Slim Virgin wrote:
For what it's worth, here's how I would define an "attack site": "a website that regularly publishes, or a large portion of which includes, the purported personal details of editors (unless those editors have themselves explicitly revealed the information); personal attacks; defamation; personal threats; or posts that constitute, report the results of, threaten, or incite harassment, stalking, cyberstalking, invasion of privacy, or violence."
Thanks! I really appreciate seeing details. Making your proposal more clear will hopefully focus the discussion, which I think everybody would benefit from. A few questions:
1. Is there an implied "of editors" on each one of those? 2. If so, why would we stop with protecting Wikipedia editors only? 3. Does motive matter when revealing an editor's real-life identity? 4. Do the editor's on-Wiki actions affect the seriousness of revealing their identity? 5. What would we accept as evidence of those various behaviors? 6. Given that definition of attack site, what specifically would you like done about them? 7. How do you feel that those actions will help Wikipedia in ways that outweigh the harm of those actions?
Thanks,
William