere discussion of identities was falsely accused of being harassment-- harassment being an action that is criminal or mere criminal.  So, for example:  If we want to define harassment as a very very serious matter, then harassment is something far beyond the mere critical discussion of a Wikipedian's identity, but is a near-criminal act-- in which case, Michael Moore never engaged in harassment.  Or, we could define harassment to be a very simple action, meaning merely strenuous criticism, something not even remotely criminal-- in which case we absolutely shouldn't have any special rules about harassment.


 * Rather than try to precisely define harassment here in the middle of NPA, you could try to just go with the more basic statement: "Linking to external attacks or harassment for the purpose of attacking another editor is regarded as a personal attack and faces the same restrictions as an on-wiki attack." That ought to be relatively non-controversial I would think.  --Alecmconroy 01:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I think it's necessary to define harassment, at least broadly. Sure other things could also be harassment, but in the context of Wikipedia posting someone's personal info is considered harassment, even if law enforcement does not consider it illegal. If you have a better way of defining harassment then go ahead and propose it. But I think that posting unpublished personal inforamtion and stalking are the basics. But if we agree on the first part let's post that and keep working on the definition. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I only agree to the first part inso far as harassment isn't improperly defined. I think in general, and ESPECIALLY at NPA, we need to keep the focus on "don't do bad faith things, period".   A second content dispute over whether good-faith editors can add certain types of links  is getting conflated, and even if we do wind up with such a content policy, it has no place on NPA.   --Alecmconroy 05:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We all agree that linking to harassment is a personal attack. Let's go with what we can agree on and then work out the areas of disagreement over time. ""Linking to external attacks or harassment for the purpose of attacking another editor is regarded as a personal attack and faces the same restrictions as an on-wiki attack." I know that DHeyward has expressed a preference for a simpler version, but I'd like to see everyone agree on this and the language is very similar. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sadly, we don't all agree that linking to harassment is a personal attack. We agree (or seem to agree) that linking FOR THE PURPOSE OF ATTACKING is a personal attack.  To use specific exapmples--   MichaelMoore and Makinglights aren't going anywhere, since these links weren't (and haven't) been added for the purpose of harassment.  --Alecmconroy  —Preceding comment was added at 18:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break - A solution from Will emerges......
I prefer the WB original "Linking to external harassment is considered a personal attack. Harassment includes posting unpublished personal information and stalking." if it's clear from the victim that a link wasn't meant as an attack, the community can adress that on a case by case basis. I fear that discerning intent will give cover to abusers. "Hey userX, just wanted to let you know that website Y called you a wanker link here " is not an acceptable link even if it was FYI. I would rather treat that as a personal attack and let the victim or the community say that it wasn't rather than the presumption being that it wasn't a personal attack. The victim should make the presumption, not the linker. Those links should be discouraged anyway because it is rare that any of that information would be beneficial to the project. --DHeyward 06:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But how can I prove that something is not a personal attack? Personal attacks are defined as comments adhering to the criteria we lay out. If there is no evidence that these criteria apply, then it should be enough of a defense to say that there is no reason to consider my comment a personal attack. If you want to change the definition of "personal attack", that's difference, but we can't logically make a presumption of guilt, if we want to be at all fair. -Amarkov moo! 06:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We judge what is or isn't a personal attack all of the time. As Viridae pointed out, there are sometimes cultural differences that may make something appear to be a personal attack, but which can be explained. Likewise, it's conceivable that someone could link to harassment unintentionally, etc. We don't need to spell it all out in this provision because every policy includes the implicit requirement to use good judgement. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever policy is proposed or addendum made, let's just be real real real real sure that it has consensus before adding it back into the page. The "bold" phase of Bold-revert-discuss passed six months ago at least. I don't know if "This might be a good addition" is ever a proper justification for adding something to a policy page, but it's definitely not sufficient at one where we've had some much trouble coming to consensus.  --Alecmconroy 08:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Does anyone here disagree with "Linking to external attacks or harassment for the purpose of attacking another editor is regarded as a personal attack and faces the same restrictions as an on-wiki attack" ? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, that should be obvious. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've got no problem with a policy that will let somebody remove something that is clearly aimed at him/her and is unwanted, especially from his/her own user talk page. If it actually is a good-faith "have you seen this" thing with no attacking intention, then once the target of the remark removes it, it will be clear that he/she has seen it (or doesn't care to), so any attempts to reinsert it would be rude and probably intended as an attack and can be dealt with as such.  If it's being done by somebody with a history of fighting with that other editor, or who is currently in a nasty dispute of some sort, then the presumption will be stronger in the direction of it being an attack.  All of this is perfectly reasonable.  What I'm trying to avoid, however, is a policy that will be easy to "game" by people with an agenda to scrub all references to particular sites they dislike, even when there isn't the slightest attacking purpose behind them.  In the past, everything from links to article subjects' official sites to links to essays relevant to a discussion (and not about a particular person) have been removed as "attack sites". *Dan T.* 13:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you object to "Linking to external attacks or harassment for the purpose of attacking another editor is regarded as a personal attack and faces the same restrictions as an on-wiki attack"? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that seems fine. *Dan T.* 19:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's a reasonable statement: clearly true, and not too BEANSy. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Viridae Talk 21:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with the sentence, look forward to seeing the context. (thanks for your work, Will et al) Privatemusings 21:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally agree with that sentence as it currently reads-- it is  self-evidenct and a nice summary.  If it's accompanied by other text that expands that sentences reach, then I think I might well object to the whole lot.  But so long as we're talking about JUST that sentence, by itself-- I see no problems.  :) --Alecmconroy 02:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't object to it, but like I said I think the "for the purpose of attacking another editor" puts too much crystal ball loopholes in enforcing it. I don't think we need and it will be the excuse used for all external harassment.  I would rather rely on the warning system without someone using this clause to add/re-add external harassment.  I would be more inclined to expressly say that an external link NPA warning must be issued rather than create large disputes over whether the continual readdition of an external link is

"purposely attacking an editor." I think that clause makes it toothless. I would rather rely on admins and AGF rather than having to discern purpose. --DHeyward 03:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This may not be an ideal solution, but let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Right now we have no text that describes the de facto prohibition on linking to external harassment. Let's move forward with this possibly imperfect provision. We have unlimited time to make it better. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you picture literally that sentence alone, or a link to the policy proposal, and that sentence, or something else? I'd prefer a link to the proposal (with the note about the disruption) and that sentence alone. Privatemusings 06:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see a need to have a link to a proposal in a policy page. It may be more appropriate to put the link on this, the talk page. However the presence or absence of such a link doesn't affect the policy itself so it's not a big deal either way. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused on the wording here -- maybe I'm just reading too quickly. If another editor attacks me off-wiki, and I link to that attack, is it considered a personal attack by me?--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 16:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it NPA to repeatedly insinuate that a user is a sockpuppet?
For months, a user has been insinuating that another user is a puppet, without ever filing a charge to that effect. It's been going on for about six months. E.g. The user refers to another user as "Fred aka George aka Harry" (names obviously changed to protect the innocent). In other words, he is continually insinuating that the other user is violating Wikipedia policy. In all this time he has never filed an official accusation to that effect. To me there is an element of Put up or Shut up. If he doesn't file a charge, he should stop the insinuations.

Is this a violation of NPA, a violation of civility, or nothing to worry about?

(I have no involvement with any of the parties. I came across this while on vandal patrol.) Sbowers3 19:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, to the first two. R. Baley 20:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * yes. post it to ANI with diffs.  someone will review it and warn them if appropriate.  --DHeyward 06:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Blog used to harass Wikipedia Editor
A blog-link has been reinserted into the biography of Professor Robert Black with the intention of harassing a Wikipedia editor. There is significant reason to believe that the offending editor is a sockpuppet of User:Jon Awbrey who has a vendetta against the editor in question. --Privacyisall 00:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly can you point out the link in the history, a diff will do? Secondly is Professor Robert Black a wikipedia editor? Thirdly if it is a blog it is unlikely to be a reliable source, so just remove it as such. Unless it is Professor Robert Black's blog - in which case discuss it on the talk page. Viridae Talk 00:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Diff here - the blog is actually written by Robert Black, as comment on the controversial Pan_Am_Flight_103 disaster. The blog mentions SlimVirgin, and repeats many of the claims and theories around her identity, hence the possibility of harassment.

My advice here is to first consider whether or not the blog is notable enough as an interest of Robert Black to be linked to. I'm unsure, but if the answer is no, then remove the link - it's useless. Privatemusings 00:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The editor User:Flawed And Irresponsible Research Tool, who I believe is banned editor User:Jon Awbrey has restored the blog link because it contains information designed to harass a Wikipedia editor.--Privacyisall 00:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd been very keen to properly establish the suitability (or otherwise) of the link on its own terms before considering the intention of the editor submitting it. If the link is genuinely unsuitable then there is no problem removing it at will. Do you have an opinion as to whether or not the link complies with WP:EL for example? Privatemusings 00:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I also note that it is used a reference for the (asserted to be) notable fact that Prof. Black started a blog concerning Flight 103. My initial impression is that this is a good link.

If you feel the editor is evading a ban, that is probably best brought up at WP:AN/I, or WP:RFCU - he will be dealt with promptly I would think. Privatemusings 01:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If it can be established that that is a sock of a banned user, then their edits can be reverted anyway. However it is a good idea to try and establish whether the blog should be included on the basis of itself. Viridae Talk 01:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

There remains at the article a mention of Prof. Black's blog, for which sourcing had been removed. I've reinserted a reference. This is another interesting test case for continuing 'External Links' discussions. Privatemusings 01:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Guidance on how to respond to personal attacks is in No personal attacks. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it is in the article namespace, i feel it would be better handled as editorial content, to see whether the link stands up on its own and is relevant to the article. Personally I feel inclusion is warranted as a reference for the mention of his blog, but nothing more than that. Viridae Talk 01:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Link removed as per WP:SPS. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * See, that approach works. Creates far less drama too. On ya jossi. Viridae Talk 01:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree - this matter can now move over to the article talk page, to be resolved as a content discussion. The more we can do that, the better. Privatemusings 02:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

A growing agreement?
So, it seems like there is a growing agreement for taking the External links section and inserting the single sentence:


 * Linking to external attacks or harassment for the purpose of attacking another editor is regarded as a personal attack and faces the same restrictions as an on-wiki attack.

My god-- are we actually coming to a consensus here? --Alecmconroy 12:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's all that ever needed to be said. "Don't link to attacks." SchmuckyTheCat
 * Fine with me. Let this be done.—AL FOCUS! 21:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I would endorse this as "Linking is not somehow magically special". Wily D 21:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The wording seems perfectly reasonable. Support. *Dan T.* 21:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Very clear, and very good. Privatemusings 22:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes; it's a good sentence. I'd like to see more input from the "pro-BADSITES" side of the aisle. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this seems a reasonable wording. I'd go farther but this is better than it was. ++Lar: t/c 23:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I speak on behalf of most of the pro-protection side of the isle when I say that we've removed ourselves from this process. Jimbo has spoken - eventually more bans will come and this will be solved. MOASPN 00:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Banning everybody who disagrees with some desired position is one way to achieve consensus, but hardly the one I'd choose as ideal, and I have enough good faith in Jimbo to believe it's not one he would choose either. Bringing up such a concept is hardly a very constructive or productive thing to do just as widespread consensus is being reached here. *Dan T.* 01:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I reeally hope that isn't true. If people disagree with you, the solution is not to sit back and assume that you're right. -Amarkov moo! 01:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This is already in WP:NPA: "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done ". This (to me) clearly covers and has always been there to cover insults and attacks made by means other than direct text statement, such as linking to an off-wiki attack instead, or an insulting or disparaging image or article that under the circumstances is equivalent to an attack, etc. This covers "Linking to attacks" for me. Maybe it's simply that this sentence needs a footnote clarifying what might be included under it. FT2 (Talk 01:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But enough people are calling, often very fervently, for a specific policy on "harrassment by linking" that it wouldn't really hurt to add a brief statement to that effect, even if it's technically redundant. *Dan T.* 01:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I would propose a neat way to address this:


 * Old:
 * {| style="border:1px black solid" width="90%"


 * These examples are not exclusive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all.
 * }


 * New:
 * {| style="border:1px black solid" width="90%"


 * These examples are not exclusive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done.[1] When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all.


 * [1] This includes any insults and attacks made other than by on-wiki textual statements. For example, linking to external attacks or harassment for the purpose of attacking another editor, linking to images or web pages that under the circumstances are insulting, disparaging or attacking, and so on, would all be treated as forms of "personal attack" for the purposes of this policy.


 * }


 * No need to reinvent the wheel or add more wordage. Existing wordage actually covers off-site links, it's just it's not been noticed and used much. Same wording but used to clarify existing policy might be just as effective (or more so), and keep the WP:CREEP and duplication down too. FT2 (Talk 01:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be fine with me too. *Dan T.* 01:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I find this quite elegant. Are any editors here at the moment very keen to insist on more explicit reference to external links? Privatemusings 01:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I like it, especially the part that says "for the purpose". 1 != 2  01:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I understnad that simple policies are better, but since we already enumerate several forms of personal attacks if we leav out major ones then there will be those who, intentionally or inadvertently, overstep the boundaries. Unless were going to reduce the "no personal attacks" policy to the three words "no personal attacks" then I think we need to specify the major categories of words and deeds that we consider personal attacks. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If you ask me, we don't actually need a single new word to NPA in order to stop genuine problem users. But the wording at the top of this section doesn't seem like it would do anything but state the obviously, so I'd welcome it if it'd stop the all da feudin' and da fuss. --Alecmconroy 06:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added the italics to the policy since that seems to be considered either useful or fairly uncontroversial, and suggest a slight change to proposed footnote wording:


 * {| style="border:1px black solid" width="90%"

Main changes: add "subtle attacks", and brevify first sentence. FT2 (Talk 09:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * [1] This includes, but is not limited to: linking to external attacks or harassment for the purpose of attacking another editor, linking to images or web pages that under the circumstances are insulting, disparaging or attacking, for the purpose of attacking another editor, subtle attacks intended to be understood as such only by the attacked party, and so on – these would all be treated as forms of "personal attack" for the purposes of this policy.
 * }


 * A footnote is nice, and I greatly appreciate that the clause "for the purpose of attacking" has been included, as that makes all the differences. I worry the last one "subtle attacks intended to be only understoood by the attacked party" might be quite problematic.  When two people are having a heated dispute, practically every word is often understood to be sly dig at at each other.  --Alecmconroy 10:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The text itself is OK, but I dont' understand the point of putting it into a footnote. Why not just include it as regular text? I don't think that adding a sentence no one disagrees with is "reinventing the wheel". Rather, it's making clear that a specific form of personal attack is, in fact, a personal attack. We do the same for six other listed types, including "Threats of vandalism to userpages or talk pages." I'd think that linking to harassment for the purpose of attacking another editor would be as notable as threatening to vandalize a user page. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 10:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree with any of that text, but it's starting to look like one of those fine-print disclaimers in offers, contests, and product labels. *Dan T.* 12:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

How about this: we can just add it to the list of existing types of pesonal attacks.


 * There is no bright-line rule about what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable:
 * Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against disabled people) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.
 * Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.
 * Threats of legal action.
 * Threats of violence, particularly death threats.
 * Threats of vandalism to userpages or talk pages.
 *  Linking to external attacks or harassment for the purpose of attacking another editor. 
 * Threats or actions which deliberately expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time, which may be applied immediately by any administrator upon discovery. Admins applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Arbitration Committee of what they have done and why.

That omits ...is regarded as a personal attack and faces the same restrictions as an on-wiki attack (the first part is the original text). Instead of saying that it will be treated like any other form of personal attack this placement actually treats it that way. Since it's on the list along with the other main forms it is obviously regarded the same and faces the same restrictions. Then we could get rid of "WP:NPA#EL" as a separate section. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's OK, too... (Hey, I've been agreeing to just about everything proposed on this page lately! So much for me being one of those dissidents who opposes everything...) *Dan T.* 13:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Even nicer, Will. We do use footnotes to clarify the detail of policies, but you're right, here we have a list already of "never acceptables", so let's add it to that :)


 * Since this has caused so much heat, would you object to it catching one remaining external link loophole? "Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking or disparaging another editor." The loophole being (say) if the external link is an insulting image or material, rather than an actual attack or harassment, it should still clearly be covered under this item. (We do get that; in one dispute in January 2007, someone posted a link to a medical page with images of stool types, and asked the user to identify themselves on that page.) Basic principle: if it's a external link, and it's added for the purpose of attacking or disparagement, then it should probably be covered. FT2 (Talk 14:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That seems fine too. *Dan T.* 15:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point. I agree. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This seems reasonable. Mangoe 16:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I just want to point out that the policy already says "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done", it has for a long time. 1 != 2  19:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a funny thing about this whole controversy - all we're doing is arguing over whether to make something policy that has always been policy. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's right. This effort is only aimed at adding text to the policy that reflects the existing practice and consensus, not at making a new policy. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "And the end of all our searching shall be to return to the place where we started and know it for the first time.” -T.S. Eliot "   All that was ever necessary was to have a policy that said "don't make bad faith edits that attack people"-- and we had one all along. --Alecmconroy 06:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the lesson of The Wizard of Oz too (as interpreted by Hollywood, anyway... in the original book series Dorothy winds up going back to Oz again and again). "There's no place like home!" *Dan T.* 12:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Can this be added now? :) FT2 (Talk 09:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am willing to unprotect if you think the consensus has been reached. As the protecting admin, I won't add it though. Viridae Talk 11:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I support the wording above, as suggested by Will BeBack and the slight addition by FT2. I can't see why the page can't be unprotected and have these components added. Then we can take down the current banner in that section.--MONGO 17:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

WillBeback's version is particularly clear and instructive. Fully support it. ThuranX 22:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)