The following is a re-ordered version of what was passing (five votes) when I moved to close "Attack sites" last might. The redaction, apart from order, is to remove some principles that are pretty much common ground. I have preferred later passing versions of decimalized points.
Charles
11) The selection of appropriate external links for an article is a matter of sound editorial judgment.
4.2) Linking to external sites which contain information harmful to another person so as to harass them is unacceptable.
15.1) Wikipedia should not link to websites set up for the purpose of or substantially devoted to harassing its volunteers. Harassment in this context refers to cyber-stalking, offline stalking, outing people without their consent, humiliating them sexually, or threatening them with physical violence.
22.1) Wikipedia users and administrators are expected to have made a realistic appraisal of the risks involved in volunteering for Wikipedia, to take appropriate precautions, and to deal with external pressures in a mature way. For example, it is predictable that Wikipedia and its users will from time to time be subjected to harsh, and occasionally unfair, criticism. This comes with the territory, and it is unseemly, even ridiculous, to react harshly to predictable phenomena.
7.2) Users have the right to expect harassment of themselves to be combated. Users who are not directly involved are encouraged to achieve this through the removal of personal attacks, removal of links to external harassment, and, in extreme cases, removal of references to attack sites; these activities are not subject to revert limits.
37) From time to time, Wikipedia users and administrators err, engaging in inappropriate activities which may come to our notice through external criticism.
38) Persons aggrieved by Wikipedia and its users, those banned, subjects who don't like the content of their article, subjects, or notable people, who attempt to edit and feel harassed, etc., sometimes attempt to fight back, and in addition to legitimate criticism, engage in name calling, create critical websites, attempt to determine the real identity of editors, create links to edit a user's page, etc.
39) Once struggle is commenced with Wikipedia, or one of its users, on an external site, Wikipedia users may attempt to respond with removal of links, or criticism of its initiator. This can rapidly degenerate into a struggle between aggrieved users and supporters of free expression or of the external site.
23) Satirical treatment of Wikipedia, its users, errors and policies is to be expected.
32) If an editor believes that the content of a prohibited link reveals a serious violation of Wikipedia policy, they may forward the link to the Committee for investigation.
----
1) AntiSocialMedia.net, a creation of the banned user WordBomb is part of an extended campaign of harassment directed at several users.
4) In a number of cases, editors attempting in good faith to protect themselves and other Wikipedians from harassment have aggressively removed links and references to external sites, as well as discussions associated with them.
6) In a number of instances inappropriate attempts have been made to extend the principles of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO to sites merely critical of Wikipedia and its users' behavior. Those principles and those applied in this case apply only to malicious websites.
8) Except for obvious cases, such as ED, it is difficult to sort out sites engaged in criticism of Wikipedia and its editors and administrators from sites engaged in harassment. Likewise, when information is provided about the alleged wrong-doings of Wikipedia users, it can be difficult to differentiate legitimate complaints from bogus ones calculated to cast a user in a false light.
---- 3.2) The community is encouraged to develop a policy compliant with Wikipedia's key policies regarding the circumstances, if any, under which "attack sites" may be linked.
4) All editors are encouraged to show due consideration for the feelings of other Wikipedians, and to refrain from idly or frivolously making references to malicious sites.
5.1) This decision applies only to links to AntiSocialMedia.net and similar sites which engage in malicious behavior toward Wikipedia users. Attempts to extend this remedy to sites critical of Wikipedia and its users' behavior are discouraged.
7) If you are dissatisfied with the article on you or your project, or regarding how you are treated on Wikipedia, please communicate on our talk pages, use our dispute resolution procedures, or contact the Wikimedia Foundation itself.
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
On 17/10/2007, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
15.1) Wikipedia should not link to websites set up for the purpose of or substantially devoted to harassing its volunteers. Harassment in this context refers to cyber-stalking, offline stalking, outing people without their consent, humiliating them sexually, or threatening them with physical violence.
Is naming a site the same as linking? Note that in the example that caused the case, antisocialmedia.net (which is undoubtedly an attack site) was named, not linked, and its name has been in reliable sources (under the interpretations pushed by the most prominent advocates of BADSITES-like policies).
- d.
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
15.1) Wikipedia should not link to websites set up for the purpose of or substantially devoted to harassing its volunteers. Harassment in this context refers to cyber-stalking, offline stalking, outing people without their consent, humiliating them sexually, or threatening them with physical violence.
I'm very worried that this proposal doesn't make any distinction between article space and non-article space.
On 17/10/2007, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
15.1) Wikipedia should not link to websites set up for the purpose of or substantially devoted to harassing its volunteers. Harassment in this context refers to cyber-stalking, offline stalking, outing people without their consent, humiliating them sexually, or threatening them with physical violence.
I'm very worried that this proposal doesn't make any distinction between article space and non-article space.
Indeed. This will do nothing to resolve the actual disruptive and destructive behaviour on the part of the policy-not-called-BADSITES advocates.
- d.
On 10/17/07, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
15.1) Wikipedia should not link to websites set up for the purpose of or substantially devoted to harassing its volunteers. Harassment in this
context
refers to cyber-stalking, offline stalking, outing people without their consent, humiliating them sexually, or threatening them with physical violence.
I'm very worried that this proposal doesn't make any distinction between article space and non-article space.
I'm very worried that this means I can't link to an attack site to make fun of it, as I did with Brandft's hive mind. (I was listed on it, so I thought it'd make a good userbox joke - gosh, I feel so old.) This makes no distinction between intent and actual action - [[mens rea]] for the legal nerds out there. In real life, the law sometimes cannot draw a good distinction between intent and the act itself, but in Wikipedia, we usually can. We should be banning the usage of links for the express purpose of harassing or outing editors; not banning links which *might* conceivably be used in a context to harass editors simply because of their content.
I'm at least happy that it limits the application of this principle to websites set up for the purpose (I would prefer sole/primary purpose, though) or substantially devoted to harassing Wikipedians. This should *hopefully* reduce the wikidrama that goes on.
Johnleemk
Quoting John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com:
On 10/17/07, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
15.1) Wikipedia should not link to websites set up for the purpose of or substantially devoted to harassing its volunteers. Harassment in this
context
refers to cyber-stalking, offline stalking, outing people without their consent, humiliating them sexually, or threatening them with physical violence.
I'm very worried that this proposal doesn't make any distinction between article space and non-article space.
I'm very worried that this means I can't link to an attack site to make fun of it, as I did with Brandft's hive mind. (I was listed on it, so I thought it'd make a good userbox joke - gosh, I feel so old.) This makes no distinction between intent and actual action - [[mens rea]] for the legal nerds out there. In real life, the law sometimes cannot draw a good distinction between intent and the act itself, but in Wikipedia, we usually can. We should be banning the usage of links for the express purpose of harassing or outing editors; not banning links which *might* conceivably be used in a context to harass editors simply because of their content.
I'm inclined to agree. I forgot also that we had fun little threads occasionally when people got stuck on Hivemind. JzG announced his placement on Hivemind. However, an occasional humorous thread being curtailed seems like a minor price to pay.
On 10/17/07, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com:
On 10/17/07, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
15.1) Wikipedia should not link to websites set up for the purpose of
or
substantially devoted to harassing its volunteers. Harassment in this
context
refers to cyber-stalking, offline stalking, outing people without
their
consent, humiliating them sexually, or threatening them with physical violence.
I'm very worried that this proposal doesn't make any distinction between article space and non-article space.
I'm very worried that this means I can't link to an attack site to make
fun
of it, as I did with Brandft's hive mind. (I was listed on it, so I
thought
it'd make a good userbox joke - gosh, I feel so old.) This makes no distinction between intent and actual action - [[mens rea]] for the
legal
nerds out there. In real life, the law sometimes cannot draw a good distinction between intent and the act itself, but in Wikipedia, we
usually
can. We should be banning the usage of links for the express purpose of harassing or outing editors; not banning links which *might* conceivably
be
used in a context to harass editors simply because of their content.
I'm inclined to agree. I forgot also that we had fun little threads occasionally when people got stuck on Hivemind. JzG announced his placement on Hivemind. However, an occasional humorous thread being curtailed seems like a minor price to pay.
Indeed - rather, I meant that as a humorous example. Now it appears we cannot even discuss these sites on-wiki - or at the very least, can't hyperlink URLs to them. And, of course, eventually there will be a notable site devoted to attacking Wikipedians, at which point, we will have to re-examine this policy.
Johnleemk
Quoting John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com:
On 10/17/07, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
*snip*
I'm inclined to agree. I forgot also that we had fun little threads occasionally when people got stuck on Hivemind. JzG announced his placement on Hivemind. However, an occasional humorous thread being curtailed seems like a minor price to pay.
Indeed - rather, I meant that as a humorous example. Now it appears we cannot even discuss these sites on-wiki - or at the very least, can't hyperlink URLs to them. And, of course, eventually there will be a notable site devoted to attacking Wikipedians, at which point, we will have to re-examine this policy.
Yes, even ED is really starting to push borderline notabilty. I suspect that before the year is out they will have enough (whether they will actually get an article remains to be seen. I don't know if they realize that their repeated attempts at DRVs have if anything reduced the chance that they will get an article)
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, John Lee wrote:
I'm at least happy that it limits the application of this principle to websites set up for the purpose (I would prefer sole/primary purpose, though) or substantially devoted to harassing Wikipedians. This should *hopefully* reduce the wikidrama that goes on.
But it still gives free reign to remove links to attack sites that are used in discussing an attack sites policy. It also allows the situation where a user is accused of posting on an attack site and is not allowed to give links to show that what he posted was innocuous.
Thanks for the summary, Charles. One question.
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
4.2) Linking to external sites which contain information harmful to another person so as to harass them is unacceptable.
I can read this in two ways depending on what "so as to harass" refers to, the linking or the containing. One reading is that linking so as to harass is unacceptable. The other is that linking to sites that harass is unacceptable.
When I first read this, I assumed that the Arbitration Committee meant the first, which is an obvious extension of WP:HARASS, WP:NPA, or WP:CIVIL, take your pick.
But now that I look at it again, I see it could be read as a very broad thing. I could make a good case for delinking both Bill O Reilly and Michael Moore's sites, among many others, based on the second reading.
Could you clarify which the AC had in mind? And is it possible to clarify it in the text, possibly via minor rewording?
Thanks,
William
On 10/17/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Thanks for the summary, Charles. One question.
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
4.2) Linking to external sites which contain information harmful to another person so as to harass them is unacceptable.
I can read this in two ways depending on what "so as to harass" refers to, the linking or the containing. One reading is that linking so as to harass is unacceptable. The other is that linking to sites that harass is unacceptable.
Seems like "person" here should be read as "editor." In other words, don't add links with the intent or effect of harassing another editor.
Thatcher