Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case

Active:

• Charles Matthews
• FloNight
• Fred Bauder
• Jdforrester
• Jpgordon
• Kirill Lokshin
• Matthew Brown (Morven)
• Paul August
• Raul654

Inactive/away:

• Blnguyen
• Flcelloguy
• Mackensen
• Neutrality (Ben)
• SimonP
• UninvitedCompany

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

The other cyde of pain

I'm surprised to find that, at this time, the workshop fails to even touch on Cyde's public spectacle. Only the evidence page accounts for his gross indiscretion and de facto provocational act. Throughout the "long-time community member" superlatives, Phil Sandifer fails to note the simple fact: had the question been posed semi / privately, a lot of needless anguish (and countless lost work hours, lest we forget) could have been spared. I am not going to formulate this into a remedy or finding of fact, but I truly hope that this incident will not simply be whitewashed by the Committee and that its members will rise above factionalism to deliver a just resolution. The breadth of this case notwithstanding, abusive acts that, not only link to but mirror the practices of attack sites need to be addressed. Not only in theory, but also in practice. Thx. El_C 04:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Fred Bauder 14:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on. Even if Cyde's decision to post to AN/I was in poor judgment, it was not in bad faith, and it was in no way actionable. You've got to be kidding me. Phil Sandifer 16:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Cyde is not a party to the case and should be notified if any proposals involving him are being considered. Newyorkbrad 16:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks like it's being proposed that he be desysopped. He should probably be notified. Also, it seems a bit unreasonable to desysop someone who wasn't a party to the case and was not able to present evidence in their own defense. -Chunky Rice 00:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Notified Fred Bauder 00:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Numbering

I know we're not supposed to mess with this which is why I'm making a note that I fixed some numbering, edit to undo if need be is [1], that's all. Milto LOL pia 13:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you did screw it up. Fred Bauder 14:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[2] Milto LOL pia 19:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Question

Fred, what exactly do you mean with "the" attack site? Is there a specific site you meant, or does it apply to all "attack sites"? Melsaran (talk) 14:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Banning all references to a site without telling anybody which site it is... very Kafkaesque. *Dan T.* 14:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we could have "the attack site of the day." Come on, guys, what site can get you banned for merely linking to it? ED? WR? P-J? My user page (mostly attacks on myself)? Casey Abell 15:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Come to think about it, I'm amazed that I haven't been banned already. My user page is a vicious attack site. Why, I attack a user, by his real name, for being a "clueless oldbie" who "obsessively keeps track of his own edit count" and "enjoys thinking about other people contributing to Wikipedia without wearing clothes." I also viciously slam this 10000+ edit user for making "stupid remarks" and "silly comments" and being "hardly even a respectable editor." I admit that this editor is "pretty naive" so maybe that's a mitigating factor, although I also sneer that the user "may have no personal affiliation with Earth other than Wikipedia itself."

Okay, I'll drop the humor. But I wish somebody would have some sense about this matter, including a sense of humor and a sense of proportion and a sense of elementary fairness. Threatening to ban people for linking to an unnamed site sounds like something from Stalin's playbook. (I'm trying to avoid a Godwin's law violation here, but it's not easy.) I can't believe that this proposal has even been made, much less gotten two votes in favor. Casey Abell 15:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a problem of this issue exemplified, that we have to ask ourselves "what site are we talking about?" This question was raised earlier by another user, and removed by the same user as potential troll bait. I disagree, but we're all on egg shells here. It strikes me as childish referring to things as the site, the attack site, and so on. Is this really about one site? I'm quite confused. daveh4h 15:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It's about Lord Vol... er, I mean The One Who Must Not Be Named! *Dan T.* 16:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Deliberate attempts at harassment

Surely FloNight is not suggesting a concentrated attempt at harassment by Cyde, Gmaxwell, SeraphimBlade, MessedRocker, and everybody else who expressed concern on the ANI thread about SlimVirgin. Phil Sandifer 14:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Surely we are not going to consider linking to sites that "present editors in a poor light" as harassment. I don't know how anyone could possibly claim that as anything but an obvious double standard, and the idea of banning anything that criticizes Wikipedia editors in a way we don't like is anathema to NPOV. And it's unworkable as a single standard, too; it would be devastating to the encyclopedia to extend that rule to all targets. You can't cover politics, wars, propaganda, hate groups or any kind of incident of conflict without referencing sources that present their targets in a poor light and misrepresent or exaggerate their actions to that end. ShaleZero 15:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This is why "negative information" is an unfortunately decided choice of words for defining an attack site. There needs to be something that distinguishes between websites that say "Miltopia is a bad editor" from "Miltopia is engaged in an abusive conspiracy" from "Miltopia is a faggot". Milto LOL pia 16:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

To clarify what I mean here: Cyde and co. linking to sites that say "SlimVirgin is abusive zomg" is not even in the same ballpark (I would hope) as Cyde linking to a site that says "SlimVirgin is a [expletive]". Milto LOL pia 16:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment. Criticism != harassment. ATren 17:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Sending "the right message"?

FloNight talks about "sending the right/wrong message" a few times. Just what is the right message to send? That all of Wikipedia must submit to censorship any time somebody gets bothered by something pertaining to them being discussed anywhere on the Web? *Dan T.* 15:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps FloNight would like to propose her own remedies so that we unenlightened can see what the 'right message' is? 86.137.28.211 16:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Fundamental policies?

Fred Bauder appears to be fundamentally misguided about what our fundamental policies are, as seen here:

Policy matter remanded to the community

3) The community is instructed to develop a workable policy regarding the circumstances, if any, under which "attack sites" may be linked or referenced.

Support:

1. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. While community attempts to formulate policy are always welcome, the community may not override a fundamental policy such as Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Additionally, while we may encourage attempts to refine policy, we are in no position to instruct the community to do so. Fred Bauder 21:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

While there are some fundamental foundation policies that are basic to Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects in general, and are non-negotiable -- see meta:Foundation issues -- WP:NPA is not one of them. It is a policy made by consensus of the community in the English Wikipedia (and similarly, the communities in other-language Wikipedias and other Wikimedia projects may have their own variants of it, possibly similar, possibly very different), and subject to being altered or abolished by community consensus as it evolves over time. So, the community can very well override it... even to the point of abolishing it completely... without it violating foundation policy. Not that I'm advocating anything nearly so extreme; I'm just seeking a more pro-freedom policy where external links posted without harrassing intention are concerned. There's nothing stopping community consensus from evolving such a position, and it is out of line for the ArbCom to insist that it has no right to do so. *Dan T.* 23:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not difficult to understand the spirit, even though the letter is mistaken. See Wikipedia:Linking to off-wiki harassment. ←Ben^B4 05:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

On efforts made in good faith

Fred - do you really mean to suggest that the validity and good faith of a question or query about one's actions rests on whether it's eventually found to have been actionable? Phil Sandifer 02:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Attack sites to attack pages

I think you guys need to make a distinction between attack sites and attack pages. Wikipedia Watch, while mainly being an attack site, does have some useful information that could come up in discussions on wiki, and those posting a link should not be afraid of OMG badsite! Example http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/psamples.html . That page does not discuss any wikipedia editor but as this decision is stating, that link would put me in a bad light. If we had an article on "problems of wikipedia" (probably fails a few other guidelines and policys), that link would be 100% relevant. I think the guideline here needs to be use good sense. Don't link in non-mainspace links that would be a cause to ban you if you posted that content on wikipedia rather then the external site. For in mainspace (the encyclopaedia part, use editorial judgement, firstly a link attacking a wikipedia editor probably won't be relevant to the article as a whole. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 07:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Exactly. The issue here is that the status of most "attack sites" is a grey area, the circumstances where it is appropriate to link to them vary, and the nature of a given link in context varies. The same rule cannot possibly be made to apply to a sockpuppet harassing someone on their talk page and to a long-time administrator raising a concern on AN/I. Phil Sandifer 13:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree completely, wholeheartedly, and a really really whole lot. My original comment on the RfAR [3] made the same suggestion. The easiest way out of this mess is to interpret the MONGO decision on a link-by-link basis (or a page-by-page basis, if you prefer that wording). This avoids the infuriating dispute over what is and is not an "attack site"...or "the attack site." If a particular link is objectionable, remove it. But always make the decision on each link individually. Don't condemn everything on an entire website just because there may be objectionable material somewhere on the site.

Of course, this suggestion is so sensible that it stands no chance of adoption. Sigh. Casey Abell 14:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely as well, this issue was also discussed here, as well as every other BADSITES related page that has cropped up since its beginning. This arbcom is very complex, but the term "attack site" is one thing that I am sure I do not like. The term "attack sites" has and will lead to disruption. daveh4h 15:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you guys really want to ban linking to the New York Times?

I hope you realize that the wording of Proposed principles #4 (which already has two votes of support) would prohibit linking to most news sites such as the New York Times or the Boston Globe:

"4) It is inappropriate to link to external sites which contain substantial negative or identifying information regarding other users."

"Miikka Ryokas, whose user name is Kizor and in an e-mail message said that he was a 22-year-old computer science student from Turku, Finland..." - New York Times

"Wikipedia administrator Ryan Kaldari, 28, of Nashville, is an active vandal-fighter. A programmer who edited his high school newspaper, Kaldari said..." - The Boston Globe

Kaldari 15:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the intent is to refer to sites that provide identifying information that editors do not disclose voluntarily. Additionally, discussion in this case has distinguished between sites that may contain an editor's name on a sporadic basis or if the editor is a prominent individual, as opposed to sites that seek to uncover and publish editors' personal identifying information for purposes such as harassment. Newyorkbrad 15:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible strawman argument detected.

Please stop the bogus strawman arguments. substantial negative or identifying information regarding other users obviously does not apply to users who have voluntarily identified themselves to a newspaper. We're talking about sites that have claimed that editors are mentally ill, published photos of their infirm grandparents in an attempt to intimidate them, claimed that other users were paid spies, and given out the address and phone number of teenaged editors who annoyed them. Thatcher131 15:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The proposal says absolutely nothing about whether or not the information is voluntarily submitted. If the intent of the proposal is different than what it says, the wording of the proposal needs to be edited. I don't have time to get into a pointless debate about what the ArbCom "obviously" "intends" with this proposal. Either correct the wording of the proposal or vote against it please. Kaldari 15:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't get to do either of those things, but I agree the language of the proposal could stand to be clarified. Newyorkbrad 15:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• With all due respect Brad, I don't think it is necessary to change the wording of the proposal. Words like "substantial" and "negative" should be interpreted with common sense. There has been a concerted effort around this issue to use straw men, to obfuscate, to wikilawyer, and to ignore common sense, and any wording needed to make these principles immune to deliberate misinterpretation just fuels the idea that common sense does not apply on wikipedia and that only those rules that are written down in triplicate after a 6 month debate are enforceable. No one other than a straw man would try to place the Times in the same category as web sites which "out" people who have chosen to remain anonymous, or that allege that Wikipedia admins are being paid by Israel to enforce a pro-zionist point of view. If it is not common sense that a site which advocates calling an editors' private phone number in the middle of the night should not be linked to under any circumstance, but that Michaelmoore.com should be linked to, even if in a fit of pique he briefly suggests vandalizing someone's user page, then I am editing the wrong encyclopedia. Thatcher131 16:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • By any common sense reading of the proposed principle (albeit out of context), we would be banning both the New York Times and the Boston Globe at the least. Do you contend that neither of the examples I cited could be considered "substantial identifying information"??? By any interpretation of that wording, "common sense" or otherwise, we are giving people an excuse to purge perfectly acceptable external links. I'm not "wiki-lawyering", I'm just pointing out that the wording is extremely sloppy here, so let's fix it. Why does this have to be a big bruhaha? Kaldari 17:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Common sense is rarely common. The last word I've heard, the participants still stand by the deletions of MichaelMoore as appropriate. If he were to post similar material on his site tommorrow, they would seriously delete his links again. Speak up if I'm wrong, guys, but that's the way I understand it. --Alecmconroy 16:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• The substance of Thatcher131's point is, of course, completely well-taken. Personally I think adding an appropriate adjective or two to the wording couldn't hurt, but as I said above in this thread, it's pellucid what the proposed language is supposed to mean. Newyorkbrad 16:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If I had told you a year ago that the MONGO case was going to lead to an edit war where people were purging MichaelMoore from the encyclopedia, you'd have dismissed it as a ridiculous strawman. Yet it happened-- and according to MONGO and Fred, it should happen again in the future situations like Michael Moore. Under the new policy Fred's proposed, links can be purged even if they are highly notable and reliable. --Alecmconroy 15:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

As a good start you could simply change that "or" to an "and" in the proposed principle. Kaldari 15:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131, you do realize that many people, including ElinorD, MONGO, and Fred Bauder, have insisted that the Michael Moore website should not have been linked to, right? Suggesting that this practice will be applied to censor any site which can be perceived as attacking a single user is not a 'straw man' argument. It is exactly what the proponents of this practice have actually advocated and done. Fred just specifically re-affirmed his support for the Michael Moore link removals on the Workshop page yesterday.

Nor is the possibility of major newspapers 'outing' Wikipedia contributors some absurd hypothetical. I think we can all be quite certain that if Brandt had found out Essjay's identity on his own, as he has done many times before, rather than as a result of the correct info being supplied to Wikia, then he still would have gone to the New Yorker, they still would have printed a correction, and it still would have made news in virtually every major paper on the planet. Essjay certainly didn't want that information widely broadcast, nor did he reveal all the details of his personal life which later appeared in print. Even with the self-identification, that fiasco was every bit as much, a revelation of 'private' information and the result of an effort (by Brandt) to 'harass' as the Michael Moore situation... actually much moreso in my opinion.

Fortunately, there is a point of notability at which even the most ardent supporters of 'BADSITES' realize it is contrary to the fundamental purposes of Wikipedia. The Times is safe. But michaelmoore.com, per Fred, is not. Which is precisely the problem. The practice of banning links and/or any mention of a site is inherently contrary to the impartial representation of relevant information (aka 'building an encyclopedia'), but we are now engaged not in removing this bad practice but rather in horse-trading over where we shall draw the line below which bias is 'allowed'. --CBD 12:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

CBD, I believed that unlinking to Michael Moore's website when it had direct links to editing pages was fine only because I saw it as an invitation to vandalize this project, especially when with the wording that was posted at that website. Once those links were removed, I had no problem whatsoever with that website. Please don't misrepresent where I stand on this issue.--MONGO 05:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I said you supported removing the links. You have just confirmed that. Your stated reason when you took part in the edit war over those links was "harassment of an editor". Where's the 'misrepresentation'? --CBD 14:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert has directly and specifically urged people to vandalize particular Wikipedia articles on a few occasions on The Colbert Report. Does that mean that we need to remove all links and references to that? *Dan T.* 14:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Users may be BANNED????

Wait, users who link to attack sites may be BANNED? With no duration? One link, in good faith, or in the context of the article space and poof, you're perma-banned? Is this seriously what Fred and Flo are proposing? Phil Sandifer 16:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If shorter bans won't work, after a warning, yes. But no, no surprises of the sort you suggest. Fred Bauder 02:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Not to rag on Fred, but he's either "too close" to this case or acting with haste or something. Even if it were a given that someone wanted to be able to ban sites like ASM, his proposal is so extreme that it's hard to believe he could seriously want what he's asking for. Maybe he's doing that old "Make your first offer high so you have somewhere to bargain down from" or maybe he just hasn't thought it through.. (or, maybe I'm wrong, and it's a wonderful policy). --Alecmconroy 16:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The wording in the proposed enforcement provision (including "after a warning" and "... may be blocked for an appropriate length of time") would seem more consistent with the usual practice. Newyorkbrad 16:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Even when it's restricted to users familiar with the case, a block without warning for mentioning that ASM exists seems pretty harsh to me. ShaleZero 16:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Question

So, let's say that one of these so-called "attack sites" becomes notable. Let's say really notable. Articles in the NYT, Newsweek, etc. Am I to understand that an article about it, with a link to the site would not be allowed? This seems like a gross violation of NPOV. The problem I have with the currently proposed remedies/principles is that they have absolutely no regard for context. Yes, I can absolutely see why linking to one of these sites in a discussion or out of context should be considered a personal attack. However, in proper context, it's not clear to me why we should be banning even the mere mention of such sites. The lack of distinction between these two situations (which is what's causing most of the dispute, as far as I can see), is disturbing.

I also want to add that not mentioning "the site" in a ruling forbidding people from mentioning it is really silly. I've followed this back and determined what site we're talking about, but it really just underlines the ridiculousness of disregarding context when you can't even tell people what site it is that you don't want them to talk about. -Chunky Rice 23:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that Fred Bauder has gone back and now added (in proposed finding of fact 1) the name of the site about which he's primarily concerned. Newyorkbrad 00:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as I read the ruling, having an article about one of these sites would in and of itself be a violation, as said article would by definition be a "reference" to the site. Kirill 00:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to show that I'm not always a nagging critic of ArbCom, I want to compliment Kirill on the great good sense he's shown in this case. I hope the remaining arbitrators will carefully consider his well-founded arguments as they vote.

I was surprised when I finally figured out that Fred's "moral depravity" site was ASM. I figured he was talking about ED, which makes ASM look like the soul of respectability. ED doesn't just harass Wikipedia editors, but it does so in a grossly and intentionally obscene manner, unlike ASM. In fact, Encyclopedia Dramatica may well be the next test case for this endless BADSITES hoohah.

Like it or not, ED has steadily risen in the Alexa rankings, and is now resting comfortably in the top five thousand. It's not unimaginable that the site will eventually crack the top thousand – there's always a market for gross-out comedy – and start to garner some notices, at least in the semi-respectable web press. Right now there's a reference to the site in a respectable press outlet in the Google news cache, [4] and there's probably more on the way. Sooner or later, somebody will probably try to recreate the article on ED with those third-party sources, and we'll all be yelping about BADSITES again.

If ArbCom would only clarify that the MONGO decision applies on a link-by-link (or page-by-page) basis, we could avoid all the unsolvable problems of identifying BADSITES to be blacklisted. Sorry to keep repeating myself, but a link-by-link approach is the only reasonable and fair way out of this mess. Casey Abell 13:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

How can we possibly justify omitting otherwise valid content from this encyclopedia simply because we do not like that content? If an "attack site" is notable and a well written, well referenced article could be written on it, there is no possible justification (even protecting Wikipedia editors) for not allowing it. Because once we do that, we cross a line into territory where we (or at last Arbcom) can make decisions on what we can and cannot write about, based on not liking the content. I've seen AfDs of notable (but potentially offensive) organizations like NAMBLA before. Wouldn't a ruling like the ones proposed open the door to deleting these entries, as well? I honestly don't understand what Fred Bauder and FloNight are thinking. -Chunky Rice 16:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks

WP:RPA has tradionally been controversial and does not appear to have consensual support. However, the finding that "Users have the right to combat harassment of both themselves and others. This includes removal of personal attacks ..." effectively asserts that RPA is policy. Is that the ArbCom's intent? >Radiant< 11:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

More a restatement of the right of self defense. Fred Bauder 13:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Given that arbcom is in a grey area of not setting policy, but having enforceable rulings, I would say that anything the community doesn't liek they can summarily ignore, short of "punishments" and remedies. Viridae^Talk 11:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but given that plenty of the users have the tendency to say "I can do this because arbcom said so" I thought I'd ask for a preemptive clarification. Note how in a recent case, much of the debate centered on the definition of "wheel war", and this was caused by the ArbCom in a prior case defining the term in a way that contradicts WP:WHEEL. >Radiant< 11:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed - the argument that "the arbcom has found X actionable" is generally a highly persuasive one. Phil Sandifer 13:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The idea that Arbcom doesn't make policy is both true and a non-starter. Real life courts don't make law, either. They do, however, interpret existing law and their rulings have very real and long lasting impacts in the way laws are applied. Like an appeals court of the Supreme court, Arbcom should consider every potential application of the ruling that they hand down. Wording, phrasing, potential consequences. These all should be considered very carefully. -Chunky Rice 16:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, that's only true in countries with Common Law. In most countries (e.g. countries with Civil Law), courts cannot create new interpretations of laws or consider "common practice" in their judgements, and their rulings must be based entirely on existing laws. Melsaran (talk) 17:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for being ethnocentric. Regardless, I think my point is valid. -Chunky Rice 17:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, arbcom rulings should be worded very carefully because they tend to be cited a lot (as happened with the ~MONGO ruling). Melsaran (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, the ArbCom cannot make policy. WP:RPA was rejected, yet the ArbCom does now want to adopt a principle saying "Users have the right to (...) remov[e] personal attacks", which directly contradicts community consensus on the issue. That seems wrong to me. Melsaran (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the personal feelings of the targeted clearly are of a nature as to override community consensus. I say "personal feelings" and not "personal security" because no action being contemplated here by the ArbCom, or undertaken by editors or admins, provides anyone with greater or lesser protection whatsoever with respect to stalking, only higher or lower levels of annoyance with respect to appositionally problematized and problematic editors.—AL ^FOCUS! 16:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

A policy that users could not remove personal attacks would be even more wrong. Fred Bauder 16:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It is my considered opinion that the proposed "right of self defense" amounts to an unlimited license to edit war over any remark which any editor finds even remotely offensive. This would not be a wise move on the part of the Arbitration Committee, nor is (as others have noted) it wise for the ArbCom to establish by the law of the case policy which the community has rejected. Doing so would merely undermine the ArbCom's support within the community.

The comment I made last night to NewYorkBrad is that you people are trying to ban elephants without actually mentioning elephants. Instead of wasting your own, and everyone else's, time trying to find some clever way to prohibit pachyderms from nesting in the corner without putting up a "NO ELEPHANTS" sign, just come out and say "This is bad. Don't do it. Move along." Geez.

I would also remind the Arbitrators that they must never create policies to protect the community which interfere with writing the encyclopedia. I notice that several of the proposed points in the decision would do exactly that, and that Kirill has rightly rejected them on that basis. I call upon Fred and Flonight to reverse their unfortunate decisions in these matters, and for the rest of the Arbitrators to remember that this is a project to write an encyclopedia, and not merely a social gathering site. The day any one of you puts keeping social harmony within the community, or the feelings of any one member of it, ahead of writing the encyclopedia to the point that you make rules that interfere with writing the encyclopedia is the day you yourself should be banned from this project. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What did ignoring the feelings of others get you? Fred Bauder 17:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Fred, it pains me to be put in the position of ignoring you, but if the best you can do is to make such bankrupt comments as that, I see no point in engaging with you. It is grossly inappropriate for Arbitrators to make arguments ad hominem or to erect strawmen, and yet you have just done both. Congratulations on disappointing me yet further. I shall not participate further in this discussion, as I see no further reason to pay any attention whatsoever to the Arbitration Committee or its pronouncements. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, there is a line to be drawn. If someone goes around actively irritating other editors for no good reason, this makes improving the encyclopedia more difficult. Yes, making a good encyclopedia is more important than being "friends" and holding hands, but this can be taken too far. Editors who cannot abide by the community's expectations of civilized behavior need to be shown the door, even if they also make useful article edits. Friday (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This should be applied, as in the old FidoNet policy, in the manner of "Don't be excessively annoying; don't be too easily annoyed." A "reasonable-person principle" should apply, where something reasonably considered to be unnecessary irritation should be subject to sanction, but attempts to find subjective irritation in behavior that a reasonable assessment finds not to be excessive should not. People can take offense at anything and everything, but that doesn't grant an unlimited right to compel others to ban everything they dislike. Going out of your way to do something just to annoy somebody, even if it might in other circumstances be reasonable, can be considered an attack, however; but, on the other side of the coin, going out of your way to find things not even aimed in any way at you to be attacks on you is unreasonable. *Dan T.* 19:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"If someone goes around actively irritating other editors for no good reason"... then we block them. No censorship of valid encyclopedic content required. I'm the first to insist on civil behaviour, but the one has nothing to do with the other. Proponents of BADSITES keep going on about all the evils that stalkers and harassers commit... despite the fact that those constitute clear grounds to block them without any need for the policy changes advocated. It isn't an 'either we block bad people or we build a proper encyclopedia' issue... toss 'BADSITES' and its progeny out the window and we can continue doing both just fine. --CBD 20:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"Linking to libel is republishing libel" - is this true?

proposed principle #12 states that "Linking to defamatory material may constitute republication", and refers the reader to a site arguing that Hyperlinking to libel is republishing a libel. I have a couple of problems with this; firstly, I'm not clear on the legal issue, nor on the source cited. My understanding of Barrett v. Rosenthal (incidentally, the subject of an earlier Wikipedia ArbCom case) is that individual users were found immune from liability for the republication of defamatory content on the Internet under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This apparently relevant high-profile case is not discussed in the review cited by User:Fred Bauder (presumably it post-dates the review?), and the review itself contains the disclaimer that "This is a literature review prepared by a non-lawyer and this research may not be construed as legal advice."

Of course, I'm not a lawyer and am way out of my depth here, but should we really be bringing the legal system into this by using terms like "libel" and "defamation"? Not only are we apparently on very shaky ground legally, if I interpret the implications of Barrett v. Rosenthal correctly, but we're citing a source that would probably fail our WP:RS guidelines to support the principle. Most importantly, the principle edges way too close to violating the spirit of no legal threats. Is this of concern to anyone else, or am I taking crazy pills? MastCell ^Talk 17:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If the community considers the link, with administrators reverting its removal, and the arbitration committee approving of it, the fact pattern might change. Remember that anything that any judge takes seriously is a legal hazard. Fred Bauder 17:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comments in the next section. Newyorkbrad 17:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it does say "may constitute republicantion" which is true. It might. As far as I can tell, there hasn't been any really definitive case law or legislation on the matter. The whole thing is highly speculative, though, and I generally agree, inappropriate. -Chunky Rice 17:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The link is what it is, consideration of the question by someone versed in the area, but not an attorney. It is advanced as a marker of possible danger, not as black letter law. Fred Bauder 17:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that it's an interesting topic, probably worthy of discussion somewhere on Wikipedia. I'm just not convinced that it needs to be an affirmed principle of Wikipedia. -Chunky Rice 17:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with Newyorkbrad's comments below fully, I suppose my major concern is that "advancing a marker of possible legal danger" and "making a legal threat" seem semantically equivalent (cf. "I advance a marker of possible danger, you make a legal threat"). Even where real legal danger exists (which is by no means clear in this case), somewhat heavy-handed warnings about said legal danger tend to have a net negative chilling or intimidating effect on the encyclopedia-building process - I think this is reason why the community has codified WP:NLT. Giving ArbCom sanction to this principle, as worded, seems counter to that policy. MastCell ^Talk 17:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What I was trying to say was that I think that the main issue is that it's not just a warning/discussion, it's an Arbcom ruling. If this topic were brought up at the Villiage Pump, I think it would be an interesting, productive discussion. With Arbcom ruling it as a principle in this case, I think you're right about the effect it may have. -Chunky Rice 17:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The argument that BADSITES must be enacted to protect Wikimedia Foundation from exposure to libel lawsuits is patently absurd. A link is not inherently a republication, regardless of armchair lawyer wannabes opining to the contrary. Legalese aside, just note that Google links to every "attacksite" we've discussed, and it's still in business. Raising the specter of libel is just digging really deep to try to defend an indefensible policy proposal. --Alecmconroy 23:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Caution to arbitrators

I appreciate and agree with much, though not all, of what various arbitrators have written in the proposed decision, and look forward to input from the other arbitrators in the hope that a consensus set of principles here can be arrived at. However, I would strongly caution the arbitrators against adopting in its current form proposed principle 12, which states, "Linking to defamatory material may constitute republication."

I believe that I understand the purpose of this proposal, which I assume is to remind editors that they have ethical, and perhaps in extreme cases legal, responsibility if links to sites containing grossly defamatory material are included in Wikipedia pages. I also note that the proposal contains the word "may," and thus is not necessarily taking a stand on what the outcome might be in the event of a challenge to any particular link.

Nonetheless, I am concerned that this one-sentence proposal oversimplies a highly complex, sometimes unsettled, and continuously evolving area of the law, even apart from the question of which jurisdiction's law might apply in a given situation. In addition, the webpage at the cited link is extremely confusing and does not appear to be a reliable source. Most troubling, I am concerned that this principle would be misapplied far beyond its intended scope and could be misused in an attempt to create liability for our editors and/or for the project that might not otherwise exist. I would urge that this proposal be dropped or substantially revised. Newyorkbrad 17:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Remember, we publish in every jurisdiction on earth. While we cheerfully defy Chinese and Saudi law with respect to matters of substance, there is no reason not to conform to prohibitions against malicious publication. Fred Bauder 17:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

But this would be mis-cited in every content dispute about adding an external link between now and the end of time. It also might be taken as a statement of the Foundation's or the project's position on whether liability should exist. Newyorkbrad 17:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Only the Foundation's lawyers should be venturing statements as to what legal liabilities might exist (in any context that goes beyond idle chatter). *Dan T.* 17:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Fred's latest fine-tuning

This takes a lot of the worst out of the decision, but it still raises a major problem - this is, as it stands, a content ruling that antisocialmedia.net should not be mentioned by name in any context including the Overstock.com article. Even if that viewpoint were true, it is outside this committee's mandate to determine this. Phil Sandifer 17:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see this as a content issue. The article could be improved and still not mention the site if that is the ruling of ArbCom. For instance, a section header of "Website critical of critics" would be a more informative section header than "antisocialmedia.net" which means nothing to most people. That leaves one remaining reference which can be removed without hurting the quality of the article. As for "taking the worst out of the decision," I assume you mean limiting the scope. A limited scope decision is one that I have favored from the beginning. --Mantanmoreland 17:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Fred's latest fine-tuning is, but proposed principle #14 is an exact restatement of BADSITES:

Malicious sites

14) Wikipedia should not link to websites set up for the purpose of harassing its volunteers. Harassment in this context refers to cyberstalking, offline stalking, outing people without their consent, humiliating them sexually, or threatening them with physical violence. Even if a website appears not to have been created for that purpose, if a *substantial* amount of its content is devoted to any of the above, it counts as an attack site that should not be linked to anywhere on Wikipedia.

The only difference is that BADSITES is now called MALICIOUSSITES. The new name is not an improvement – it's just longer. Under the BADSITES/MALICIOUSSITES proposal, any editor can claim a site is "substantially" (whatever that means) engaged in "cyberstalking" (whatever that means) and start ripping out every link to the site. This will make the Michael Moore war look like a kumbaya love-in.

One more time: please stop trying to define "attack sites." Any attempted definition will set off endless edit wars and disruption over whether an entire site meets the criteria. Instead, define an "attack link" (or page) and emphasize that a link may only be removed for its specific content, not objectionable content elsewhere on the site where the link resides. You will still get disagreements over specific links, but you won't get rampaging campaigns to rip out every link to sites that people dislike. Casey Abell 18:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like BADSITES/MALICIOUSSITES will go through, since Kirill has signed off on it. So BADSITES will soon be Wikipedia law. At least there will be a lot of laughs as every site imaginable gets its links ripped out of the encyclopedia because somewhere on the site somebody found an unkind remark about a Wikipedia editor. My guess is that this silliness will eventually get into the mainstream media. I can see the headline: Wikipedia Doesn't Mind Criticism – Except of Itself. WP will deserve all the bad p.r. Oh well, I'll conclude my remarks here and get back to writing an encyclopedia, with external links that I hope won't get torn out too often. Casey Abell 21:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If BADSITES does get passed in this, it's a 99% certainty that a major media piece about it will be run sooner or later. That's not the end of the world, of course-- such a story would basically be a RFC that would solicit wider comment on the policy from the larger community-- this time the GLOBAL community.

I know there will be no shortage of people trying to alert journalists to the change in policy. We're not just purging ED trolls anymore, we've advanced to the big leagues. Hugo Award Winning authors, Hollywood film producers, millionaires-- and that's just so far. And you can bet that journalists would jump at the chance to "break" the story about the latest Wikipedia controversy.

The downside is that Wikipedia's credibility and objectivity will take a big hit-- even though we'll repeal the policy once the real journalists start criticizing us for it, the damage will be done. Let us all hope that the whole mess can be averted now. --Alecmconroy 21:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there may be media coverage, in that this revolves around a person (Judd Bagley) and a website (antisocialmedia.net) that attack the media and are clearly loathed by the press. (How many times does the staid Bloomberg news service refer to something as "creepy"?) But very much the reverse of your "sky is falling" scenario.--Samiharris 07:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The main reason that "The Sky Is Falling" is that two arbiter has endorsed an option that says, in essence, NPOV doesn't apply to matters involving Wikipedia editors. That alone is why the sky is falling.

But, if the mere principle of the matter doesn't scare us, the bad press should. I personally called two different journalistic ethics hotlines and spoke with about four people in total. Their responses ranged from "disapproving" to "outraged". (Obviously, you can't take my word for that, and argument by authority is invalid anyway, and the people I spoke with only heard my side of it, and wikipedia presents unique circumstances that the ethics experts aren't accustomed to facing).

But, I can practically guarantee this will get new coverage. I double Judd Bagley is the person who will get it, but you never know. Who would have thought somebody like Daniel Brandt could get The Essjay Controversy picked by every major media outlet?

My bet is, if the policy is passed, it'll go down like this. Days after the new policy gets passed, antisocial will get purged, and the damage looks minimal at first. ASM is "creepy" and clearly "marginal". But our users won't be content to stop there-- there's a whole internet full of people who can attack us-- and get purged. Wikitruth and that group of sites will be next on the chopping block, but hey, they're notable, but they're not "that" notable-- we can still have an encyclopedia without those freaks, right?

If it goes that far without repealing the policy, people will start getting crazy. Somebody will, I don't know, hypothetically speaking, remove all the links to a Hugo-Award Winning Author. Or, equally hypothetically, somebody could decide to declare A World-Famous Left-Wing Provacateur a BADSITE and purge all his links, just in case he hasn't decided who to make his next documentary about. Or, god forbid, some journalist outs one of our users for a conflict of interest or misrepresenting themselves, and they get declared a BADSITE, and purged. Somebody gets mad about being purged-- they pick up a phone and call Andrew Orlowski or Andrew Keen or anybody else who would love to get in on the ground floor of the latest Wikicontroversy.

The story is so juicy, it practically writes itself. We've learned Wikipedia maintains an "Enemies List" of people who have criticized it or harassed its editors-- the spectre of Nixon looms in the background. Wikipedia has ordered that notable people be purged from its texts-- rewritten out of history, as if they didn't exist. The name of Stalin, hyperbolic and inappropriate though it is, will merit a mention.

And then it's just as short digg or slashdot or APwire away from showing up on CNN and Stephen Colbert.

We'll respond in desperation "the policy was misused by bad people-- it was never meant to apply to notable sources, we've added (MichaelMoore or whomever) back in, and we're looking into the situation". And we'll be back where we started, except with a big black eye.

And if you think all that is just a fable-- just watch. Just sit back with some popcorn, and try your best to "enjoy" the show. Because when I called the original MONGO case a dangerous precedent that would wind up being applied to NOTABLE sources, everyone laughed and said "the sky is falling, is it, Alec? Don't be silly-- nobody would ever apply this to a notable source" And yet here we are--- MakingLights was removed, MichaelMoore was removed, and the people involved stand by their actions, and promise to do it again in the future.

Honestly, we're lucky it hasn't happened already. Cory Doctorow has been involved in this. Michael Moore has been involved in this. These aren't just ED trolls, these are serious, news sources. Did you guys SEE Michael Moore tear into CNN's Sanjay Gupta, over a very minor dispute over some numbers? You don't think he could have had a field day with our little linkpurge tantrum after he outed a wikipedian with a conflict of interest?

Fear isn't the point. We shouldn't repeal NPOV because NPOV is what it's all about. But if that doesn't motivate you-- if the only thing that matters is Wikipedia Editor's getting attacked-- then fear the attacks that this policy will create. Be terrified of them. Because they will happen, and then our problems won't be ED and ASM and freaks anymore-- it'll be a famous author or a political activist or a politician or a journalist. People who won't just call us nasty names, but people who will tell the world "Wikipedia is holding grudges and acting on vendettas." And we will WISH we had just let the stupid, trivial, namecalling little trolls have their one lousy link.

End of Cassandra Speech. --Alecmconroy 08:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you honestly believe all that paranoid rubbish?--Samiharris 14:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Alec is laying out a mildly exaggerated and slightly poorly phrased map of something that, yes, would almost certainly happen under this policy. We've gotten enough bad press out of Jimbo correcting his birthday on his article. To say nothing of the decision to not list Larry Sanger as a co-founder of Wikipedia.

The thing to remember here is that we are the big fish on the Internet now. We get 8% of Internet users every day. And that's growing. We have a terrifying amount of power. Administrators have even more power - there's one active administrator for every 2,183 articles. Yes - if that power starts to get used in a manner even remotely contrary to the stated mission of the site, I think we're going to have a PR disaster that will make Siegenthaler look like a good day. Phil Sandifer 16:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes there are potentially severe PR repercussions from Wikipedia acting as a friendly habitat for stalkers, nuts, misogynists, and corporate flacks like Judd Bagley pushing smear campaigns on the pages of Wikipedia.--Samiharris 16:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Name-calling adds nothing useful to the argument. I think there's a policy designed to deal with that. *Dan T.* 16:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think your team would have a great deal more credibility if you weren't spreading Bagley's smears in this discussion and if you yourself weren't a regular contributor to Wikipedia Review, where Bagley spreads his filth and stalks your fellow editors.--Samiharris 17:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Need I remind you that the NPA policy specifically opposes "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." It also states that "It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user." *Dan T.* 18:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please remind me. I thought at first that you were joking about the courtesies that need to be extended to your friend Mr. Bagley, but if you are not please run with that ball.--Samiharris 21:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Samiharris, would you please clarify to whom you are referring when using the phrase "your team" when responding to Dan Tobias. LessHeard vanU 15:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I should like a response, thank you. LessHeard vanU 15:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to return the discussion back to Planet Earth for a monment: it is far more likely that what you will be dealing with is not legitimate websites like Michael Moore's attacking Wikipedia, but corporate stalkers using Wikipedia to smear Moore and people like him. I am surprised this has not happened already. Observe how angry Moore was that a pharm industry lawyer (not a stalker by any means) was openly editing articles here. Imagine how he would go ballistic and rip Wikipedia to shreds if Wikipedia was used for a smear campaign by the pharmaceutical industry.

There are indeed anti-Moore websites that are little more than stalker sites. I would not be surprised if pharm industry astroturfers are working against Moore. All it takes is a single pharmarceutcial industry Bagley chracter to make this theory into reality, and then go to Wikipedia Review to whine about how the "clique" is putting him down. Then there will be a whole army of the kind of bozos that we have seen pushing Bagley's cause. At that point, the question arises, does Wikipedia provide a happy free fire field for corporate stalkers trying to smear Moore under the pretext of "NPOV"?

To me that is the central issue, and this discussion has been so completely hijacked by apologists for attack sites and Bagley that it has not been addressed.--Samiharris 17:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait, what? This entire debate has been about Web sites that target Wikipedia users. Unless there's a drastic swerve from the arbitration committee, nothing about it would affect how we deal with sites targeting third parties. ShaleZero 18:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

To get the discussion back to, er, real reality...the "Wikipedia enemies list" angle will be too good for the usual WP bashers like Finkelstein and Orlowski to resist. In fact, the usual suspects would love it if sites on both sides of an issue – say, Michael Moore's site and an anti-Moore site – both got blacklisted (or BADSITE-ed) because somewhere on both sites somebody found unflattering references to Wikipedia editors. This would make Wikipedia look impartially idiotic.

A breakout of the "enemies list" story into major mainstream media might occur when somebody starts ripping out links to, say, a major newspaper site because the paper ran a less-than-flattering portrait of Wikipedia bigwigs. None of this sounds paranoid or wild-blue-sky to me at all. Major media purely love to bash a volunteer competitor like Wikipedia, and they would climb onto the "WP blacklists critics" story like famished ants onto a picnic basket. Casey Abell 17:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, I forgot. Finkelstein has already latched onto BADSITES. [5] ArbCom's endorsement of this silliness, with the Orwellian name change to MALICIOUSSITES, will just give him more to slam. Casey Abell 19:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately, Finkelstein doesn't write our policies. The blogosphere shouldn't influence them either. Some folks would complain even if Wikipedia endorsed apple pie and motherhood. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Will, if the blogosphere were affecting our policies, we would not just ban ASM and salt the earth but call for an exorcist. The media's flaying Bagley and ASM is mild by comparison with the blogs. See Technorati[6]. --Samiharris 21:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Curiously enough, I would be one of those folks. It's all about principles. -Chunky Rice 21:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Finkelstein already writes for the respectable media – the Guardian among others – so we can expect the MALICIOUSSITES embarrassment to rouse many chuckles from the mainstream press. We will look like little scared silly wabbits, and we will deserve every bit of the ridicule. Casey Abell 07:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

So are you saying that we should encourage off-wiki harassment to avoid off-wiki ridicule? That doesn't seem like a worthwhile trade-off. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

As an addendum, when I claimed that a BADSITES policy would bring us into disrepute in the public eye, it was dismissed as paranoid rubbish. Strictly speaking, I don't think it's paranoid to claim that a substantial change to NPOV might get media attention. Now, if I were to claim that some minor nonstory would get international media attention, that would be paranoid. Something like-- if someone said that the next big wikipedia story would be about a japanese bureaucrat who was warned to not to edit wikipedia at work-- THAT would be paranoid rubbish.

But of course, I can now point everyone's attention to the latest wikipedia story to break. It's about a Japanese officials who were reprimanded for editing wikipedia while at work. Over the past four years, the six employees had made a total of 408 edits. Stupid story, right? No teeth, no meat. A couple guys in Japan got a warning not to surf the net while at work.

As of this writing, it's been picked up by: AP, BBC, Guardian, and Slashdot. A stupid little story on six dudes in Japan who got warned not to edit Wikipedia at work.

If this kind of story is getting mad press, consider what the "Wikipedia Keeps Enemies List and Purges Them" story would get. Seriously. If you were an editor and had to run a story about "Six dudes in japan warned not to surf the web at work" or "Wikipedia bans mention of its critics", which would you go with? We're beyond the point where we think we can create whatever policies we want and expect not to have to face any consequences to our decisions.

It looks like we're over the hump where BADSITES was going to be mandated again. But, just in case we're not-- when you vote to purge Michael Moore or Don Murphy or Making Lights or Wikitruth or any of the others, you might as well just type up a story with the lead "Wikipedia Sucks and Can't Be Trusted" and ship it off to CNN-- because that's exactly what the end result of such a policy will be.

And the public won't see our subtle distinctions about outings. They won't hear our concerns about BLP and libel. They will just see that we discuss and link to Neo-nazis and Holocaust deniers, but forbid links to MichaelMoore (or whoever). They will see that, for the sake of NPOV, our editors can include picture of Muhammad which upsets hundreds of millions of people, but can't include the world "antisocialmedia" because that upsets us. Reputation and donations will be poured down the drain. --Alecmconroy 07:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

O, ye of little faith

The most disturbing thing about Fred's proposal-- even if he were to limit it to ASM and only ASM-- is that it demonstrates a profound lack of trust in the Wikipedia Community and the Wikipedia Process.

This case is a request for clarification-- all that needs saying is "Let the community decide if ASM, and pages like it, are notable enough to merit an inclusion".

The fact is, the Wikipedia consensus building process works. It works on debates between Israelis and Palestinians, it works on debates between creationists and evolutionists, and it will work on debates between Wikipedia Supporters and Wikipedia critics.

The implied counter-argument, which I assume Fred endorses although he hasn't said so, is that the debate (over ASM and others) is too important to be left up to the community. Sure, the consensus building process will work on less important matters like Israel-Palestine or holocaust deniers or hate groups, but for something that could actually hurt Wikipedians, we dare not leave it up to the Community-- they might make the wrong decision, or they might take too long in making up their minds.

The community works. Let us handle it. We don't need the "grown ups" to step in and stop the consensus building process. I have no idea whether ASM is notable enough to merit inclusion or not-- but I have confidence that the community will come to the correct decision about this matter-- just like it has on all the other 2 million articles.

Arbcom trying to circumvent consensus building, even if for noble goals, is not what Wikipedia is about. --Alecmconroy 19:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Problem with "scope" section

The current version of Scope of this decision seems to me to be likely simply to prolong the conflict, because it essentially repeats the lack of definition which is at the root of the conflict in the first place. One man's criticism is another man's malice; the current scope statement simply invites disputes over whether the ciriticism is malicious enough, as one can see in the ongoing discussion of the disputes between User:Will Beback and Teresa Nielsen Hayden. Mangoe 20:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Is calling Wikipedia editors derogatory terms, publishing their real names, and then making fun of the names legitimate criticism or is it harassment? Yes, it would help if the decision can make this distinction clear. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I would hope that the decision does not rest on the ontological nature of the site in question. This was the main problem with the TNH incident - yes, the attack on you was uncalled for and unacceptable. But 99% of the site is not unacceptable, and much of the site was and is useful. Do we delink the entire site, including instances where the link has nothing whatsoever to do with the attack on you?

If so, then we are entering a paradigm where good faith actions are being considered personal attacks. This is not a paradigm I am comfortable with, and it is one that I am shocked to see Fred and FloNight seriously considering. Phil Sandifer 21:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's not make this about me. What percentage of the content in ED is harassment related? Let's we say that a site with only 1% of its content involving harassment is OK, but one with 5% is not. Does the harassment become acceptable if more non-harassing content is added? How much good content does ASM need to add before their harassment percentage is brought to an acceptable level? 10 pages? 100 pages? A percentage formula would be easily gamed. I think that the type of harassment and the reaction of the webmasters to complaints is more important than the share of a site's content that's devoted to harassment. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly - this is why any attempt to determine the nature of the site is, to my mind, foolish - we're drawing arbitrary lines. Whereas, to my mind, ED is easily dealt with, because I cannot conceive of a case where an even remotely sane editor would, in good faith, link to ED. It's not useful as a source, it's not a notable website, there is nothing there.

I am hard pressed to come up with a circumstance, real or imagined, where asking "Is this a good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia" does not give you the correct answer on whether to link to an attack site. Phil Sandifer 22:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

My gut reaction is that as long as we aren't directing people who aren't looking for attacks to go find them, we are doing our job. That's been the exact problem with the "official site" cases: we didn't say there were attacks there, so from that angle we were no more culpable than Google for giving the name of the site. It doesn't help for ED or ASM.net, of course, because we can't even cite a page that names them without indicating that they contain attacks, even if the site name doesn't appear in our text. And WR? Who can say? I personally would assume that any site whose purpose is discussion of Wikipedia contains attacks-- including Wikipedia itself. But I am notoriously cynical about that. And as far as people who are looking for attacks are concerned, we can't hinder them; but by invoking BADSITES, we can help them.Mangoe 22:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What if ED rises to the level of notability that justifies an article. This is not beyond the realm of possibility by any means. Will we omit content from the encyclopedia for non-encyclopedic reasons? Is being an encyclopedia or being a community more primary to Wikipedia? -Chunky Rice 22:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Phil Sandifer's suggestion makes some sense, but there are circumstances when it wouldn't make so much sense. What about the MM.com example, where the purported attack was on the home page and which may not have been there when the link was initially created? Do we say, "well, it was added with good intent so there's no cause to remove it"? Or "we're not directing people to the harassment, and it's not our fault that it's unavoidably obvious"? I don't think that's a workable standard by itself. I think we have to gauge the harm it causes to the project, not just the intent of the editor adding it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The Michael Moore site link should have stayed on the Michael Moore page. Regardless of whether or not it was an attack site, it was an encyclopedic addition to the page and there is/was no encyclopedic reason to remove it. -Chunky Rice 22:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's not go off on a tangent about Michael Moore, the point that Phil was making is that we should judge the intent of the person adding the link rather than the content of the site. Do you agree with that? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking, yes. Though my preferred terminology is context, since intent can be difficult to derive. There are contexts where "attack sites" may be appropriate and contexts where they are not. Using MM.com as an example, putting a link to it on the Michael Moore page is proper context and should be allowed, no matter what the content of the site. -Chunky Rice 23:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What makes it immune from being considered an attack site? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing at all. What I'm saying is that whether or not it is an attack site is irreleveant to whether or not it is an encyclopedic addition to the article. The latter should be our primary concern, not the former. -Chunky Rice 23:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

(In honor of Michael Moore, let's go left, shall we?) If we're going to go to a "harm to the encyclopedia" standard, though, we get into the troublesome question of what the greater harm is - the harassment from Moore or the removal of encyclopedic content sourced from his website. It's worth noting, we've made the offensiveness and hurtfulness vs. encyclopedic value calculus before - Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, Felching, anything that Perverted Justice has ever been up in arms about, Scientology, etc. Every time, we've decided on encyclopedic content. To reverse that when we're the people being offended and hurt seems... unwise.

Which is not to propose a policy "Always link to attack sites." Editorial judgment about a link still needs to play in. We include the Muhammad cartoons not because we can, but because they're essential to the article. And nothing prevents us from reverting an ill-considered but good faith edit that includes a link to an attack site. It's just that such edits do seem to me to be in a different category than "LULZ ADMIN X IS A LOSER (link to ED)." But to say that, for instance, the citations of information to Michael Moore's website on Michael Moore (and, by extension, the information that is sourced to his website) has to come out because of what Moore says on his website does not seem to me an acceptable position. Phil Sandifer 23:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

So even a site mostly devoted to attacks on Wikipeia editors would still be acceptable (even required) if it contained some information an editor wished to cite? Or added to the external links just because it belongs to a persona or entity we have an article about? In the (hypothetical) case of a site which actively tries to get editors fired, does providing a link to the site do more to improve Wikipedia than the editors who are driven away? Does that one edit linking a dubious site outweigh the thousands of edits that a productive editor can contribute? I'd say we need to be more practical. If something harms the project and keeps us from writing a good encyclopedia then we should prohibit it. Driving away volunteers harms the project. Deleting a few hot links does not. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If we do what you say, we're basically saying that Wikipedia is a community first and an encyclopedia second. That's not what I understood this project to be about. -Chunky Rice 23:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I certainly don't mean that. But without the community the encyclopedia doesn't exist. Removing an external link does not remove significant content from an article. Removing an editor who writes dozens of articles does affect content significantly. Participants, even valued contributors, are sometimes banned when they engage in disruptive personal attacks. Websites that engage in disruptive harassment should be treated likewise. Neither helps us continue the work of building an encyclopedia. So, in my opinion, webmasters of that host harassment of Wikipedia and that have links from Wikipedia article should be asked to remove the harasment and if they choose to maintain the harasing material then the community should respond by removing the disruption. That's how we handle disruptive editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the damage done by compromising our core principle of NPOV far outweighs any damage from losing editors. Which is not to say that we shouldn't protect editors as much as we can. However, when it comes to making a choice between encyclopedic content and personal feelings, encyclopedic content must win, every time. -Chunky Rice 00:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

How does removing a link compromise NPOV? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Because of why it's being removed. It's being removed because we don't like it. That's a violation of NPOV. There's no encyclopedic reason to remove such a link, or at least nobody's raised one that I've heard. -Chunky Rice 00:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's take the simpler case of an external link to the website of a person with a biography. Let's further simplify it by stipulating that none of the article is actually sourced to that website. How does it affect the article's neutrality if we include or exclude the link? Is the article skewed against the subject if we forget to ever include the link? Is it skewed the other way if we include multiple links to the same site? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the point of this scenario is. That there are times when an external link isn't 100% needed? Sure I grant that. But there are also times where it is appropriate. Surely you must admit that. Aside from that, what if the article is about the site itself. Under some of the proposed language, the entire article should be removed. -Chunky Rice 01:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"Removing an external link does not remove significant content from an article." I still don't get where we get this crazy myth that the links aren't important. Our links are the very HEART of WP:V. Our links are the most important part of the encyclopedia. Pull out all our links and we don't have a verifiable encyclopedia-- we have a glorified message board. --Alecmconroy 00:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The contents of the encyclopedia are the text, data, and images in the articles. Links to other sites make verification a little easier, but we don't need external links when we use books and other printed materials as sources. The aim has always been to create an encyclopedia that could be printed out or otherwise used without connections to the web. Wikipedia is not a link farm. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed - I think the problematic line in what Will wrote is "if it contained some information that an editor wanted to cite," in that it suggests that what information is included in articles is somehow a matter of personal inclination. If an important part of an article on a clearly notable topic requires a citation to a site that is defamatory, yes - I am saying we have to link to it. This seems to me, on a fundamental level, mandated by m:Foundation principles, which lists NPOV and does not list anything about preserving the community. (And it should be noted, I tend to construe NPOV rather broadly as directly implying things like WP:V, WP:CS, WP:RS, etc.) Again, I think this is a terrible precedent to set - we'll include images that are so offensive that people have killed each other over them (The Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy) but the moment the offensive content threatens us we censor it? What a terrible betrayal of NPOV. Phil Sandifer 03:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This is what I've been trying to say all week, put better than I ever could. Uh...ditto? ShaleZero 03:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If an editor thinks that some site which engages in intentional harassment of Wikipedia users is really a reliable site and contains information important to an article, then he can add the info and provide a non-linked reference back to the source. No loss of content, no loss of NPOV. None of the proposals I've seen forbid using even attack sites as references; they only prohibit linking directly to the sites or pages. The contents and style of citations have many different conventions. It doesn't violate scholarly norms or Wikipedia principles to present citation information in one valid form rather than another.

We already block a large number of websites from hotlinking, mostly because of spam. Spam is a huge distraction for vandal patrolers and without the blacklist it would be disruptive. I think we'd all agree that the blacklisting of thousands of websites has helped Wikipedia's mission instead of hurting it. Hotlinking to outside websites is not part of Wikipedia's mission and it isn't necessary to achieve that mission. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, several of the proposed principles, remedies would forbid not only linking, but even referencing such a site. This is the part of the proposed ruling that I have a real problem with. -Chunky Rice 12:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I fully appreciate the battle against spam; I run a specialized wiki myself and get besieged by Chinese spammers trying to hide their completely irrelevant links everywhere they can. However, that is not even in the same universe as people who, to make an on-topic point, include a link to something in a site for which you have a personal distaste. *Dan T.* 13:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This would be a automatic way to game AFD of biographies

Has it occurred to anyone that occasionally we're in the situation where we cover/link to notable living people, who wish we wouldn't cover them. Normally, we say that the subject of the biography does not have automatic authority to require a deletion of their own biography.

Under the policy that is being proposed-- all such a person would have to do is attack us in a sufficiently malicious way on their website-- we then would be REQUIRED to delete all links or references to that person. Presumable we would invoke Ignore All Rules in such a situation and not reward malicious attacks, but still-- it's another reason we shouldn't be willy-nilly adopting radical departures from NPOV.

It seems like this policy could actually ENCOURAGE attacks, not discourage them. --Alecmconroy 00:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleting links to a person's website is not the same as deleting mentions of the person in the encyclopedia. Notable people are referenced in sources besides their personal websites. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is all highly theoretical-- but suppose the attack site's name and the person's name were the same-- deleting all mention of the site would be the same as deleting all mention of the person.

I'm don't mean to make too big a deal out of this "gaming AFD" objection-- I think common sense by our editors would prevent this from being a problem. I'm just saying, current Wikipedia policy is: "Our articles are NPOV, period. You cannot influence us by your bad behavior, period. Our articles stand on their own. Attacking us will not buy you links if you're not notable. Attacking us will not prevent us from linking if you are notable. Bad behavior does not rule our articles, NPOV does.".

If we're gonna deviate from that, it's something to really sit back and think about long and hard. And it really should come from the community or the foundation or both. not Arbcom. --Alecmconroy 00:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we could imagine all sorts of strange scenarios, but we've had enough experience with actual cases to keep our policy making grounded in the real world. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You're grounded, young man... What were you thinking when you started making policies like that just as soon as your mother and I left you here alone? *Dan T.* 00:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

For that matter, I could theoretically get ANY site with an open forum purged under this new proposed policy. Suppose I have an axe to grind against site "X"-- I just go to site X's forum and maliciously attack a wikipedia editor. Then I come back to Wikipedia, point out the malicious attack on site X, and proceed to delete all links to site X. Until site X's administrators purge the content I just added, I can delete the links all day and 3RR won't apply to me. AGF will make it very hard for anyone to seriously propose I'm deleting the links for the wrong reasons, but I, in turn, can try to have anyone who reinserts the links blocked for supporting harassment.

Again, this is a scenario that only occur when someone has very bad faith. But there ARE some such people out there, and this proposed policy could give the trolls a shiny new toy to play around with-- and instant way to have any site you don't like purged from Wikipedia, at least temporarily, regardless of its notability. --Alecmconroy 00:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it'll be adopted by the ArbCom, but my view is that a website that removes harassing meterial is acting responsibly. So the solution in that case would be to make a request first and then see what happens. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree we're getting very theoretical here-- the case hinges on the more fundamental principle of what to do when NPOV requires a link a site but MONGOCASE forbids such a link. But, while we're being theoretical-- the proposed policies don't require contacting the website first and giving them a reasonable time to respond. Removal can be instantaneous under the proposed new policy, and we should expect that bad-faith users seeking to game the system will rely upon that to defend their disruptions. --Alecmconroy 01:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If folks are being disruptive and acting in bad faith then they'll be blocked eventually. Folks acting in bad faith don't follow guidelines or policies anyway. Rather than focussing on creating a policy to regulate those who won't follow it anyway, let's focus on making a policy to help guide reasonable people acting in good faith. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

And yet half the absolutist anti-linking arguments include the plank that the more lenient rules are too easily gamed by disruptive users... ShaleZero 06:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"Folks acting in bad faith don't follow guidelines or policies anyway" My concern isn't that people WON'T follow the new policy-- my concern is that people WILL follow it. Fred's proposing a rule that says "If article content meets <insert extremely vague and emotionally charged criteria here>, then it can be removed indefinitely, even if there is solid consensus to include it". This is a recipe for edit-wars, wheel-wars, and endless arbcom disputes of the form "NPA forbids this vs. NPOV requires this". --Alecmconroy 08:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Tell everyone that it isn't true that your "friend's" butt stinks

I think personal attacks should be handled in a caring thoughtful case-by-case inconspicuous manner. It isn't caring to give attacks no consideration at all. It isn't thoughtful to draw up bright-line criteria. Case by case is necessary without bright-line criteria. It is not inconspicuous to draw attention to personal attacks by deleting months old links, to disrupt a conversation by deleting links to evidence being discussed, by creating policy that says a link may be deleted any number of times guaranteeing revert wars and blocks and bans, by turning wikipedia culture into a you are with us or or against us warrior elite and wikipedia itself into a battlefield. WAS 4.250 00:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"Or references it"

Any user who creates links to the attack site or references it (other than in the context of this arbitration) may be banned.

Great. So now just mentioning these sites gets you banned. The statement "I am an administrator of Encyclopedia Dramatica." is ban-worthy. SchmuckyTheCat

We expect editors, or administrators, of Encyclopedia Dramatica to wear their Wikipedia hat when they are editing here. Fred Bauder 22:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You didn't address the point, Fred. The statement "I am an administrator of Encyclopedia Dramatica." is ban-worthy. Yes/No? After the first MONGO case you told me "No, just the links" but now you appear to be answering "Yes, the statement" SchmuckyTheCat

Harping on your allegiance to ED would be banworthy. Fred Bauder 23:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

What policy states that one's membership in another website is cause for banning from Wikipedia? None of them did last time I checked. But hey, the committee has already written us an attack link ban, why stop there? Ban all forms of support. No membership in them. No reading them. No thinking about them. (Now excuse me while I move Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee to Oceania:Ministry of Truth.) Picaroon (t) 23:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

(EC) This is getting pretty ridiculous. I don't know what kind of feud you guys have running between ED and Wikipedia, but it's getting very petty to even ban the MENTION of a site. It calls to mind a scene in "The Life of Brian" and makes me want to run around the room shouting "Jehovah, Jehovah, Jehovah". --Alecmconroy 23:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The way I read it, even if I was talking about ED in the context of an aritcle (say on the talk page for List of wikis I said, should we have ED on this list?), that would be bannable. -Chunky Rice 23:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations Fred, you have officially lost it with that statement. Viridae^Talk 23:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

wow SchmuckyTheCat

Does Fred have some sort of conflict of interest on this-- i.e. did one of the groups under discussion kill his pet kitten, or some similarly vile act. I don't keep up with the day to day details of the mudslinging, but throughout this, I've been trying to comprehend how a respected member of the community has been so "off base" on this issue-- to the point that he'd be willing to purge useful encyclopedia content and repeal NPOV if that's the price he has to pay to ban the mere mention of some groups. I don't know Fred well, but I doubt seriously Fred got to his position without being a genuinely good person who has generally sound judgment. All I can figure is that somebody hurt him or people he cared about really, really badly, and now he's willing to flush our fundamental principals down the drain in order to get back at them. --Alecmconroy 23:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless you have actual evidence of a conflict of interest, this sort of rumor/speculation is generally not helpful. -Chunky Rice 23:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the site in question does have a not-nice article about Fred at [www. BAD_SITE_DO_NOT_MENTION .com/Fred_Bauder] where they say (I removed anything controversial):

However, he has BLANKED from a BLANK (ASIDE), which resulted in him being BLANKED in the state of BLANK. He has BLANK and BLANKED he BLANKED from BLANK.

Don't they ask jury members if they been victims (or have close relations with victims) of the crime they are being asked to sit in judgement of? (and drop those who have) Uncle uncle uncle 03:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The worst thing about censorship is that you (CENSORED) (CENSORED) about (CENSORED) in a (CENSORED) and (CENSORED) (CENSORED), which is very (CENSORED). *Dan T.* 03:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose not. I didn't mean it as such an awful thing though-- not a "fred=evil", acting in bad faith, up to some nefarious end. I guess all I was saying is that it seems like proposal comes from a very emotional place, rather than a calm, composed one. --Alecmconroy 00:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I just find the whole thing confusing. The latest wave of proposed principles/findings of fact baffle me as to their purpose. -Chunky Rice 00:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I definitely don't understand what this artibtration is all about. Is he proposing Cyde be desysopped for linking to an attack site? or is this a mostly-separate matter that's being lumped in to this arbitration for convenience? --Alecmconroy 00:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I am confused. Does this proposal ("or references it") mean that a Wikipedian may not make reference to a potential "attack site", with the threat of blocking, or that a Wikipedian may not make a reference to the content on an "attack site"? Either way, I think the proposal is extreme, and will cause a major disturbance on the encyclopedia, because editors in good faith may make the mistake of mentioning the name or contents of an "attack site". Furthermore, given the loose interpretation of "attack site", it's bound to create a huge mess. And it certainly does send a message that Wikipedia suppresses criticism, if even a reference to an "attack site" is grounds for a block. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It refers only to sites such as ED which have a clear commitment to malicious content. A "potential" site could be freely discussed. Fred Bauder 08:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone suggesting a 'malicious site' for exclusion from Wikipedia will, obviously, be referring to it. Which is prohibited. Per this ruling, all admins would be required to remove the reference and block the offending party. Seems eminently reasonable to me. :] --CBD 09:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's what Fred meant. But you just know it's going to be interpreted that way by many editors, with block logs like: "User banned for making excessive references to ED, per ArbCom decision in 2007." It's opening a can of worms I don't think should be opened. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed FoF 13; Proposed Remedy 9

Both of these may well be appropriate. Or perhaps neither. FoF 13 does not indicate what policies were violated (leaving Remedy 9 looking disproportionately harsh), and FoF 13 further lacks timeline or sequence, and FoF 13 further references an investigation. Perhaps it is not appropriate to link the investigator's report; but the person or body that conducted the investigation should be mentioned. Jd2718 00:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I won't strike the above comments and questions, but I do refer readers to the next section on this page. Newyorkbrad has made far more knowledgeable and comprehensive comments on the same topic, with an (appropriately) much wider scope. Jd2718 01:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

New proposals concerning Cyde

I have just seen Fred Bauder's proposals proposing either the desysopping of or, alternatively, a 30-day adminship suspension for Cyde based on his recent block of what was identified as an alternate account of SlimVirgin and based on investigation reported on a site discussed in this case.

Candidly, I was not, in the least, impressed by the way Cyde handled this situation. The last edit by Sweet Blue Water, the account in question, was two years old, and the evidence of genuinely abusive sockpuppetry (a single instance of double-voting in an FAC) was somewhat marginal at best. Given that there was no emergency situation, there was no reason that this block could not have been preceded by on-wiki discussion, or by other reasonable consultation if on-wiki discussion was inappropriate or a request was made to take the matter off-wiki for privacy or related reasons. Additionally, the block summary that Cyde drafted was unduly conclusory and confrontational, in violation of the principle (see, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin) that administrators should take care to be temperate in these summaries because block logs are virtually indelible. When asked why he had proceeded in this manner, he referred obliquely to prior alleged misconduct by SlimVirgin, which even if it occurred (I have no view) had no relevancy to the matter at hand. (As ElinorD has noted, in the process Cyde also expressed such hostility to SlimVirgin that he should not have been the blocking administrator in any event.)

So concerned was I by the nature of this block that I actively considered summarily unblocking Sweet Blue Water. I decided not to do so because no unblock request had been posted, because aspects of the situation were apparently being discussed off-wiki in a forum to which I was not privy (the ArbCom mailing list), and because it was apparent that this account was not going to be used again anyway. I concluded that any unblock would have been purely symbolic and would have resulted only in an escalation of the problematic and unnecessary drama that had already occurred.

Notwithstanding my disagreement with Cyde's handling of this situation, I am even more dismayed by the proposals that have been posted against him tonight. In the first place, Cyde is not a party to this case, and I find no evidence he was given any notice of the proceedings until after the proposal to desysop him had already been posted, even though when Fred commented on a mention of Cyde's name earlier on this page, I immediately pointed out that if proposals against him were being considered, he needed to be notified of this fact. (I did not notify him myself because I am recused as a Clerk in this case, having made a statement concerning the earlier MONGO decision and having been threatened with "outing" and harassment on one of the sites that is a subject of the case.) Although I do not pursue "process" in arbitration cases for its own sake, and although Cyde, like most active admins, probably had some idea that the case was going on, I think that the proposing arbitrator's failing to notify him that proposals would be made against him until he had already posted such proposals is a serious flaw that could call into question the reputation, integrity, and fairness of the proceeding.

Substantively, the proposed findings against Cyde, and certainly either of the proposed remedies, represent an extreme overreaction. It is no secret that Cyde is a controversial administrator. In fact, there probably are very few experienced editors who have not disagreed with one or another of his many administrator actions over the past year and a half. But it is also no secret that Cyde is one of the most senior editors of Wikipedia, that he is truly dedicated to this project, and also that he has been one of the targets of harassment by some of the websites that ironically are under discussion in this very case. No user other than Fred Bauder has proposed any remedies against Cyde in the extensive (one might well say overextensive) workshopping of this case. Once again it bears emphasis that desysopping (or even suspension of adminship) by the Arbitration Committee should be reserved for cases of intentional misbehavior or chronic bad judgment. It should not be invoked, or even threatened, for an isolated instance of a controversial action that is later judged to be wrong.

About a year ago this month, I found myself in strong opposition to a proposal by Fred Bauder that Geogre be desysopped in the so-called Giano case for expressing strong opposition to an RfA decision. In doing so, I did not, of course, express personal agreement with every word that Geogre had written during the preceding weeks of controversy, any more than I agree with everything Cyde did here. (Sadly, we seem to have lost Geogre this week anyway, I hope temporarily.) Ultimately, all the other participating arbitrators in that cse rejected the proposed desysopping with comments like "ridiculous proposal" and "why is this even being proposed?" Similarly here, I very much hope that Cyde will not act again as he did in this instance, but I hope even more strongly that the proposed remedies against him will not be adopted. Newyorkbrad 01:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Brad, while I normally hold your judgment in highest respect, I have to state that one of the biggest problems with Cyde's behaviour (apart from the fact that he showed himself to have a grudge against Slim, and therefore should not have been the one to block) is the fact that he made it public when it should have remained private, at least until the Committee had reached a decision. As I have pointed out elsewhere, two other admins accused of sockpuppetry were given dignity and privacy, and only when they failed or refused to give a satisfactory explanation to the ArbCom were they desysopped and an announcement made. The problem was not that the block preceded on-wiki discussion; the problem was that there shouldn't have been on-wiki discussion that was based on speculation about someone's IP. If SlimVirgin had been guilty, and if the ArbCom had decided that her offence merited desysopping or blocking, and if she had wanted her privacy to be respected, while accepting the penalties for her misbehaviour, some kind of sanction could have been carried out, and an arbitrator would have written: "Why do you need to know? [S]he knows why, the Committee know why. That's more than sufficient. Titilation and curiosity is not the basis for chosing the appropriate mode of action."[7] ElinorD (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Elinor, I think your observation has merit. But my basic point was really that whatever would have been the best way to handle this situation, the way Cyde chose was undoubtedly the worst. (We still part company on whether it warrants desysopping, however.) Newyorkbrad 14:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I echo Brad's comments of disapproval of this proposal. I have disagreed with Cyde more than I have agreed with him, but this is a little extreme. Cyde's error in judgment in handling the issue in question did not involve use of the admin tools and thus removing those admin tools would not seem like a useful response. --B 01:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Cyde did use his tools.[8] And he showed that he had a grudge against SlimVirgin[9] [10] so he clearly should not have been the one to block. ElinorD (talk) 02:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

God yes. IMO Fred seems to have entirely missed the point of this case, especially obvious in his statement here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision#Discussion_by_Arbitrators. At best he seems to be misguided and under misaprehensions as to what this case is about, at worst running an agenda. Viridae^Talk 01:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding that proposal from Kirill, to which you link, Viridae, I cannot see why if sites that give personal information about editors without their consent are relevant to an ArbCom case, the evidence cannot be emailed privately to the committee. There can sometimes be an excuse for hurting others as a unwanted side effect of trying to achieve something good — but only if there isn't another alternative that would also achieve the good without hurting people. ElinorD (talk) 02:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I didnt link to a proposal, I linked to the discussion section. Viridae^Talk 02:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

So you did. I don't know how I made that mistake. Maybe I had my browser open in two windows, or something. I was looking at this. Anyway, except for the bit about you having linked to a proposal, my comments stand. ElinorD (talk) 02:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I second all of this. I am floored to see what appears to have been poor judgment made in good faith to be grounds for desysopping. Why not also desysop those administrators who shared Cyde's concern. You can feel free to start with me. Phil Sandifer 01:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Because Cyde did a lot more than just have "concern". The proposed desysopping is presumably because of his behaviour, not because of his concern. ElinorD (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sufficiently active to comment on the merit (or lack thereof) of desysopping Cyde. But it seems to me that Cyde behavior issues are sufficiently distinct from the heart of this case (NPOV v. NPA/BADSITES) that it would be best to have a separate arbitration on the Cyde issue, allowing people ample time to present evidence and discuss just that Cyde issue. By introducing these 11th hour Cyde proposals out of the blue, it gives the appearance, perhaps incorrectly, of an arbiter taking on the roles of plaintiff, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner all at once. --Alecmconroy 02:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The majority for the case is six votes, and the proposals about Cyde each have one. Therefore, it would take five more arbitrators besides Fred Bauder to get him desysopped. either temporarily or permanently; from my own experience, I assure you that getting five arbitrators to do something takes a very long time. This case has a week if not weeks to go. With regards to the court metaphor: well, the filing party is the plaintiff, anybody who presents evidence against Cyde is a prosecutor, and the steward who hypothethically removes his +sysop is the executioner. Each committee member is one jury-member, and collectively they're the judge as well as the whole jury. So in conclusion, don't worry about Cyde being desysopped without warning or not getting a fair review. Picaroon (t) 02:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm happy to hear that time won't be a factor. But that still doesn't explain why this Cyde nonsense has wound up in the middle of a clarification of MONGO/BADSITES. It's as if an arbiter said "Oh, hey, speaking of things I want purged from the encyclopedia, let's get rid of Cyde". It just seems a tad non sequitur. --Alecmconroy 12:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Kirill has already opposed the desysopping. I don't think Cyde has to worry about this embarrassing and, of course, irrelevant proposal. However, everybody on the encyclopedia does have to worry about the even whackier proposal to ban any editor who even mentions sites such as [censored], [censored] and [censored]. Banning for links is bad enough, as many sites will be declared off-limits under MALICIOUSSITES. But banning the mere mention of any site which lands on the very extensive MALICIOUSSITES blacklist is actually scary. Unless you keep close track of what's on a list that will grow longer by the day, you could get banned for unknowingly typing the name of a forbidden site. It's hard for me to believe that such a proposal could ever get ArbCom's approval. But it's also hard for me to believe the proposal was ever made in the first place. Casey Abell 07:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well at least arbcom got the distinction between userspace and our actual articles (you know that encyclopaedia you guys have heard about ;) ) with proposal 11. The way I read this is that pages from "attack" sites *can* be used if they meet the rest of our editorial guidelines. Not likely, but possible. Of course there is the issue of non-mainspace usages, but really I think we should just adhere to the "if you would not type it on wiki, then don't link to it" rule ;). Really, just use good sense, if a link is primarally about outing/harrasing somebody, perhaps its best not to link to it, and question why you felt the urge to link to that page in the first place. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 07:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

As another person who isn't precisely Cyde's best buddy and doesn't agree with how he handled the 'Sweet Blue Water' situation... 'ditto'. Too much of this case seems to be about 'payback' rather than the serious issues actually raised on the evidence and workshop pages. Why wasn't an arbitration case filed on Cyde's actions weeks ago? Presumably because arbitration wasn't needed. Cyde over-inflated past minor wrongdoing by another admin... rather like Fred is doing here. --CBD 10:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This is absolutely ridiculous, and frankly wholly inappropriate behaviour for an arbitrator. Cyde isn't even listed as a party, no evidence has been presented against him, no workshop proposals, and suddenly Fred wants to desysop him outright. The incident happened weeks ago, has been forgotten since then, and one single block of a sockpuppet is not grounds for desysopping anyway. This looks more like Fred disagreeing with Cyde's actions and abusing this (unrelated) case to try to desysop him. Melsaran (talk) 10:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm very surprised that the matter of Cyde's desysopping was proposed. My previous experience had led me to believe that such things don't happen on Wikipedia. Anyway, I believe this gesture (perhaps with an option for immediate reapplication, in effect a community review) is much needed. There has been an increasing feeling that being an administrator takes away a lot of the accountability, which is not healthy in a collaborative community. I believe that some of the things existing admins can get away with would prevent ordinary editors from becoming administrators. As for this RfArb, if some of those proposed decisions are passed we are going to see a substantial increase in the number of edit wars as the cavalry charges in, screaming "ATTACK SITES OMG KILL THEM!!!!!!!!!". Loom91 12:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'd like to know what is the "wrong message" that this would send, according to Kirill. That proxying for a banned user with a history of vicious stalking and harassment is unacceptable? That stale allegations of minor wrongdoing promoted by banned users should first be discussed in private? Thatcher131 13:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• • That an administrator acting in seeming good faith can be desysopped for an understandable error of judgment? Phil Sandifer 13:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    • That is one possible view. Another is that Cyde was playing gotcha with an editor with whom he was involved in a prior disagreement, using evidence of a minor and ancient transgression that had been compiled by a stalker. One can hold someone accountable for bad judgement even if there is no proof of bad intent. Thatcher131 14:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The message appears to be what it is, which is that Cyde was advancing the agenda of Judd Bagley, director of communications of Overstock.com. --Samiharris 14:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I see no reason to believe that this piece of poor judgment was based in bad faith, however. And, furthermore, it should be noted that, though Judd Bagley is a slimeball, even slimeballs can, occasionally, hit on valid concerns, and I see no reason to think that Cyde did not believe Bagley to have done so. Phil Sandifer 14:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Phil, you're talking as if the proposed desysopping was because Cyde made the "error of believing the allegations". That's not it at all. Even if SlimVirgin is as guilty as hell, Cyde's behaviour was still appalling. Not his behaviour in believing WordBomb, but his behaviour in making public something which should have been dealt with privately (partly because one shouldn't embarrass someone who may be innocent, and even more because the actual evidence was based on sensitive information such as speculation about someone's IP, one click away from speculation about people's identities), in taunting someone he had a grudge against, in carrying out a block when he was emotionally involved and when the account hadn't been used for two years so there was no urgency, and in edit warring to restore a link to a harassing site. Finally, there's the issue that Cyde has refused to be answerable for his conduct. He refused even to discuss it with any of the people who expressed disappointment, other than to say "SV isn't perfect" is a freaking understatement. I guess you don't know what happens to editors who get in her way, but I've tasted it. See how he dismisses those who protested here, and how he refuses to give an answer to KillerChihuahua's gentle and heartfelt message here. It wasn't until an arbitrator proposed desysopping that he decided that he would give some kind of account after all. This is not comparable to the case of an admin who just looked at the evidence and made the mistake of thinking that it was reliable evidence of some kind of major wrongdoing. ElinorD (talk) 14:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

What she said. Thatcher131 14:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Kind of ironic that you say it should have been dealt with privately, then accuse me of not responding to it at all. I did. Privately. To the ArbCom list, in a long email. Would you rather my response have been posted publicly? You're kind of inconsistent in your demands. --Cyde Weys 15:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I do find it possible that Cyde had never hurt of Wordbomb. If he had, he would have appreciated why no one else was jumping in. Fred Bauder 14:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, Fred? You may want to look at my evidence section, where I note three long-standing users, including the partner of a Foundation member, who did, in fact, jump in. Phil Sandifer 16:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But even if you stripped away all the exacerbating factors, even if he was as kindly as a saint in the way he went about doing it, he still advanced the agenda of a corporate smear campaign. In order to prevent meddling from corporate interests, it is essential that Wikipedia take a hard line against administrators who engage in that kind of conduct.--Samiharris 14:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

So if a "corporate smear campaign" says that the Earth is round, then we have to remove all references to that and assert that it's flat, in order to avoid "advancing their agenda"? That's fucking nuts. *Dan T.* 15:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

New proposals concerning Cyde 2

My only feeling on the matter is that if Cyde is going to be desysopped it should be in a case in which he is a party and had the opportunity to present evidence. -Chunky Rice 14:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

That. I don't know enough about what Cyde did to come down on one side or the other (I do believe the "advancing a smear campaign's interests" argument is absurd, but that's only a small part of it), but it's pretty obvious that he's being dragged into this arbitration very late, against the intentions of the people who brought it in the first place. He wasn't named as a party, none of the parties even mentioned his name in their opening statements, and the first proposed remedy which no one on either side opposed outright stated that no one was looking for punishments as a result of the case. Strikes me as hard to believe that anyone seeking redress of admin abuse would let that go. ShaleZero 16:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Chunky Rice; where in the original request and acceptance was this matter mentioned (let alone discussed)? Indeed, until ElinorD presented her evidence, followed by SlimVirgin's update to her evidence, regarding the matter it appeared to be simply an example of the kind of content held off-Wiki (albeit by a site which has been indicated as being proposed for banning of linking to) which may be used by a reader of said site and then imported into Wikipedia with resultant disruption. At what point did it become not only a major aspect of this ArbCom, but a matter that might be resolved by sanction? Per NewYorkBrad, User:Cyde is not a named "Involved party" to this ArbCom case so this matter should be excluded from the process - or Cyde should be instated as a party and the case restarted.

This has not filled me with confidence regarding this ArbCom proceeding. I admit I am having to question the manner by which this aspect of a case so quickly became an actionable matter, where I can see no evidence of a case being prepared on these pages. I sincerely hope that there is some simple and transparant response.LessHeard vanU 16:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Now I am extremely confused; I had assumed that Fred Bauder had made the proposal following the details of ElinorD and SlimVirgin's evidence, but the log shows that they were posted after the proposals. Now I can see no evidence of there being a reason for the proposal. I truly hope that I am missing something here. LessHeard vanU 16:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The Arbitrators are not limited to evidence formally presented by parties on the evidence page. Thatcher131 16:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, as commented below, but it begs the questions why evidence was then posted after the proposal, where was the justification for the proposal was first bought up (because presentation of evidence follows indictment), and why it didn't remain off ArbCom. The point that it was never part of the original reason for having this ArbCom case has not been answered either. LessHeard vanU 17:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

There obviously has been some discussion on the committee's mailing list (see ElinorD and Cyde comments above), which seems understandable under the circumstances, although we don't know just what was discussed. My view remains that Cyde handled this situation very poorly but that desysopping or suspending his adminship would not be appropriate. It might, on the other hand, be helpful if Cyde were to volunteer that he would not address such a situation the same way again. Newyorkbrad 16:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Cyde/SweetBlueWater I concur, but that is not the source of my misgivings. I am extremely worried about Fred Bauders actions in proposing sanctions against an individual (who had not previously been a party to the proceedings) before the "evidence" was posted. If there had been discussion on the committee's mailing list then perhaps the decisions reached there could have been communicated here - and the evidence presented - before the formalities of posting the proposal. I cannot say that I am particularly thrilled that the matter is being (supposedly) conducted off ArbCom casespace, but I recognise that it is allowed, but I am even less impressed that it isn't being conducted with regard to any pretense of peer review or comment when it reaches these pages. Perhaps I should be relieved that Cyde wasn't desysopped/suspended, a vote held, the proposal posted, and then evidence presented (or perhaps the vote went against the proposal, thus Cyde has been declared not guilty - and I missed this as well?)? Damn, if people are serious about not encouraging the linking to sites that portray WP in a bad light (and I am only the messenger here) then they should try make it appear that every thing is being done by due process. Matters being conducted off ArbCom should not be wedged in into matters to which it is tenuously linked just for the sake pf appearances. LessHeard vanU 17:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This case is getting so nuts that I can't comment any more. Best as I can figure, Cyde won't be desysopped, BADSITES/MALICIOUSSITES will become the law, censors will rip out links to dozens of sites, just mentioning any site on the huge BADISTES/MALICIOUSSITES blacklist may get you banned, and the mainstream media will have a field day with the story of how Wikipedia censors criticism of itself. After enough bad publicity, Jimbo will dump BADSITES/MALICIOUSSITES and put in the far more common-sense rule that each link should be evaluated on its own merits, and that there should be no blacklisting of entire sites.

Meanwhile, I'm greatly enjoying the parallel discussion of this case on [censored site], where a number of Wikipedia editors and admins look just as befuddled as me as to what in Hades is going on. This insanity will be a laugh riot when it breaks into the major media. Maybe Finkelstein will savage BADSITES/MALICIOUSSITES in the Guardian, and the ridicule-fest will be on. The media circus will make the current thread on [censored site] look gentle. Casey Abell 17:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

But at least we can edit safely knowing that if any of us ever become the victims of a vicious corporate smear campaign, the ArbCom has our backs.—AL ^FOCUS! 18:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on. The attacks will still be there, they just won't be linked to from Wikipedia. You think that makes a difference? It'll just fan the flames. 86.137.127.139 19:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, [censored site operator] is now saying on [another censored site] that a couple reporters for mainstream media outlets have contacted him about the BADSITES story. Seems that the reporters have been assigned to the story and they're looking for background. Maybe [censored site operator] is fibbing, but it wouldn't surprise me that the Orwellian-named BADSITES proposal has already attracted mainstream media attention. Wikipedia screwups are big news nowadays. Eventually BADSITES will become a media circus, and eventually Jimbo will dump the policy as an embarrassment. Casey Abell 19:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If I had a nickel for every time the [censored site operator] said that he had been in touch with the mainstream media, I could afford to open up a mineral shop in Orem. See, the problem is something called "Nexis" that, when consulted, pulls up articles describing how the [censored site operator] is a [censored].--Samiharris 23:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I have a hard time believing a journalist would do a story just on a proposal. Even if the policy is enacted, the abstract policy won't be what gets the media blitz. It'll be an enforcement of the policy against a legitimate source. --Alecmconroy 23:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully that will never happen. I certainly will support no proposal which would authorize that. Fred Bauder 23:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You have already, since none of the proposals account for what should occur when a site is both a legitimate source or article topic and an attack site. Chunky Rice -04:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's just a matter of time before Finkelstein or Orlowski (I don't believe these guys are [censored] yet) squawk about BADSITES in the Guardian. The paper has given both of them plenty of space to badmouth Wikipedia in the past. The Guardian is a left-wing paper, and BADSITES has already been enforced against Michael Moore, a left-wing darling. People seem to forget the "enforcement of the policy against a legitimate source" that has already occurred.

The Guardian is a centre left British newspaper, which would place it firmly in the political area occupied the Rt Hon Gordon Brown (excepting the Iraqi matter). I shouldn't think that the US's closet ally in the fight against terrorism is often referred to as a "lefty"... LessHeard vanU 09:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

A WP admin on [censored site] speculated that, from the other side of the political spectrum, Fox News might also have it in for Wikipedia. I don't know about that, though Fox News did make a splash about [censored site operator's] plagiarism whines. If (really when) BADSITES gets through ArbCom and people start yanking links from dozens of sites, it's inevitable the policy will get into the mainstream press. The laughably Orwellian title alone – oooh, BADSITES!! – will guarantee that. Casey Abell 04:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

From what I've seen, the only people who call this set of evolving proposals "BADSITES" are those who oppose it. If our concern with the policy is over its name and the press reaction then we can brainstorm a better name. But we shouldn't adapt our policies just to please Fox News, Michael Moore, the Guardian, Daniel Brandt, or any other outside critic. (Nor should we purposely antagonize them either.) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

"But we shouldn't adapt our policies just to please Fox News, Michael Moore, the Guardian, Daniel Brandt, or any other outside critic. "

Nor should we adapt our content just to please partisans. --Alecmconroy 05:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Partisans? I didn't realize that we have pro-harassment and anti-harassment parties. The contents that could be deleted even under the most stringent policy would be a tiny fraction of what we removed in when we instituted the BLP policy. Wikipedia was improved by the removals. Sometimes less is better. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd hope our editors should be anti-harassment, but our articles cannot be. Our articles are, ya know, neutral.

Yes, it's true BLP resulted in deletions, but BLP came from a very "rational place". It was well thought out, carefully worded, and entirely consistent with a neutral point of view. I think these "purge" policies, on the other hand, come from a very "emotional place"-- their wordings haven't been well thought out, they're knee-jerk responses, they're often at odds with a NPOV, and unlike BLP, it's a hotly disputed proposal that clearly hasn't yet achieved project-wide consensus. --Alecmconroy 08:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

"Hotly contested"? I don't think that most of the community is opposed to policies that reduce disruptive harassment, mostly just a few editors who seem to spend as much time opposing them as editing articles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

BADSITES and Son of BADSITES (recent NPA changes) don't even have the consensus among the Arbcom or the consensus of the participants in this arbitration-- much less consensus of the wider community. If they did have consensus, this case wouldn't have been filed. And if the case was filed, it wouldn't have been accepted. And if it was accepted, it would have been over by now.

BADSITE and its NPA reincarnation went a bit too far. It didn't include safeguards to protect truly reliable and notable sources from purges. It made no distinction between "Linking to a domain which contains attacks" and "Linking directly to attacks themselves". It made no distinction between legitimate criticism (even if that criticism is without merit) and out-and-out bad-faith attempts at harassment. And it proposed a new theory of law where "Wikipedians" were given special protections beyond those that are afforded to all living persons in BLP.

I think we can do better. I think we can have our cake and eat it to. I think we won't have to choose between keeping NPOV and stopping harassment-- if we are careful about it, we will find that there's plenty of room to delete true harassments by thoughtful application of the provisions provided by Reliable Sources, External Links, and BLP.

--Alecmconroy 05:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The correct name for BADSITES is of course Wikipedia:Attack sites, a quaint little title that any responsible journalist will easily determine is the innocent verb adjective noun proclaiming a policy regarding off-Wiki comment on Wikipedians.LessHeard vanU 09:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

A big part of the problem is that people conflate the few incidents of genuine harrassment with a very broad range of more legitimate (if sometimes uncivil) criticism, then urge a similarly draconian policy to be enforced on anything that is connected in any way to any of this, and smear you as "supporting harrassment" if you disagree. *Dan T.* 11:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

What everyone needs to remember here is that SlimVirgin used that sockpuppet to vote in an FAC review on January 3, 2005 ([11]). Having been often involved in the FAC process, I personally find this action reprehensible. Her subsequent RfA began only two months later, on March 16, 2005. I just reviewed the RfA, and no where in there does she inform the community of her seriously bad faith actions in the FAC review. If the community had known about it, her RfA may not have been successful. Remember that "Wikipedia is a project to develop a free-content encyclopedia. While the community is of profound importance, its desires cannot substantially override this goal." That means holding accountable our editors, especially our admins, who seriously violate community morals and ethics. That's the bottom line here. Cla68 00:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Although utterly reprehensible if found to be done intentionally, we really cannot tell if it was an intentional action to vote twice or a mistake such as that which happens frequently in RfA, where someone has forgotten they have already said their piece. That said, I do find it a little more suspicious that the two votes were so close together (13 hours) and the main account voted second, with a lot of thought put into it - and with a lot of interactions, indicating she was paying close attention to it. Viridae^Talk 04:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep the longer-term trends in mind analyzing this

Well, let's not loose the perspective here and look at the events in their wider context. I am not spilling any beans by saying what is widely known that the utmost hostility the attack-site-trolls have towards Slim and Jay is shared for wholly different set of reasons by a small group of seasoned regulars of #wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel (not all in this small group actually are or ever were admins btw). While some individuals from this very group has been subjected to the similar harassment campaigns by the attack-site-trolls they somehow loose perspective of danger of allying with such trolls even temporarily in resolving their long lasting feud with Slim/Jay. I must say I have no relation to the latter two whatsoever and my sole interaction with Jay was two content disputes where we were in strong disagreement over the article's development. But I can't help but notice that sniping from IRC-clique (if I may rather bluntly call it) against Jay and Slim is not a new phenomenon. Several incidents come in mind and I can elaborate if there is a need to, but this "discovery" and gleeful announcement of this nonsense by Cyde at WP:AN simply fall into the same old pattern: using whatever means available to get an upper hand in this age-long conflict.

Maybe some forgot a long-ago frivolous ArbCom that was launched from the same quarters (I essentially commented to the same degree at that time.) Well, frivolous use of the ArbCom and a content dispute one is not even involved to "get" the other side of the feud is only a child's play compared to getting a helping hand from dedicated attack sites for the same purpose. I believe the action of Cyde is totally reprehensible and warrants desysopping all right. There were plenty of ways that Cyde could have taken if he was genuinely alarmed by the allegations and wanted to figure out what happened two years ago (that is if he thinks this remote episode was so important.) None of these ways includes moving this harassment campaign to WP:AN. Siding with trolls, using them as battering rams to settle scores is unacceptable and should have dire consequences. --Irpen 05:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well if you do believe he warrants desysopping take it to another case, but introduction of those proposed remedies into an only passingly related case is nothing short of ridiculous. Viridae^Talk 05:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this is quite the party. Looks like everyone harboring a long-term grudge against me is coming out to play. --Cyde Weys 12:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Grudge against you? Have we even met? Your trying to turn tables here looks pathetic. If you at least apologized for your action, I could have accepted the possibility that it was a one time mistake and the rest is a mere coincidence. No one, including your defenders, disagrees that what you did was gravely wrong and the debate is solely whether desysooping is adequate and if it is whether the separate procedure is needed. I see no need as the ArbCom is not a real life court of law. It previusly applied remedies to sides not initially named as the scope became more clear during the case and you have plenty of time to explain your actions to arbcom even if they were brought up in the middle of the case. No one is hushing to close the case right now. --Irpen 15:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm referring to the longstanding anti-IRC grudge harbored by you and a few other users which is thoroughly lame by this point. And yes, actually, we have met. Both in person and online. I guess you don't remember. I remember though — you were very loud. And as for this point: "No one, including your defenders, disagrees that what you did was gravely wrong", you're simply wrong. Read this talk page thoroughly and you'll see people questioning SlimVirgin's use of a sockpuppet to double vote on her FAC. She still hasn't explained it to the satisfaction of many of us. --Cyde Weys 22:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't regard his actions as "gravely wrong". The way Slim and her friends act as a tight clique and regard themselves as untouchable and their actions immune to scrutiny, and do their best to squelch criticism of themselves and cover up evidence, it was about time that somebody took them on. In this particular case, the offense was rather minor, but the principle that Slim needs to be held to the same rules she enforces on others is a very important one. *Dan T.* 00:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Calling it a grudge is just an effort to undermine it. The fact is that a lot of good editors have legitimate concerns that a small group of users misuse IRC to spread poison about other editors. It's been going on for years, and it still goes on, though less than it used to, thanks to the attention that's been called to it.

You are at the very center of those concerns, and your rush to judgment about SWB and your insistence on publishing it rather than e-mailing me is exactly the kind of behavior people are worried about. It was hypocritical of you, given your note to me last year that concerns like that are best dealt with by e-mail in the first instance — but that seems to apply only when you're the person being complained about.

It also showed poor judgment if, as you say, you knew nothing about WordBomb's stalking campaign — why would you pronounce so confidently about something you know nothing about? — though I find it unlikely you didn't know given it's common knowledge I'm being stalked. You must have read about the claims either on Wikpedia Review or Antisocialmedia, so it would have been obvious it was part of a campaign of harassment, which it appears you were happy to use as a weapon against me. That is the behavior that people are saying is inappropriate in an administrator. If you can't see that, it's worrying. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

And under the WP:TwoWrongsMakeARight policy, that of course gives you a free pass from any scrutiny or accountability for your own misdeeds. *Dan T.* 00:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, Dan. It is perfectly appropriate that if allegations seem to have credibility, SlimVirgin should make a private statement to Jimbo and/or the ArbCom, but not to you. There have been previous cases of admins accused of using sockpuppets for double voting, and these admins have been given the respect and dignity of an opportunity to give a private explanation. If the Arbitration Committee believe that SlimVirgin did something abusive, they can certainly vote to desysop her, without having a public discussion relating to whether or not a stalker's speculation about her IP (and consequently her location) is really accurate or not. That is not something that the community is entitled to know. ElinorD (talk) 00:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Under all the circumstances, I see no value to further argumentative discussion here of the dispute between Cyde and SlimVirgin. Newyorkbrad 00:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Brad, while we should prevent this thread from degenerating into the dispute between Slim and Cyde, discussing the action of Cyde in the context of the Attack sites case is important. I happen to see his involvement in this as a part of a longer trend. I feel I need to bring this up to the attention of the arbitrators. It is up to them to decide whether the seeming connection is credible enough to warrant action against Cyde and whether such action, if needed, should be desysopping. My opinion is that Cyde's siding with dedicated trolls in this incident is inexcusable. Others may believe that this is nothing but a momentary lapse of judgment of the otherwise exemplary admin. --Irpen 01:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a context to this that goes beyond Cyde. For example, I'm certain that he discussed it with other IRC-ers before he posted it, and indeed he said he had at the time. But since then, the most likely suspects have strongly denied, either publicly or in private e-mails, that they knew about it in advance, and some have actively condemned him. Cyde, you're being hung out to dry, and not for the first time. You might want to give that some thought.

The point is: it comes to something when AN/I meets Wikipedia Review, so the issue is directly related to this arbitration. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Slim's malfeasance in the matter brought to our attention by Cyde still hasn't been properly explained or expiated by her. Remember, the dubious action in question occurred only two months prior to her RfA. Instead of addressing her actions, she and others concentrate on shifting attention from it by sniping at Cyde and blaming the destruction of her credibility on a banned user, instead of looking to where the real blame lies. Cla68 01:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so they both made mistakes - Cyde for bringing the double-vote to light in an unsatisfactory matter, SlimVirgin by making it in the first place. Neither strikes me as desysoping material. Why are we still discussing this? Picaroon (t) 01:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey Slim, if you really want to throw down and have a proper you-vs-me fight, go right ahead. Let's bring all of that unseemly evidence into the open, just the way I like it. But this isn't the proper place. I'm not a named party in this case, and I wasn't even afforded the right to an opening statement, or indeed, any sort of evidence before the later stage of voting began, when I was unceremoniously thrust into the middle of it. But until this happens, all of the bickering on here is pointless. --Cyde Weys 01:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• I despise this thread. There may be one or two individuals who I despise personally as well (I'm not sure if anything that happens on line is worth that strong of an emotion) but I definitely despise this thread. A few of you need to get a serious grip. One double-vote by one sockpuppet two years ago and two months before RFA is not "malfeasance" or "reprehensible." Moral equivalence is a wonderful thing, isn't it? All of Brandt's claims about Slim Virgin being an MI5 spy and Jayjg being paid to edit by the Israeli government is just a little too kooky and off-base for serious comment. But now, stop the presses! SlimVirgin used a sockpuppet for three days, 32 months ago. All of a sudden it's fair game to bash Slim Virgin. Yes (cluck the critics in mock sympathy), Brandt and Bagley's tactics are a bit beyond what we are comfortable with, but after all, Slim Virgin used sockpuppets and Jayjg covered it up! Who knows what else they might be hiding. That is reprehensible. You want malfeasance? Try setting one double-vote in a featured article discussion (and the money Slim Virgin made from that) against a blog secretly run by an employee of company for the purpose of attacking a particular stock-selling technique and the money they stand to lose if they can't convince investors that the reason their company's stock is dirt cheap is because of naked short selling and not because the company sucks. You want "the same rules as everyone else"? Is that the rule that says that editors who are the target of internet stalkers who invent frighteningly misogynistic and antisemitic rants against them, and try to expose, intimidate and harass them, must lean forward and shout "Please, Sir, May I have another?" Frankly, the only part of the Sweet Blue Water fiasco I thought was worth commenting on is the possible misuse or over-use of oversight to protect Slim's privacy. I was wrong. But I am willing to admit that. I apologize to Slim Virgin and Jayjg for any part I might have played in perpetuating this farce back in August. If the oversight policy does not permit its use to protect editors (and not just subjects) then the oversight policy needs to be changed. There are a few of you commenting here who sorely need a lesson in how mean, rotten and vindictive people can be towards you for no reason, or reasons that are completely out of proportion to the response, and I hope for your sakes you never have to learn that lesson. Thatcher131 02:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • What he said! --Irpen 02:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Reprehensible at the time, meaningless now was what I meant. Viridae^Talk 02:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Without apologies, I stand by what I said above. Slim's actions then and since stand alone and apart from any so-called corporate smear campaign that may or may not be occurring. She owes the community a public explanation. If she hadn't concealed her actions at that time, her RfA probably wouldn't have been successful. Since that time, she's been quick to demand explanations and apologies from others for similar actions. So, the hypocrisy flag gets raised high here. She's the primary person that can help get it lowered, if she so chooses. Cla68 03:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I have a feeling that personal animosity is entering into things here, Cla68. One alleged double-vote in a FAC page three years ago doesn't count for very much; turning it into a big deal and a big conspiracy now has more to do with your personal animosities than any actual importance. SlimVirgin does not owe you an explanation, and you are not the community. Nor do I think it worthwhile to give stalkers, especially stalkers for pay, satisfaction by giving much credence to things like this - minor allegations of tiny improprieties a long time ago. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
      • The section header is correct. The "long term trend" is that Cla68 hates SlimVirgin's guts, and has taken every opportunity to gleefully slip in the knife and twist it. Enough.--Mantanmoreland 05:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Seriously, Cla68...you have done us a great benefit with all your featured level contributions...don't tarnish that with ongoing hatemongering.--MONGO 06:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • "Gotcha!" is the watchword of this increasingly hostile and dysfunctional community.Proabivouac 05:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

There will not, I think, be any public flagellation of $editor at this juncture, regardless of who exactly $editor happens to be and what exactly they are accused of doing. Calling for such is probably not the most productive use of anyone's time, and merely reduces the chance that something productive—although I use the term loosely—will come of this case. Can everyone arguing in this thread please take a step back from it for the time being? Kirill 04:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been attacked without foundation in this proceeding

Evidence has been presented on the Evidence page [12] that I maintain an attack cite. This a McCarthyite smear without foundation, again. I am a public person, identified by name two days ago on the Foundation-1 mailing list by the same user who posted the attack on the evidence page. The site in question should be referenced by the site's own name, and not an innocent person's name such as myself. I am requesting this baseless impugning of my person, character, and integrity be removed at once. Thank you. -- Rob Smith, aka Nobs01

Thanks for the note. I have no idea what she is talking about. Fred Bauder 18:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Per the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision#Dealing_with_harassment, do I have the right to remove the attack on the Evidence page of this proceeding [13] that alleges "a webpage run by Nobs01" was "set up for the purpose of harassing its volunteers. Harassment in this context refers to cyberstalking, offline stalking, outing people without their consent, humiliating them sexually, or threatening them with physical violence"? If not, I request an Arbitration Clerk be assigned to remove that defamation of my character immediately, and WP internal Dispute Resolution not be used as a forum for delivering unfounded, disguised slander. --Rob Smith aka Nobs01 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.133.178.130 (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Rob Smith, aka Nobs01, runs an attack site that attacks me and Slim Virgin. Find it at: http://nobsopus.blogspot.com/2005/08/what-counts-as-reputable.html. In my opinion, it was "set up for the purpose of harassing" us as Wiki editors.--Cberlet 12:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I found it, and I think it's complaining about you-- and a lot of other things too. Of course, he hasn't edited in nine months, and you are a public figure. This is turning into yet another case where one has to read all this junk to figure out what is going on. And therefore the whole notion of attack sites is being used to drag these off-wiki disputes into Wikipedia.

Can I suggest a "let sleeping dogs lie" policy on this? Yes, people say nasty/grumpy/sometimes-true things about editors off-wiki, but it seems to me that in a lot of cases that's as far as it gets, at least until someone raises the alarms back here. It isn't our job to police the internet, and as long as there isn't evidence that something off-site is causing a disruption here, we shouldn't be taking action. Posting a link back to an attack for the purposes of drawing attention to it is clearly disruptive, but so is erasing a link in such a manner as to draw attention to the off-site material. Mangoe 13:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Response to Mr. Berlet objection: the so-called "attack site" he claims is a verbatim reprint of a Wikipedia discussion page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism#Chip_Berlet_Chart This is easily verifiable by clicking on the orange title to that entry with the same name http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism#What_counts_as_reputable.3F

Hardly an "attack site." Thank you. --Rob Smith

So after being tossed off Wikipedia for a series of nasty personal attacks aaimed at me, Nobs posts some off this material offsite, and that makes it OK? I am a public figure, but the standards for common courtesy and against harassment here on Wikipedia should be different from those for people suing for defamation. Nobs engaged in a campaign of harassment agasint me on Wikipedia, and when Slim Virgin stepped in as an admin, Nobs launched a nasty campaign of harassment aimed at Slim Virgin. This type of conduct is exactly why Wikipedia needs a stronger and more explicit policy against harassment and attack sites. Wikipedia is getting a reputation where the "Macho" crush the courteous for sport. Some Wiki editors suffer from TMS -- "Testosterone Madness Syndrome." This is not about "Free Speech," it is about building a community where editors are not bullied. It's not about "let sleeping dogs lie" it is about kicking out the dogs of war.--Cberlet 12:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This is patently false. Nowhere am I even a party to that discussion [14]. That is a cut and pasted copy of Talk:Roots of anti-Semitism#Chip Berlet Chart, Talk:Roots of anti-Semitism#What counts as reputable?. The article was deleted and redirected [15] by User:Goodoldpolonius2, awarded a Barnstar by Jayjg "for your scrupulous adherence to Wikipedia policy and standards, most recently in your brilliant use of reliable sources at Holocaust Denial." This was done after Goodoldpolonius2 expressed concern about the "Talk:Roots of anti-Semitism#Deep problems with the article."

Jayjg, SlimVirgin, Will Beback, and El_C all joined a unanimous concensus to delete the content, redirect the nameplate, and not merge any content because of the deep concern about the sourcing for that article. I saved that discussion which I did not participate in simply for fear that it, too, would be deleted.

The simple fact is, that discussion page reveals some of the deep concerns WP's critics have over the accountability and transparency issues. If that discussion page is an "attack site" or personal attack on a WP user, [16], it is an attack by Goodoldpolonius2, Jayjg, SlimVigin, Will Beback (Willmcw) and El_C, on Mr. Berlet who by unanimous concensus deemed Mr. Berlet's material a non-reputable source for inclusion in a Wipedia mainspace article.

Anyone can see this for themself, SlimVirgin told ArbCom,

"'An extreme political website should never be used as a source for Wikipedia except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group,' a passage I (SlimVirgin) was the author of back in March. [466] What I meant by "extreme" was political groups like Stormfront, Hamas, or the Socialist Workers Party" [17]

The complainant in that case stated,

"Slim - Nothing you've quoted from NOR contradicts what I've quoted from WP:RS. In fact the section you cite giving the Socialist Worker's Party as an example of an extreme source actually seems to solidify my case against Mr. Berlet, as his biography openly boasts that he has done work with that group! If the Socialist Workers Party is not a reputable source as the section you quote states, would not the same be true of political activists who openly and proudly align with the Socialist Workers Party and dozens of other equally extremist organizations? [18]

The concensus was unanimous, the article with its sources were deleted and redirected. --RobSmith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.24.94.181 (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Like I said...TMS.--Cberlet 13:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Please, no personal attacks. --Rob Smith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.133.178.130 (talk) 16:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

So it is OK for you to post personal attacks against me offsite, then link to them here (while you are banned for personal attacks), and then you get to be self-righteorus about it? How is that not "trolling?" Seriously. How is the Wiki community supposed to deal with editors like you, Nobs01?--Cberlet 16:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I have posted no personal attacks; I have posted Jayjg, SlimVirgin, and Will Beback's uninimous concensus in support of Goodoldpolonius's "Deep problems with the article", i.e. that " that the whole article is essentially original research" and "The racial anti-Semitism section is not factually correct." [19] If Mr. Berlet regards Jayjg, SlimVirgin, and Will Beback's concensus that Chip Berlet was not a reputable source of the "Roots of Anti-Semitism" article, and he regards it as a personal attack, I suggest you take that matter up with them. --Rob Smith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.133.178.130 (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

"Status differential"

Sometimes Fred makes me laugh. ←Ben^B4 07:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Not so funny now.LessHeard vanU 16:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC) Following the resurrection of BADSITES it appears that the ghost of User:Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification, that part of it that assumes that some editors are more equal than others, has been invited to the party. LessHeard vanU 16:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he's trying to say that some people who are the subjects of articles come from a background where they're used to getting their own way. I don't think he's implying that they therefore should get their own way. He's analysing what he sees as factors that lead to some of these disputes. I think.

However, firstly, a finding that some non-specified people "may" feel X is not a finding of fact, it's speculation. Secondly, I don't think that finding any us to be "of markedly lower social status" is really helpful. If he's only going to talk about the possible perspective of the "high status" individuals then he doesn't need to refer to the "markedly lower status" individuals at all. Thirdly, if he is intending to go on to an 11.3 explanation of people's behaviour possibly flowing from their markedly low status then I think that would be a really really bad idea. 87.254.83.132 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the discussion around this entire issue focuses on how things make people feel, an inherently subjective thing. Then some of the proposed policies try to turn this into the basis for prohibiting things, based on their making other people feel bad. Sometimes the relative status (both within this site and in the outside world) of the people involved in such a conflict is considered, which is non-egalitarian. *Dan T.* 17:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't get your point Dan. The language above "some people who are the subjects of articles come from a background where they're used to getting their own way." is a fact which contributes to the tension. Fred Bauder 18:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I get it now. I had no idea what it was supposed to mean, but the only thing I could think of was that editors are uncultured proles and BLP subjects were effete snobs. That image still makes me chuckle. ←Ben^B4 21:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

BADSITES: just for the record

There have been several remarks remarks here of late questioning the use of of "BADSITES" to refer to "Wikipedia:Attack sites". Permit me to set the record straight: the WP:BADSITES redirect [20]was created one minute before Wikipedia:Attack sites [21]. Both were created by User:DennyColt. There is no reason to cast aspersions upon those who use the redirect that was set up from the start. Mangoe 13:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but due to your edit,[22] the redirect goes to a rejected proposal. What we're discussing here is not BADSITES, or necessarily even Wikipedia:Attack sites. What we're discussing here is Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Off-wiki personal attacks. Intentionally referring to a discarded proposal instead of the actual policy under disucssions is the same as arguing against a strawman. The community will decide if it wants a pithier name than "Off-wiki personal attacks", but it's already rejected "BADSITES", so there's no value in continuing to use that name. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes WP:BADSITES and the policy it redirected to, were rather transparently created by a user who opposed MONGO and was attempting to cast it in a false light. However, I don't think this sort of maneuver ought to be removed as it serves as a reminder. Fred Bauder 18:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe Mangoe was addressing the earlier queries regarding the use of the term BADSITES, and providing a background (of which I was unaware), since this has always been part of the debate between those of differing interpretations of the MONGO rulings.

Also, Fred, who are you referring to? DennyColt created the BADSITES and Attack Sites proposals, and it is only recently that there seems to have been the mindset developed by one side of the argument that it was an attempt to make the pro site banning faction appear in a poor light. While I have noticed this declaration, I have also noticed the proponents of this opinion are still seeking to incorporate much of the failed policy in both NPA and this ArbCom case. At what point did the motives of this absent contributor become suspect, while the remedies proposed remained adopted? LessHeard vanU 18:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

A provocation functions thus. A suggestion to go too far may influence others. We need a sensible policy which minimizes real harm, but does not over-react to what is a highly predictable phenomenon, poking fun. Fred Bauder 18:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I do not understand this response in the context of my questions. LessHeard vanU 21:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Fred, these allegations about User:DennyColt have been repeated by several people. Nobody has ever provided the slightest trace of evidence. Not surprisingly, the Evil Opposition speculated that DennyColt was a sockpuppet or other tool of those who wanted to censor the "bad" sites. COnversely, it has always seemed to me that DennyColt wrote his essay, not understanding the hornet's nest he was about to chuck a rock at; and when the furor took off, he packed up his bags and left.In any case, however, it's obvious that all of us are just guessing. And given that we have come to three different conclusions, it's not obvious that any of us has got the right theory. And it rather bothers me that an arbitrator is willing to sign on to one of the theories at the expense of the others. Mangoe 01:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Just so my record is clear (if my conscious is not), I am the Wikipedian responsible for initially proposing [23] and forking the BADSITES drama to NPA: [24]. I thought at the time I could save some material relevant to NPA re: direct links to actual offsite pages with personal attacks as defined by the NPA policy, while helping to defeat the BADSITES proposal strategically. I didn't anticipate the problems it would eventually cause with public figures editing Wikipedia, but I thought that subsequent editing on NPA would attempt to reconcile the apparent cognitive dissonance between BADSITES and WP:NPA#Removal_of_text in favor of the older, more stable and rationally worded section of the policy, which allowed for individual discretion and case-by-case interpretation. I now regret having done this, as in hindsight it seems BADSITES may have done less damage had it remained contained to a proposal page, but various individuals at the time were acting as if it were already policy when it was a mere proposal, and I thought moving it to NPA would have incited all sorts of criticism and redressive editing activity from the more sensible sorts minding the policies, especially once the disruptions created by its enforcement became more obvious to more people. Which did occur, but the collective effort against it has not been enough to override the basic fear and animosity that appears to me to be the main psychological factors driving BADSITES forward through its various incarnations on NPA as they have been supported among some segments of the Wikipedian population, not to mention the straight up narcissism that appears to motivate its support among a more cynical, critical few.—AL ^FOCUS! 19:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Creative initiative is to be commended. We should create a page: Wikipedia:Don't be a chickenshit. Fred Bauder 19:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the reasons for splitting the debate (and it certainly killed off BADSITES) I think the point is well made that individuals did then and continue to do so act as if that aspect of banning linking to attack sites was policy, and when pressed would cite the wording of the MONGO case as their backup. I continue believe that that is what we are here for, a resolution of the validity of an interpretation of a form of words. LessHeard vanU 21:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, AL, as far as I by implication assigned you malign motives in directing the discussion to NPA. Unfortunately, the discussion there simply reiterated that at BADSITES, and the language repeated the BADSITES language as well. Mangoe 01:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Urgent need to fix wording

An arbitrator needs to edit proposed remedy no. 1 to specify the name of "the attack site" being referred to. The reference was more clear when the initial decision was primarily about one site. As the proposals on the page discuss more and more sites, the reference is harder and harder to follow, and I fear the remedy proposal is now being misunderstood by some commenters to mean any site mentioned on the page. It may also be ambiguous to other arbitrators when they vote. Newyorkbrad 16:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point Fred Bauder 18:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Please do make this change sooner rather than later. Newyorkbrad 19:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding remedy 3.1

How could a policy on attack sites possibly be contradictory with the m:foundation issues? Melsaran (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

m:foundation issues contains nothing explicit about the policies of civility which are necessary to actually permit anonymous editing using the wiki process. Fred Bauder 18:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Then they're not foundation issues, as necessary as some may regard them. *Dan T.* 18:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a note on the page that further refinement is necessary. Fred Bauder 18:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It's easy to see how such a (hypothetical) policy COULD be contradictory to NPOV, even if you don't accept the argument that some recently suggested versions fall into that category.87.254.83.132 19:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This has been my primary concern. If NPOV requires that we link to or reference an "attack site," that should take precedence over the community NPA issue. -Chunky Rice 19:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

We need to work this out. I think, beyond a certain point, no personal attacks should be considered to outweigh the need to maintain an external link. Fred Bauder 19:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

External links are not personal attacks. An external link to MichaelMoore.com in the article on Michael Moore, for example, is perfectly valid and linking to it while it has an article that attacks a Wikipedian is not a breach of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. External links can only be personal attacks when they are used for the sole purpose of attacking someone. Melsaran (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's very much what's under dispute, isn't it? Milto LOL pia 19:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sites don't attack people; people attack people! *Dan T.* 19:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think a lot of what underlies remarks by Kirill (or my interpretation, sorry if I got it wrong) makes sense. Basically, that absolutely ruling out all references in articles would compromise the encyclopedia contents too much, but that ruling out actual hot links to these sites would be a small enough loss that the benefits could be worth it. Strictly speaking that wouldn't be being neutral between articles referring to attack sites and other articles but the loss to the content would be tiny as long as the site could be named and discussed where relevant. Does that make sense? 87.254.83.132 19:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Fred - I think that's a reasonable view - that NPA ought to outweigh the concerns of articles in some cases. And I know it's a view similar to ones you've expressed before - most notably the exception to SPOV that you had for a while on Wikinfo where truly monstrous views don't need to be presented sympathetically or in the main article.

My concern is that this view, while sympathetic and reasonable, is not a view that is compatible with Wikipedia. That is to say, good idea, but not necessarily for this project. And that is my concern here - I don't entirely disagree with your view on many of the issues in this case. But I think your view is not supported by Wikipedia's practice or by the larger community. Phil Sandifer 19:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Up to a point, but only up to a point. If some website suggests that Editor X should have their real-life address and phone number be posted and be harassed at work, that's not a view that needs to find a place on Wikipedia, nor do we need to give greater publicity to such site out of a fear that failing to do so would compromise article content. Or maybe, at a minimum, we should disfavor links to such sites and include them only when doing so is necessary to article content and no other references for the same information could be substituted. Hmmm ... maybe there's the core of a compromise solution there. Newyorkbrad 19:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

How would you express that as a specific remedy? Fred Bauder 19:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If others express support for the concept, I will try to come up with some wording. Not sure whether it would be best evolved through a decision by the committee, or over on the policy pages. Newyorkbrad 19:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Very YES - and especially if the wording incorporated the concept that linking to the content remains forbidden while the relevance of linking to the site is considered; disallowing an argument of tainting by association and giving protection to the Wikipedian.LessHeard vanU 21:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It is predictable the community may attempt to adapt any principle or remedy we adopt as policy. It does not hurt to advance a proposal. But, you might wish to keep your powder dry. If we reject a proffered proposal, that may shade it. Fred Bauder 20:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Just thinking out loud (or in type) here, but something along these lines might work:
(A) Links to an external webpage that reveals the personal identifying information of a Wikipedia editor who chooses to edit anonymously and whose real-life identity is not generally known, or which expressly or impliedly calls for any editor to be harassed in real life or otherwise, are strictly prohibited. Deliberate addition of such links is grounds for blocking, and removal of such links is not subject to 3RR.
(B) Links to pages of websites that routinely engage in the practices described in (A), but where the link is not to the specific webpage containing the offending material, are discouraged. In general, a site that engages in these practices is unlikely to fall within the usual definition of reliable sources for article content in any event. Links to such sites should be used, if at all, only where including the link contributes substantially to an article or discussion, and where no other citation for the same information can be reasonably be substituted without loss of content or comprehension.
(C) Otherwise appropriate links to websites that do not generally engage in the practices described in (A) generally should not be removed because the website becomes engaged in an isolated or specific dispute with a Wikipedia editor, except in extreme circumstances. On the other hand, such links should not be added for an illegitimate purpose, such as the harassment of any editor.
(D) This policy affects only webpages or websites that engage in "outing" or call for editors to be harassed. It has no application to sites that simply offer criticism of Wikipedia or its editors (whether or not our editors believe the criticism has merit), tease our editors without crossing the line into harassment, or the like, none of which are tantament to outing or harassment.
(E) In deciding what links should be included in Wikipedia, the effect of including such links on our editors is a legitimate factor to be considered in the exercise of editorial discretion, although except as described above it is not the only factor to be considered.
(F) A reasonable policy formulated by the community in connection with this issue will be deemed to supersede any previous Arbitration Committee decision on the subject.

As mentioned, I'm sure this needs a bunch of work, but it's an attempt to move the discussion forward without perpetuating either the attacks we have seen above or the generalities of some current proposals. It's not even actually the policy I would adopt (I think we would lose little from leaving links to most of these sites out completely), but it's an attempt to synthesize some sort of consensus from the mess we have at the moment. No view whether this should come from the arbitrators, or from the policy discussion. Newyorkbrad 20:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest something more concise? "websites or parts of websites which have as one of their explicit purposes the harassment of one or more wikipedia editors should not be linked to/referenced from articles unless encyclopedic coverage of the article's subject (compliant with relevant policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:V) requires such a link. Off the article space, such a link or reference is generally not acceptable and may be summarily removed, unless the intent of placing the link was manifestly not harassment of any editor." The philosophy behind this wording is not the same as that of Newyorkbard or Fred, because I think that considerations of encyclopedic content are always more important than community considerations such as NPA. This does not contradict the essentially collaborative nature of Wikipedia. Loom91 21:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the wording may need some work, but in principle I'm fully behind a decision similar to this. It address all of my concerns. -Chunky Rice 21:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur with the general direction of the form of words. I would still like it made clear in (B) that reference to the offending webpage should be minimalised (and content forbidden?) in discussing the suitability of the site for linking. LessHeard vanU 21:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this is really getting somewhere. My own attempt to brainstorm the basis for a policy is now at User:Alecmconroy/Brainstorm. I _think_ NewYorkBrad's proposal ss completely consistent with my own thinking on the subject. --Alecmconroy 22:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I see that Fred Bauder has posted some of these thoughts as principles in /Proposed decision. I had thought they would have a bit more community input first, so I hope discussion of them here would continue; no pride of authorship is involved whatsoever, and suggestions are welcome, including whether these (or other ideas) should be principles in the decision, remedies in the decision, or suggestions for community consideration. Newyorkbrad 21:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The proposed decision is functioning as the /Workshop, but you could post them there for additional feedback. We are not attacking much serious attention, nor would an attempt to formulate policy. This subject is a potent troll magnet. Fred Bauder 22:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This proposal isn't too bad, but it's got a flaw. Part (B) says that "In general, a site that engages in these practices is unlikely to fall within the usual definition of reliable sources for article content in any event." Links in Wikipedia are made in article discussions, policy discussions, arbitration proceeedings, etc. The fact that such sites are unlikely to be reliable sources for *articles* doesn't mean they aren't good sources in those other contexts. This is a common confusion encouraged by proponents of BADSITES-like policies: justify the policy by claiming such sites are rarely useful in articles, but use the policy to remove the links from more than just articles. Ken Arromdee 14:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This Policy Brainstorming is Very Good!

I think the proposal by NewYorkBrad is defintely the right direction towards finding a policy that will have consensus. The long and the short of it is-- we "pro-attack link" people generally don't wanna link to actual harassment anymore than the "anti-harassment people". In general, we agree with most of the deletions, but we just want a policy that deletes harassment for the RIGHT reasons-- i.e. due to some of the many policies like Reliable Sources, Notability, and External Links.

I'm convinced that there really is enough common ground that we can find a policy that will be compatible with Foundation Issues but will still allow us to safeguard our editors from harassment. ED is a great example-- there's enormous consensus on all sides to delete the links to harassment on ED because it's non-notable, non-reliable-source bad-faith harassment.

To count chickens before their hatched, it looks like this will be remanded back to the community, now that Fred and Kirill have both signed on to the remedy: "The community is encouraged to develop a policy compliant with the Foundation issues regarding the circumstances, if any, under which "attack sites" may be linked."

Might I suggest somebody start a rough-draft policy proposal page so that we can brainstorm. I, for one, think it would be far better to do this through the policy proposals than to do it through Arbcom-- the main thing we needed from Arbcom was clarification that it was appropriate try to formulate a policy. --Alecmconroy 22:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Policy Brainstorming is Very Very Good

Having had some time to look over NYBrad's proposal more carefully, I'm confident that not only could a policy based on it achieve consensus, but actually, all its points flow naturally as corollaries from our current policies. All the points taken together isn't just a description of a GOOD policy, it also is a GOOD description of current policies as they apply to Off-Wiki harassment. Things we all agree on, like:

• BLP applies to all living persons, even those living persons who happpen to Wikipedia editors.
• All articles should respect the portions of BLP which discusses respecting the Privacy of Names, Birthdays, and Contact Information.
• BLP violations are exempt from 3RR.
• Harassment is grounds for blocking.
• WP:Reliable Sources discourages citing extremist sources, saying "Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution."

With a little fine tuning and work, I think it's very possible we could find ourselves sitting on a policy that would protect us both from the Slings and Arrows of ED Trolls and protect us from the embarrassment of mass-purges of links to Michael Moore.

There still would be plenty of disputes on how to apply the policy, just like there are plenty of disputes on how to apply policies like NPOV. For example-- I personally have no clue if ASM is notable enough to merit amention, and I've steered as far from that hot potato as possible. But just having a statement of policy that has consensus would be a huge step towards resolving the disputes in the future. --Alecmconroy 01:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Clown!!!

Really, this is not the time and place to be joking, esspecially not on the proposed decisions page. Fred should remove this frivolous proposition. Loom91 21:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I certainly second the sentiment that this was not a helpful contribution. Newyorkbrad 21:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It fits in with the proposal to desysop cydeweys ... and the claim that YankSox is Daniel Brandt's sock puppet. :-/ --Gmaxwell 21:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a serious proposal that should be quite effective. Fred Bauder 21:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

No it's not; it would make us laughing stocks, and damage the integrity of our content, and if not withdrawn should be rejected immediately, if not a bit sooner than that. I wish the discussion could be about the serious proposals and comments above, including but not limited to mine, instead of this. Newyorkbrad 21:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If you are not careful, this could turn into a mess where nobody respects the decision and people question the integrity of arbcom. GDonato (talk) 21:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Somebody think of the coulrophobics. ←Ben^B4 21:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm starting to think that Fred should recuse himself from this case. I don't know what it is about it, but I his actions have given me serious concern that he is capable of acting impartially and rationally regarding it. -Chunky Rice 21:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It has been requested that Fred step down from the arbcom on his user talk page. This proposal is beyond clowning. Moreschi ^Talk 21:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Send in the Clowns! Really, if one is looking to get Wikipedia in the news in a derogatory way, as people have been hinting might happen in the wake of this case, certainly one possible strategy to achieve this is to goad Wikipedians to get into a pissing contest with some notable outside person by redirecting his/her page to "Clown" in retaliation for some attack by that person against Wikipedia on his/her own site. Such news coverage might not be all that flattering to the other party in the war, but won't be so great for Wikipedia either. I could practically write the story already, just leaving a few blanks for the actual details: "Prominent [occupation/field] [name] has been in an escalating fight with online encyclopedia Wikipedia, which has supposedly responsible adults acting like middle-schoolers. [Name] fired the first shot by putting the name and picture of one of Wikipedia's volunteer editors on the front page of [his/her] Web site, along with an invitation to vandalize that editor's own online profile by putting in irrelevant and obnoxious material. Wikipedia struck back by redirecting [Name]'s biography to their entry for "Clown". We think there are people on both sides of this fight that ought to run off and join the circus." *Dan T.* 22:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Redirecting a page to an insulting title is a common form of vandalism... and thus hardly something we should be encouraging. Doing so with the articles of notable living persons seems particularly ill-advised.

The '3RR does not apply' policy alterations suggested aren't much better. Historically 3RR has applied to perceived 'personal attacks' and 'harassment'... not because these things are allowed, but because some people will call, 'I think you are incorrect', an egregious personal attack and harassment. The 'remove personal attacks' concept was rejected for like reason. We have always handled these things by impartial review... if outside observers agree that something clearly IS a nasty personal attack then there is no controversy about removing it and blocking the offender, but allowing every user to make that determination for themselves would be chaos. Yet here, that long established wisdom is ignored and we'd invite users to take any personal affront as reason to edit war indefinitely, rip out links throughout the encyclopedia, redirect pages to 'Clown', and otherwise make an unholy mess of things. The BADSITES philosophy, including continuations of it down to the proposals for this arbitration, holds that we need to protect ourselves from 'POV pushers', 'harassers', 'nutters', et cetera... but what kind of logic is it to 'protect' ourselves from them by handing them policies saying that they are allowed to edit war and vandalize? Not the intent of those proposals, but quite certainly the actual results thereof. We used to be wiser than this. --CBD 22:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It's Site Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clowns! *Dan T.* 00:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If Fred truly is serious about a policy authorising vandalism, then I strongly doubt his judgement. Maybe he has developed too much of an emotional attachment to this matter. It will perhaps be best if he limits his participation in this RfA to discussion and recuses himself from voting. Loom91 14:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible interim motion/decision

"Further proceedings in this case are held in abeyance for a period of XX days, during which the community is urged to discuss, refine, and preferably adopt by consensus, policy language addressing the policy matters discussed on the proposed decision page and its talkpage. If consensus on policy language can be achieved, the need for an Arbitration Committee ruling on the issues in this case may be eliminated or the scope of the case reduced. In the interim, all editors are urged to act in good faith and in the spirit of the proposals that have been made with regard to the addition or retention of any links to disputed sites. Any remedies in this case directed at specific editors for conduct before the date this motion was adopted are rejected." Newyorkbrad 22:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer to see them pass "Remanded to the Community" and then close-- revisiting the issue only upon a new request if that one day becomes necessary. But I wouldn't be opposed to an abeyance instead. potāto, potǎto-- same diff. --Alecmconroy 22:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Newyorkbrad 22:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I do think there is something very deficient with the way this case has been handled. Not nearly enough sensible arbitrators have been around. The lunatics are running the asylum, as it were. --Cyde Weys 23:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

To be be fair to Kirril (s)he has been quite on the ball. Viridae^Talk 23:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

We need the arbitrators to step up and make a decision on this issue to help end the endless circular arguments. Only three of the arbitrators have actively engaged on the proposed remedies. Where are the rest of the arbitrators? Come on guys, it's decision making time and the community is waiting for you to do what you signed up for. Cla68 23:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, I absolutely wasn't referring to Kirill (and yes, he is a he, I've met him in person). My complaint is that there are too few arbitrators like Kirill active on the case. All of the recent proposed decisions have been sitting at 1-1 now for several days, which is kind of disgraceful considering how poorly thought out some of them are. --Cyde Weys 00:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This is another example of Newyorkbrad being one of the most sensible, intelligent and honorable people on the wiki. Oh jeez, my praise will probably get him banned (JUST KIDDING). Anyway, this whole case should be stopped, buried and and then buried again. The entire BADSITES hoohah has zoomed light-years beyond ridiculous, and it really could embarrass the encyclopedia if it attracts attention outside Wikipedia and closely related websites. Let the community hash this problem out. My only amendment to Newyorkbrad's proposal would be an indefinite suspension of this ArbCom case, rather than a set number of days. Let's just forget that this case ever happened. Casey Abell 00:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought arbcom was supposed to step in and sort things out when the community proved unable, not the other way around. Mike R 00:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me. The reason this is an arbitration case is because the community couldn't get it resolved. The arbitration committee needs to make a decision because the community hasn't been able to. Cla68 00:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessary. This seems to be a case where Fred is the main arbitrator who has looked at the case. I suspect (with no particular evidence other than knowledge of how the arbcom works in general) that other proposals are being discussed on the list and mulled over by the individual arbitrators. Phil Sandifer 00:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've been trying to offer alternatives here. In general, the Arbitration Committee exists to address user conduct issues, while policy is to be made by the community through the usual policy-making process. Of course, it's a fine line, and there have been times when the committee has clearly adopted or recognized new policy (see for example, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano#Return of assess levels). Here, although this case concerns some user-conduct issues, much of the case has been taken up in the spirit of "ArbCom, tell us what the link policy is or should be." The arbitrators might have felt compelled to take on that burden, because the community was proving unable for months to come to a consensus on a workable policy, and in the interim, firefights were breaking out all over the place. Now, partly as the result of discussion here, greater consensus on policy guidelines may be evolving. If as a result, the community is now able to arrive on a policy with reasonably broad support through resuming discussion, tell me why that is a bad thing rather than a good thing.

The other reasonable path to the goal line here is for the committee to adopt at least the broad framework of a policy. I see that Kirill has voted in favor of the proposals that Fred took from my suggestions above (proposed principles 26 to 31, based on my paragraphs above A through F). I did not write these proposals with the intent that they would immediately be placed into /proposed decision, and already wish I had the opportunity to copyedit some of them. (For example, I neglected to add "pages containing defamatory or exceptionally offensive material about Wikipedia editors" to the types of pages that should not be linked, and that should be added as appropriate. I also endorse the change the Fred made to 26 at the request of SlimVirgin.) Still, in lieu of terminating or suspending the case, the arbitrators could revise these proposals as they deem fit per additional input, vote them and perhaps a few other paragraphs of the proposed decision through, forget all the noise about clowns and straight men and social status, and close the case. In effect, the ArbCom decision would then become the interim linking policy, while principle 31 (my paragraph F) would continue to encourage the community to work toward consensus on a final one. Newyorkbrad 00:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be best, in the spirit of "Arbcom doesn't make policy", if they just remanded to the community. Erecting an interim an interim policy is Mostly Harmless, so long as paragraph F is in place. Of course, if I'm really going to look for the worst case scenario, there's some grounds for worry in that points A-F have been added separately, rather than collectively. If only SOME of the points were to pass, but not others, we'd have a very dangerous situation on our hands-- but that's just me being hypervigilant. --Alecmconroy 02:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I would urge a proposal that supports that paragraphs A-F/sections 26-31 be adopted as a whole, or not at all, rather than piecemeal to ally concerns as expressed by Alecmconroy. LessHeard vanU 12:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Since "Arbcom doesn't make policy", this really needs something which says "forget all the policy Arbcom made in the MONGO decision". There was even a proposal to that effect in the workshop, but it never made it here. This is a problem in the first place because Arbcom has, for all practical purposes, made policy, and it's turned out to be a bad idea. Ken Arromdee 14:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Linking to off-wiki harassment. ←Ben^B4 05:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Observation

"Thinking out loud" can be helpful for refining one's ideas in an informal setting. Conversely, when one is in a public setting with important stakes the presentation of incompletely formulated ideas can raise concerns. I appreciate the work that the arbitrators are putting into this case. But given the high-profile nature of this case it may be helpful if the arbitrators could fully develop their individual findings and proposals (perhaps offline) and reflect on their implications before posting them here. This would help reduce needless concern on the part of some who are viewing the proceedings. Raymond Arritt 01:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Transparency is not worth a little concern when staring at a sausage mill? ←Ben^B4 22:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Linking to off-wiki harassment

an essay policy proposal has begun here Wikipedia:Linking to off-wiki harassment per discussion above. I am in agreement that this process (specifically this arbitration) is in stormy waters. Maybe this will help. Privatemusings 01:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Consideration of the impact of links on users

As it stands, this proposal is far too broadly worded and vague, with much potential for misapplication. The Muhammad cartoons undeniably had a distressing impact on our Muslim users, but removing them on that ground would have been censorship. The same applies to links. If a properly written encyclopedia article requires a link, then it should be there irrespective of whether its contents have the potential to hurt any one's sentiments. This decision could easily be used to support cases of censorship. Note that few true attack sites would ever pass the Reliable Sources test, so we don't need a new policy to deal with them. The few who do pass should be in the encyclopedia. Also, since the relative weighting to be given to this factor is unspecified, the decision would have little positive practical use. Loom91 14:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The proposal says we can consider the effect. In that instance, the consensus was that the effect was outweighed by other factors. In another instance, such as where there is serious harassment of our editors on the site in question, it might not be. This proposal may in effect duplicate what is implied in some of the other proposals, but I don't see any harm to spelling it out. Newyorkbrad 14:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

"Note that few true attack sites would ever pass the Reliable Sources test, so we don't need a new policy to deal with them." Well, that may once have been true, but since MONGOCASE and BADSITES and NPA, I think there's been enough edit disputes that a consensus policy of SOME sort would be useful-- even if it's just a policy that clarifies the importance of the Reliable Sources Test in these cases.

As far as the "impact on links on users", I'd suggest that we look to WP:BLP to provide the discussions of these considerations. The effect our articles will have on Specific Living Persons & their privacy is a legitimate factor to consider-- quoting BLP, or citing that this "devolves from" or "is because of" BLP would narrow it down from "generic categories of persons" (e.g. Muslim users or Christian users), and limit the concern to specific living individuals who are personally affected by the off-wiki harassment. --Alecmconroy 14:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

IMO, concerns of encyclopedic content should always outweigh external concerns. BLP is a different matter. It does not prohibit us from including negative content if they are sourced, so it has no conflict with concerns of NPOV and such. Loom91 14:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

"Always" is overstated. If the next unabomber's manifesto includes a list of our administrators' home phone numbers, we are not linking to it. Newyorkbrad 15:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course we are, if the link is relevant to the article. We are an encyclopedia, and the encyclopedia should trump the community at all times. Melsaran (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

"Hard cases make bad law." We'll deal with that one when it comes up, which hopefully it won't. Newyorkbrad 15:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

But what do you feel makes it a hard case? The fact that the list gives personal details of some people, or the fact that those people are Wikipedia editors? You can't maintain a neutral point of view if you're selecting your sources based on self interest (or the interest of people you have a particular relationship with such as working on a particular project with you). That's the issue. 87.254.83.132 17:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason we should be linking to such a thing? If NPOV or encyclopedic coverage demands it, the we should be linking to it. The question that needs to be asked is why someone could compile such a document. Loom91 15:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You ask "The question that needs to be asked is why someone could compile such a document." I can answer that question with a sentence that contains "WikiScanner". "accountability", and "conflict of interest". Can you? Give it a try. I think you can. WAS 4.250 18:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand my question. I asked why would anyone be able to compile such a list? Our users, and particularly administrators should know better than to publish their RL contact details for every vandal to see. Loom91 07:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh. How could they get the data in the first place? Well, someone needs to care enough to use spy tools. Then that someone needs to lose or leak the data. Could happen. The more influential Wikipedia gets, the more powers that be will care and act with regard to it. Influential news people have long been on the payroll of intelligence agencies. But Wikipedia's current general anarchy makes it a poor target for direct influence buying and our sourcing policies mean that it currently makes more sense for powers that be to influence the content of reliable sources which will then be mirrored at Wikipedia. So its not something I think we need to be all that concerned about. WAS 4.250 00:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not necessary for every vandal to see sensitive information, only for one vandal to see it and repeat it, which is part of the problem. All or almost all personal information about users in this situation is voluntarily published by them, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.47.96 (talk) 04:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The next unabomber's manifesto

"If the next unabomber's manifesto includes a list of our administrators' home phone numbers, we are not linking to it."

It has always seemed to me that the emphasis on linking here has been excessive. On one level, the fight over ASM.net was right in that simply giving the name of the site and saying what it was gave readers enough information to (a) provoke interest in the site, and (b) find it readily. That's the problem that will arise in our hypothetical case as well: if we admit that such a list exists, we will probably give out enough data to allow readers to find it. And isn't that the real objective? Having a link simply expedites a user's satisfaction of his curiosity; omitting the link forces him to work a little harder, but that's all. The case is even stronger for the incidental remarks and even the Michael Moore cases, where finding the offending site was typically trivial (though finding the offending material often was not).

I don't see much of an obligation to link to such a document either, just as I didn't see an obligation to link to ASM.net (though if it gets cited, the obligation is thus created). But even mentioning the thing is good enough to direct people to it, and I foresee continued strife over that. Mangoe 21:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I _think_ that mentioning a notable domain name, but not linking to it, starts to encroach upon NPOV. Everywhere else we automatically link to sites when we mention the domain name. If we deviate from that accepted practice only in a few specific cases, our article is taking a position that a site is somehow "bad". Readers are going to instantly wonder "why can't I click on that domain name?". Lots of good-faith edits will be made by people adding the links, having realized that we always link in such case, and the continual reverting of those good-faith edits would lead to unending edit wars. --Alecmconroy 22:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Viridae^Talk 22:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I also should say, because I'm verbose, that the unabomber manifesto with addresses and names raises another issue-- that of our articles somehow being used to further an emergency threat of deadly violence. Obviously, a case where we receive a credible threat of violence is a definite case of WP:Ignore All Rules, and after we pick up the phone and call the FBI, we should take whatever steps are necessary to prevent imminent harm to individuals. I think there have been some isolated events of cases like this in the past, thankfully none real, where we got a bomb threat or a murder threat or something, and if it's credible enough to call the police, such concerns might temporarily take precedence over legitimate article concerns. --Alecmconroy 22:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Temporarily is the keyword here. Loom91 07:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken, and this is a perfect example of why hard cases make bad law. WP:Ignore All Rules is intended to be used to improve and maintain the encyclopedia, not to protect a your feelings or your safety. There is no conflict between IAR and WP:NPOV, because the second overrides the first; there is only conflict between [WP:BLP]] and WP:NPOV, because they overlap. Unfortunately, posting the docs of hundreds of people doesn't violate WP:BLP either. An example is 09f9, where some admins completely disregarded all the rules, including WP:NPOV, in order to abide by american law, until (I believe) Jimbo stepped in and decided something (I forget what, exactly). What he's suggesting is to create a new rule that forbids outing, and overrides WP:NPOV, or to leave the system the way it is, with no rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.47.96 (talk) 14:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's proposal and hard cases making bad law

Newyorkbrad's excellent multipart proposal seems to address the problem well for the general case, but is ambiguous in an important specific case. We should link to notable sites, even if they contain attack pages, but we should not link to attack pages, or, if we can at all avoid it, to sites that are mostly attack pages. Fine; but what if the attack makes up a small fraction of a notable site, but is on the front page of the site? Linking to the site is then very similar to linking to the attack page. There are many sites like that, that have many subpages, but display one of those subpages on their front page; most blogs, and even our Wikipedia, are like that.

To a similar question, above, Brad wisely wrote, "We'll deal with that one when it comes up, which hopefully it won't." But in this case, it has - that's exactly what happened on MichaelMoore.com. Calling for attacks on Wikipedia takes up a rather small portion of Mr. Moore's time, however when it got his attention, he put it on his front page. Should editors have removed links to that front page from his article? Some did, others put it back. What is the right thing to do here? Being supported by both Fred and Kirill, odds are currently good that this proposal will pass, so we need to know what it means for such cases, as it has been shown they do come up. I asked Brad on his talk page what he meant, and he said to bring it up here. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

In the case of michaelmoore.com, I believe Isolated_disputes_with_external_sites applies. I see no reason to narrowly circumscribe the application of these principles by defining them to death, or adopting an official priority ranking (26>30 unless 31<32 in which case 30<29). There is still a place for common sense in the world (I hope). Thatcher131 18:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think in some cases, it's best to sketch the rough outlines of what truly has consensus, and if some details still have to be left blank, it's still an improvement over have no description of consensus at all. Like Thatcher, I think there actually is consensus to link to the MichaelMoore frontpage, and I think that also is reflected in th NYB's proposal.

Let's assume, for the same of argument, that we all agreed MM was engaging in good-faith criticism of a Wikipedia with a conflict of interest, and that MM wasn't trying to do a bad-faith harassment. (Remeber, we're just assuming this for the sake of argument-- it's okay if we disagree on the actual facts of the case, let's just talk principles for a moment). _IF_ we all agreed that MM was engaging in CRITICISM, rather than a bad-faith harassment campaign, then MM's site wouldn't meet the criteria of harassment, and this policy wouldn't apply to it. Since EL says we link to the main pages of official sites in biographies, we do so. (obviously, if you disagree with my assumption of MM's relative good faith, that's a different issue).

Now, the real conundrum is: what would we do with a notable site that we DID agree was harassment and harasses on their main page. What would we do if ED magically became notable somehow-- the ED people win a lottery and take out a full page ad in the New York Times that gets lots of media attention, for example. I've argued that we should link to any notable site that merits explicit mention in an article, per NPOV and EL. I think NYB's initial proposal is silent on what to do in this case-- but it's okay if a policy doesn't specify those cases where we haven't formed consensus yet. --Alecmconroy 20:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It also obviously depends on what the page had to say. If it was something marginal, that's one thing. If the page said "Wikipedia editor Newyorkbrad's real name is Bradley B. Bradford and he lives at 555 Foofoo Street in Newyorktown. I am offering a bounty to anyone who shoots his puppy," we're not linking to the page no matter what else is on it. I hope. (Full disclosure: Hypothetical example only. I don't actually have a puppy.) Personally, I would rather not be linking to any page of a site with that hypothetical content, but the proposals I posted yesterday are aimed at consensus, not my own personal views, and my compromise is to leave links to such sites as disfavored, discouraged, but not prohibited outright in case circumstances arise warranting a contrary result. Thatcher131 is certainly right that no resolution here is going to anticipate every permutation. A reasonable dose of good faith and common sense will still be needed from all concerned. Newyorkbrad 20:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Totally infantile and random aside... I would love it if we could trick the outing sites to get them to list your name and address listed as Bradley B. Bradford of 555 Foofoo street, complete with picture of you and puppy. Regrettably, while I have the time to giggle like a schoolgirl at such a scheme, i don't think I could actually devote myself to pulling it off.--Alecmconroy 20:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Note the distinction between page and site. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say that you have to link to the main/front page, even for an article on the subject. Indeed, as most mainpages of websites are much like an advertisment with a "quote of the day", "breaking news" or "A pic of my puppy outside 555 Foofoo Steet". In the case of Michael Moore, why not be able to move the link to his bio page (one of the more encyclopedia content related pages) if it were deemed that inappropriate content was on the front page? LessHeard vanU 21:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That also seems reasonable. In the case of Mr. Moore, who was having a short-term "disagreement", delinking the main page, where the disagreement was hosted, and instead linking to a subpage that was relevant to his biographical article, seems like a good solution. Thatcher131 21:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL says "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any.". As to precisely what page to link to-- I personally would be much more comfortable if we made that decision INDEPENDENT of what contains criticism of Wikipedia. Linking to the bio page seems reasonable in the general case, but intentionally fiddling with what we link to in response to criticism starts to be all scary, because it raises doubts about our article's neutrality. --Alecmconroy 22:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, this isn't to say we don't have some latitude to link the page which most correctly reflects the "official site", and if webmasters completely change the layouts of their sites, we should feel free to revise our links accordingly. It's just very important, to me, to keep the terms focused on creating the "best article". --Alecmconroy 22:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I should think that the best link is the one that is content specific; main pages are rarely that, and pages with attack content will never be. LessHeard vanU 22:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that's totally cool. It's just bad form when we argue that "link x" WAS the best link two days ago, until the site criticized us, but NOW it suddenly isn't a good link. --Alecmconroy 02:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The Clown Section

I removed the section, and was blocked, this is fine. User:Jpgordon has now reinstated the section, this is less good. I continue to believe that it is a severe embarrassment, and believe it should be removed. Privatemusings 02:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to hear a good reason for Jpgordon's action that doesn't involve "process wasn't followed". There is no good reason whatsoever for that section to be there.--B 02:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Only the arbitrator who offered the proposal may remove it. It should, of course, be voted down forthwith, as should the "straight man" proposal higher on the page which sets it up. Newyorkbrad 02:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That may not have used the words "process wasn't followed", but it amounted to the same thing. If an arbiter proposes the remedy of adding photos of male genitalia to all BLPs and adds a sample photo of said genitalia to the arbitration page, would you suggest that this particular proposal remain intact? --B 02:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Do we have any arbs stupid enough to do that? We shouldnt have to account for the lowest common denominator in situations like this. Viridae^Talk 02:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Do we have any arbs who would suggest something ludicrous like, oh, I don't know, redirecting BLPs to Clown? You're right, we shouldn't have to account for the lowest common denominator, but unfortunately, we do. --B 02:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe you didn't notice, but we're clearly dealing with the lowest common denominator here. ➪HiDrNick! 16:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there any paticular reason he was blocked for this over a simple warning not to do it? Seems like an overreaction to me. Viridae^Talk 02:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I was only a little block, Viridae. Entirely proper in my book, I think Phil (Sandifer) did the right thing. Privatemusings 02:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, if you aren't complaining I guess it doesn't matter. Viridae^Talk 02:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

now putting the section back on the other hand........ Privatemusings 02:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think NYB answered that question. While utterly ridiculous and prompting calls for the arb who proposed it to stand down, it should only be removed by the person who proposed it. It will be voted down anyway. Viridae^Talk 02:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

One of the rare joys of being a "not censored" junkie is being able to stand for the rights of people who would censor. Fred is a wikipedian in good standing and an arbcom member. If he wants to communicate something to the rest of us, he has every right to do so, and it's wrong for us to delete his comments. Only Fred can withdraw it.

But-- every day that it stays up, despite all the calls for its removal, is further proof that Fred is no longer able to function as a fair arbiter. He's has plenty of feedback from the community that his behavior in this process is inappropriate. If he STILL stands by his actions, after all this time, it's time for him to recuse/resign. If his judgment is sufficiently compromised that he can't do either of those, it's time for the community to consider what should be done in the hypothetical case of an arbcom member who loses the confidence of the community. (and then, or course, to establish whether Fred truly has lost the confidence of the community). --Alecmconroy 02:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I see that the section has been removed again. Will Phil, or anyone, carry out a "slap on the wrist" for this, or is it OK for arbitrators to remove each others content? Note: I'm not seriously suggesting any further blocks, just pointing out that blocking the original removing editor, User:Privatemusings, seems silly in light of this. Carcharoth 06:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it Carc -all's well that ends well. Privatemusings 06:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The "clown" proposal was horrible for the very same reason that most of the proposals on the other side are horrible: it introduces the undeniable appearance of both willfulness and malice in attacks that we publish against living people. Though redirecting to Clown, as satire, is not actionable, the notion that malice might play a part in our decisions at the highest levels of responsibility is salient.

I see attacks on our volunteers and those on BLP subjects as manifestations of the same phenomenon, arising from our ethically inadequate answer to the question, "What shall we publish?" If our volunteers (established or otherwise) attack someone through a bio, and that bio's subject commences attacking our volunteers, then we republish those (counter)attacks, that only means we've fucked up badly, twice. Wikipedia should *never* publish malicious attacks against bio subjects, or against its contributors, or any other living person.Proabivouac 07:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

About all that needs to be said about the "clown" proposal is that it is the kind of cockamamie idea the Wikipedia Review clowns could have thought up. Mangoe 13:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I propose that arbitrators be required to wear red Bozo noses heretofore and forthwith while participating in arbitration proceedings. Any arbitrator caught editing arbitration pages with a bare nose may be summarily blocked for one minute, increasing to two minutes after the tenth violation. Webcams and bathrobes will be provided for enforcement and to protect the Wikipedia community, respectively. ←Ben^B4 05:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Now this is the only funny thing in all the acres of text in this whole hearing. good job benb4. --Rocksanddirt 23:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Motion for Fred's recusal

Since Fred has made it clear he doesn't think he should be recused [25], and NYB pointed out that what precedent there was was in favour of the arb making their own decision on the matter, what recourse does the community have? Do we have to appeal to the board? Viridae^Talk 04:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I should add that I don't like having to do this, but Fred's refusal to recuse in my opinion gives even more weight to why he should do so as arbitration is the final method for sorting out problems in the community and even the appearance of bias or bad judgement substantially lessens peoples faith in the process. Viridae^Talk 04:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom is a creation of Jimbo. Arbitrators are appointed by him and presumably can be dismissed by him. Seems reasonable that if you have a serious concern about the fitness of an Arb to serve, a request should be made to him. Alternatively its seems to me that a user conduct RfC is as valid an option to question the behaviour of an Arbitrator as where it is that of an editor, administrator, bureaucrat etc that is the source of concern... WjBscribe 04:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The "ask jimbo" thing probably worked quite well in the good old days, but I can't help but think there needs to be a second mechanism. Perhaps other arbs can weigh in and determine if Fred should participate as an arb in this case. I don't know if that would yield results, it is just a thought. daveh4h 04:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the Community sanction noticeboard would be the forum for this? If we were talking about a disruptive editor in article space, that's where it would go. This is different only in degree and location. --B 05:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the basis for recusal? That he has taken positions some people don't like? What a crock.--Mantanmoreland 05:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe it's that he has advocated vandalism, which is an indication that he doesn't take the issue seriously and a slap in the face to everyone who tries to improve Wikipedia by fighting vandalism. --B 05:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This case does not involve vandalism, it involves stalking. Besides, doesn't one of the parties have to request recusal? As a party I would object. ("I object, your honor!")--Mantanmoreland 05:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

How about that multiple people have stated that they no longer trust his judgement as an arbitrator and wish for him to step down? I think that is a pretty good reason, considering arbitration is the final step in the dispute resolution process and if the community or a significant subset thereof does not feel they can trust one of the arbitrators then that reduces the effectiveness of the process? I have seen proposals from arbs that I have disagreed with before, but it would never have crossed my mind too support a call for that arb to step down. Viridae^Talk 05:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"Multiple people" no longer trust his judgement? 250 people supported his judgement in his last election. It would be disruptive to future ArbCom cases if committee members can be pressured to recuse by a relative handful of users. If other ArbCom members disagree with him then they can oppose his proposals. This thread does not bring us closer to resolution of this case. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's be clear here that we're not talking about a good faith/good sense proposal where there is legitimate room for disagreement. We're talking about a proposal to vandalize articles. Any person who seriously believes that redirecting BLPs to clown is a good idea ought to be stripped of the admin bit immediately before they can do any damage to the project.--B 05:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland, regarding the basis of the recusal: speaking only for myself, the clown proposal on the proposed decision page worried me. First I thought it was an inappropriate joke, which I am prone to myself, but then he said he wasn't joking. There's nothing wrong with a good joke, I just find it inappropriate to joke, acting in the role of an arb, on the proposed decision page, in a case that is alleging very serious things. Fred is a great arbitor and should not take offense to people asking him to step away (in this case at least) and neither should anyone else, I would hope. In addition to the clown proposal, the proposal that Cyde be desysopped (diff), written before evidence was submitted,[26] [27] also concerned me. I understand that this is not a court of law, but there has to be a line for absurdity drawn somewhere. daveh4h 05:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Like the absurdity of the "rutabaga" proposal someone made? That showed contempt for the whole proceedings, and there were no consequences. Let's lighten up.--Mantanmoreland 05:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that was absurd too. We agree that both were absurd? The major difference being, Dan is not an admin, is not an arbitrator, and has nothing to do with this discussion. daveh4h 06:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If DanT was a member of Arbcom, Made the Rutabaga proposal, insisted it was a legitimate policy suggestion, refused to remove it despite substantial community feedback about the inappropriateness, and refused to apologize or recuse himself-- I promise you I would call for his removal. And, I hope, so would you. --Alecmconroy 06:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If DanT was a member of Arbcom that would be the least of our worries.--Mantanmoreland 06:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree with that. Not everyone is cut out to be an arbitrator, I suppose. daveh4h 06:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I should run in the next election... :-) *Dan T.* 14:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk of forcing Fred to recuse or resign is premature, and in my opinion unwarranted and distracting. However, it remains that the Clown proposal is embarrassing and should be removed. Fred is the only editor empowered by process to do this - we should continue to encourage him to do so. Privatemusings 06:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest starting a proper petition page (maybe in the form of a "request for comments") and seeing how much support you can generate for asking Fred to take the clown proposal down. Write it politely, ask people signing the petition to be polite, and see what happens. Peaceful protest. As for recusal, I think that should be a matter for arbs to discuss among themselves. As for resignation, that doesn't seem warranted here. Something like the Essjay controversy, that warranted a resignation. Carcharoth 06:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What a load of crap. I want to know when all these people decided that arbitrators aren't allowed to make mistakes or try to add a little levity, whichever it was. ←Ben^B4 05:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks James...

the clown has left the building. Privatemusings 06:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Didn't realise he was an arb - was about to suggest he put that back until I saw his talk page. Viridae^Talk 06:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course he's an arb. First rule of commenting on arb cases - read the list of arbs! :-) BTW, I've commented in the original Clown section up there, and it might be best to keep discussion up there. Carcharoth 06:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Abstract thoughts on removing arbcom members

I think actually undertaking any of these measures at this time would be severely premature. The concerns that have been expressed towards fred may be a vocal minority, may be related only to this specific case, or may otherwise not reflect a true "lack of community confidence".

I also think Fred, after years of excellent contributions, should be given ample opportunity to consider his behavior, clarify it, correct it, apologize for it, reply to the concerns, and make decisions about requests for his recusals/resignations. I concur that actually implementing any for recusal in THIS instance would be severely premature.

There is not deadline. Now isn't hte time to push for an involuntary recusal. This specific case looks like it could be resolved with unanimous decisions. So I only propose these for abstract future cases when this might truly be necessary in the future. But since we're all here and brainstorming.

I think an arbcom member would be considered removed under any of the following conditions:

• Community consensus makes policy. Any policy that truly reached consensus describing how / when to remove an arbcom member would be binding.
• Since Jimbo's maintains a veto power over arbcom members. He could choose to exercise such a veto.
• Community confidence is a necessary condition for Arbcom membership. Since [[28]] required an absolute minimum of 50% support to be considered for membership, a widely-advertised "recall vote" which achieved a supermajority might reasonably demonstrate a lack of commmunity confidence.
• Arbcom members can impose specfic penalties upon any users. De-Arbcomming would be one such penalty arbcomming could impose.
• Users who are banned cannot participate in any wikipedia activities, including arbcom participation.
• Users who are blocked cannot participatio in any wikipedia activities for the duration of their block, for the duration of the block.

Again, please nobody do any of these things today, tommorrow, or the day after that. This is an abstract discussion, because we're all here considering this issue, so I post it here-- but NOt actions I am propsing against Fred.. --Alecmconroy 06:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We can only request Fred that he recuse himself, it remains his decision. If there is any further actions taken by other parties it can only be after the conclusion of current proceedings, lest the impression is given that the motivations for requesting an arbitor recuse themselves is not itself honourable. LessHeard vanU 12:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Recusal is something specific to a case, so it doesn't make sense to wait until after the case to ask for it/act on it. -Chunky Rice 13:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup, Fred may or may not (looks like may not) recuse himself from this case - the "removing arbcom members" scenarios per the header should be considered after this case ends. LessHeard vanU 22:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This is flagrantly inappropriate - the arbcom works on a majority vote princple for a reason. If one arbitrator has a bad viewpoint on something, the assumption is that it will fail to gain traction among the rest of the arbcom. Thus everybody is allowed to be crazy occasionally. To even think of "recalling" Fred because of one vote you disagree with is an insane overreaction. Phil Sandifer 14:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a legitimate disagreement. He was advocating vandalism and refuses to back down from it. Either he needs to apologize for his suggestion or resign. Period. --B 14:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No, he doesn't. I think the phrasing you're looking for is "I want him to either apologize or resign." That's fine, but it does not translate to a mandate, and I think any attempt to create a mandate to this effect would be rightly shot down by Jimbo as a lynch mob. Phil Sandifer 14:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What do we normally do with users who advocate vandalism? Put them in trusted positions? When an admin goes rogue, would you prefer to desysop them or leave them with the ability to cause harm to Wikipedia? --B 14:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this talk page is serving the effective purpose of an RfC; it's gathered plenty of comments, and made the community's opinion rather clear. Fred made a suggestion that has clearly met with universal disapproval. He didn't put it back when another arbitrator removed it. No action was actually taken on the suggestion, no harm was done. We all have our bad days. Let's not start impeachment proceedings just yet. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree... I'm not eager to have any precedents around for conducting witch-hunts against people who express unpopular ideas, even really crackpotted ones. *Dan T.* 15:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not based on Fred's opinion or viewpoint. It is a pattern of Fred's behavior that emerged during this arbcom that raised concern. Do not simplify it down to a disagreement over an opinion Fred holds, unless of course you want to squelch discussion on this topic, which I acknowledge may be appropriate. As I just said on another page, there are enough distractions surrounding this, and those saying to just drop it for the sake of this arbcom may be right. It is probably an issue to look at in the future, though. daveh4h 21:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur we all have our bad days, and there's no need to start impeachment proceedings. Even if everyone was completely and insanely convinced fred had to go (which we're not, not by a long shot), but even if that were so, at an absolute minimum the specific case in question should be allowed to close, so that the "good faith" of recall motions wouldn't have the appearance of trying to influence an ongoing case.

I suspect by the time this case closes, Fred will have acknowledged his behavior in this case was problematic, apologize, and will resume to his role as a respected arbiter. --Alecmconroy 21:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

One section has actually passed now...

One section has become the first to reach the 6-vote level needed to pass... and it's the "Freedom of Expression" one saying that "Nothing in this decision should be construed as to indicate that sites criticizing Wikipedia or individual Wikipedians must never be linked to." That's a good sign, in my opinion. *Dan T.* 15:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes ... except that Raul654, who provided the 6th vote, had previously been listed as inactive on this case ... so now, he moves to active, increasing the number of active arbitrators to 12, and the majority to 7. Sorry. Newyorkbrad 15:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hooray for new math!. Thatcher131 15:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

So there are actually 14 active arbitrators, in base 8... MastCell ^Talk 18:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

In fact, if there were 12_{base 8} Arbitrators, then 6 would indeed be a majority... Thatcher131 18:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it passes now. If nothing else, I've accomplished that. James F. (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it ironic...

that a proposed principle concerning irrelevant, off-topic postings seems itself to be irrelevant and off-topic to this proceeding? *Dan T.* 17:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. The fact that some people are using noticeboards to link to frivilous attacks is highly germane and shouldn't be condoned.--MONGO 18:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

As worded, this proposal is problematic. A well-meaning user will post something legitimate, albeit slightly off topic and then a process wonk will remove the issue without addressing it. If someone posts an attack about a Wikipedia user, it can and should be removed right now - but this principle isn't helpful because it goes further. --B 18:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think the gravamen of the proposal is that where a problematic link is contained in a "notice" that is unnecessary in the first place, we needn't agonize over whether the link falls inside, outside, or on the borderline of our anti-harassment policy; we can just observe that the notice is unnecessary and remove it on that basis. Newyorkbrad 18:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

My essay sort of discusses this in greater detail.--MONGO 18:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

My essay can beat up your essay! *Dan T.* 18:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Haven't we had enough of the Essay Controversy? LessHeard vanU 22:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"Freedom of Expression"

1) Wikipedia attracts legitimate criticism. Nothing in this decision should be construed as to indicate that sites criticizing Wikipedia or individual Wikipedians must never be linked to. This decision is about actual harassment, not legitimate criticism.

This contradicts the entire “whole site is bad for a few pages on it” premise. Even legitimate criticism _in itself_ is suppressed by a simple reading of the case. Claiming that there is someone who works for the government / some corporation / some political group / etc, inserting bias into articles is indisputably legitimate criticism. But when the only evidence available to support such a claim also happens to contain someone’s personal information, certain sites aren’t shy about producing it anyway. At some point in differentiating between harassment and legitimate criticism, we have to consider intentions, both of the person inserting the link AND of the person running the site. In other words, what are they trying to _do_ by posting this “attack”? The alternative is to choose not to differentiate between harassment and legitimate criticism at all. —Random832 13:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

"Nothing in this decision should be construed as to indicate that sites criticizing Wikipedia or individual Wikipedians must never be linked to." Fred Bauder 13:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

How does repeating the passage that was quoted at the head of this thread add anything new to the discussion? The issue is in exactly how this, and the other parts of the proposed decision, are to be interpreted with regard to particular sites and criticisms, and that is where there are possibly unbridgeable philosophical divides. *Dan T.* 14:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If a clear line is not drawn saying what is harassment and what is legitimate criticism, this is useless and will become a point of contention and we'll be back here in three months. —Random832 14:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

is it or is it not legitimate criticism (thus protected from this ruling by this principle) for a site to say that User:Example is a government agent and/or corporate shill, and to link to evidence proving this that happens to also reveal User:Example's real name? —Random832 14:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Depends Fred Bauder 14:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Depends on the past history of the accuser, whether this is the latest in a long series of fantastic allegations, whether the identity of the user would matter, etc. Fred Bauder 14:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "whether the identity of the user would matter" - do you mean whether it's material to their claim? What if it's not but the only evidence they have available to substantiate it also happens to mention the name? —Random832 15:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

More cynically, it depends on the relative status of the accuser and accusee with regard to the dominant clique of Wikipedia; the higher-status party always wins whether they're the originator or target of the criticism. *Dan T.* 16:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Not always. Paul August ☎ 16:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

And anyway - you cannot possibly engineer social status out of a project like Wikipedia. Phil Sandifer 17:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

But you can within it, which is all that matters here. SchmuckyTheCat

There are two morals to the story of the boy who cried "Wolf!"; the one you teach the kids - that telling lies means that no-one will believe you when you tell the truth - and the one that wise adults learn - that perhaps there really is a wolf this time! Every potentially damaging claim needs investigating, less there is some basis, and only when it has been determined it was a fabrication do you take action against the miscreant. Although it may be a drag to have to spend time on it, dismissing allegations because of the source is unwise. LessHeard vanU 22:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

So if anyone ever publishes your real name and location on a blog alleging that you rape small children, after having contacted friends, family members, and work colleagues of yours, and after having threatened you by e-mail that he was going to "remove" you because you stood in the way of something he wanted — and if a Wikipedian suggests we have to check all your edits to ensure you didn't add pro-pedophilia material to articles; and of course we would have to discuss extensively the checking of the edits, and the relative merits of the blog post, so the discussion could go on for days, all picked up search engines — you and your family will be fine with that, will you? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

What? Mark James Slater of Carleen, Cornwall (taken from my userpage and anyone clicking on one of the few articles I mention on it)? My personal troll has had (they get taken down usually for content abuse) websites detailing my interactions with various people - having hacked their emails - and has proposed that children born with learning difficulties should be drowned at birth, as they are aware that my son has autism. Since I have the truth being used against me why should I worry about lies spread about me? Paedophilia? I'm on the record on WP for arguing that having those feelings is not illegal, but acting upon them is... any troll is going to have to find some other stick. Yup, I can live with the shit a troll might bring up, as can my family, since we have have had for a few years.

Of course other people react differently to harrasment, and I totally support efforts to protect them and their families; that is why I am participating in this, to provide the best means of doing so while allowing the building of the encyclopedia. LessHeard vanU 13:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

While I would hope that the intended meaning is "sites merely criticizing Wikipedia or individual Wikipedians", I think it needs to be stated explicitly. Otherwise we'll have some troll "innocently" pointing to this ruling and saying "But it said we could link to sites that criticise Wikipedians." One extra little word is all that's needed. ElinorD (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Equal Protection Clause

I'm deeply confused by the two objection to the principle Editors have no special protection by Fred and FloNight. The Equal Protection proposed by Paul August is absolutely synonymous with NPOV-- the only justification I imagine for the objection is that some areas of Wikipedia are not written from a NPOV, so Fred and Flo want it clear that talk pages and project pages may impose extra civility requirements on our editors.

If this is root of the object, I hope some alternate wording will be proposed that makes it clear that all living persons are afforded Equal Protection from Harassment in Wikiped in article, without necessarily applying to the parts of the project that don't have to comply with NPOV. I think it's a really important to have some statement of this basic principle of fairness. --Alecmconroy 17:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this aspect of the debate may be proceeding on too high a level of abstraction to be useful. We all know examples of webpages harassing our editors that should not be linked to. Although there are plenty of webpages that harass non-editors, I don't know of any instances in which there was a dispute whether such a page should be linked or not. (There may also be a distinction to be drawn in the case of a Wikipedia editor who is also known to be a public figure, in terms of whether an external site is commenting on his or her editing, his or her notable real-world activities, or both.) Newyorkbrad 17:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

There may be some truth to what you say, after all I am a mathematician, and my area of specialization is about as abstract as you can get ;-) Nevertheless, principles are abstractions — that's their virtue. Paul August ☎ 18:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Your proposal does not advocate equal protection. It advocates no special protection for Wikipedians, without stressing that they have equal protection to any other living persons. You tried to engage in a public discussion about whether I'm paid to edit Wikipedia on the basis of nothing more than a self-published Slashdot story based on a self-published article on a Korean citizens' journalism website. I'm assuming and hoping you wouldn't publicly discuss defamation published by non-reliable sources about any other living person; if you would, you've not understood BLP. The fact is that you felt able to do that because I'm a Wikipedian, and therefore somehow a lesser being. If you want to stress equal protection, then please add to the proposal that BLP applies to Wikipedians too.

That apart, I'm disappointed that some ArbCom members think it's fine to ask people to protect the site, but to hell with them if they're stalked and harassed as a consequence. No responsible publication treats its writers, researchers, and management this way. Your block log is notable, Paul, for containing no blocks of people who were attacking, harassing, or outing editors. No difficult blocks at all, in fact: all you did was block vandals and open proxies, and precious few even of those. Please consider that that lack of experience may be coloring your views. I wonder how long you'd last if you were subjected to even a fraction of the harassment some editors have had to put up with. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

SV, you say "Please consider that that lack of experience may be coloring your views."-- if anything, please consider that your unpleasant experiences are strongly coloring your views. If anything, this is a situation which requires cooler heads. For whatever reason, you're sufficiently under the influence of angry mastodon to be driven to tear-into an arbiter with ad-hominem attacks. Most unpleasant, and a sign that people who are personally involved with such disputes probably aren't in the best state for rational policy-making. --Alecmconroy 19:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Now that I read my comments again, you're right, Alec, they're inappropriate and I've struck most of them. I'll also apologize to Paul. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, I read the principle as not saying that Wikipedians should not be protected, but that, however much or little they (we) are or are not protected, people who do NOT edit wikipedia should be afforded the same amount of protection. That has, as far as I can tell, been a somewhat peculiar bone of contention in this debate. —Random832 19:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not in the slightest bit angry. I feel it's important to point out that some of the ArbCom members dealing with this, and I'm thinking particularly of Paul here because he drafted this proposal, have zero experience — absolutely none — of protecting other editors from attack, or of dealing with difficult editors, or of mediating difficult disputes, or indeed of any of the issues that tend to make people targets. It's too easy for him to turn up with a strong point of view in an area he knows nothing about. But regardless of that, the key point is that the person making the proposal was himself in violation of BLP in supporting the on-wiki discussion of an actionable libel published only by unreliable sources. That's directly relevant when the same person starts making poorly worded key proposals about the extent to which Wikipedians enjoy equal protection under BLP. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Equal means equal. If we make a policy that REQUIRES removal of all links to sites that host pages that harass (for whatever definition of 'harass' is chosen to become part of that policy) wikipedians, regardless of the intent of the person making the link or even whether the particular page that is linked to contains an attack, that same policy must require removal of all links to sites that host pages that harass non-wikipedians. If we cannot accept the latter, the former cannot become policy. This is not negotiable. —Random832 19:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Regardless-- going ad-hominem is a sad tactic to have to resort to, as the only means to justify a substantial deviation from NPOV. If anyone has had experiences that make them feel our articles should not be NPOV, then even though they're good people acting in good faith, they need to take a time out and let the rest of us who haven't become "shell-shocked" from being "in the trenches" handle the matter. NPOV directly implies Paul's proposal about equal protection. If people have minor objections about wording or emphasis or what not, fine. But if someone truly believes our articles should cover EDITORS differently than NON-EDITORS, then they don't believe in NPOV, and this isn't the project for them. --Alecmconroy 19:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

So admins now have quotas to fill of "difficult blocks" before their opinions are considered relevant? Thus, any who don't fall into the current fashionable groupthink of "ban first, ask questions later never" just don't count. *Dan T.* 19:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the "ban first, ask questions never" crowd wouldn't have any difficult blocks, so they wouldn't qualify. After all, none of their blocks are difficult - for them. —Random832 19:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

What would happen if a celebrity started editing Wikipedia and was outed and the story made all of the big media outlets. Would we then change the standards by which the article about that celebrity was written? -Chunky Rice 17:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I am bothered by the opposite idea, that there could be any information in any article that would be allowed as long as the subject is not an editor, but would have to be deleted should they sign up to become an editor. That seems against our principles; people should not be able to require that the content of articles be friendlier to themselves by joining us. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not my point. My point is twofold: (1) BLP should be strictly enforced for all living persons, Wikipedian and non-Wikipedian. That means no publication of material not already published by reliable sources. No publication anywhere on the project, and that includes no publication masquerading as mere discussion. (2) When material about living persons is added to Wikipedia because the subject's contributions to Wikipedia made them a target for harassment, we should be particularly careful to ensure that simplistic interpretations of NPOV aren't used as a weapon against them. BLP is the policy that governs living persons, and it encompasses more than just NPOV. It's a complex synthesis of NPOV, V, NOR, COATRACK, NOT, and others; and in addition, it requires a sensitive, mature, non-voyeuristic approach. We must be very careful not to allow simplistic interpretations of policy to be used to drive away our regular contributors. All publishers try to protect their writers and researchers from backlash caused by their work. We must do the same. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

So, from your first point, I deduce you now support Paul's proposal because he has included the notation that BLP does apply to all persons. And from your second point, I deduce that you still oppose Paul's proposal on the grounds that NPOV has been superseded and in part deprecated by the more mature BLP? --Alecmconroy 20:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I like both of those numbered principles. They allow for some judgment as to what is real discussion and what is really publication of the attack masquerading as discussion. They don't solve the MichaelMoore.com and Making Light issues immediately, as that can still be argued in each case, but they provide a basis for argument. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

So I guess admins and the ArbCom won't be able to discuss blocking, banning, or imposing any other sanction against editors for alleged bad behavior unless this behavior has actually been reported by a reliable source? That would follow clearly from the insistence that intra-Wikipedia discussions need to follow the same standards as article content. *Dan T.* 20:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I like SlimVirgin's suggestion that we stress that WP:BLP applies to Wikipedia editors. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Me too. Seems appropriate. Besides-- I bet at least 95% of our editors meet the definition for "person", personally I hope there's a few aliens and superintelligent robots editing as well. :) --Alecmconroy 19:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe not, but there are plenty of not-so-superintelligent robots editing. (Sinebot, though, is getting pretty clever these days) —Random832 19:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

BLP cannot, in its present form, be applied to Wikipedia editors - why? We'd have to delete ANI! (well, maybe not such a bad idea... hmm) We can't go around accusing living persons of vandalism with no RS evidence. Diffs are not an acceptable source (even if it's known beyond any doubt who made the edit). —Random832 19:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, surely BLP applies to article content itself for all persons, editors or no. --Alecmconroy 19:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've incorporated a mention of BLP into my proposal. Paul August ☎ 19:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Abandoning NPOV in favor of protecting our editors would be a phyrric victory at best. Furthermore, we do not ask editors to stand in the line of fire - we, to date, have no conscripton process for editors. You can leave any time if you object to the danger that being a powerful figure on a top ten website puts you in.

Which is not to say that we ought offer no protection. But I see no reason to offer protection that goes against the ostensible point of the site. Phil Sandifer 20:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The proposal is still a little mealy-mouthed. Why not something like the following:

"Wikipedia's content policies, including BLP, apply to all living persons, Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians alike. No special protection from objectionable content or external links is extended to Wikipedians. Similarly, no exceptions to the BLP policy can be made to allow discussion of a Wikipedian's personal or professional life, unless the subject himself has disclosed the material onwiki, or it has been published by a reliable source. Nothing in this provision prohibits routine administrative discussion of the behavior of Wikipedia accounts, such as vandalism or other policy violations. Where discussion of alleged policy violation necessitates the disclosure of material about a Wikipedian's private life — for example, when evaluating a COI claim — the discussion should take place by e-mail."

SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I like, barring two nitpicks. 1) remove onwiki, just leave it at disclosed voluntarily. If Jane Smith sends us an email that she is the editor User:JaneSmith, or says so on her television program, or on her web page, we should be able to write that. 2) The last sentence about how to discuss is not really a basic principle, it's more of a remedy. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Re (1) I mentioned onwiki only because some people have gone searching through google to find that an editor did, indeed, disclose their ID somewhere, perhaps inadvertently. So I think we should stick to onwiki, just to avoid those loopholes. And (2) Yes, good point. Just trying to cover all objections. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. Aside from being twice as long as it should be, I dislike the mandating of using e-mail. Furthermore, I particularly dislike the complete turnaround from the original principle of Paul's, which is about NPOV, and this one, which is an attempt to create a principle after the fact under which Cyde can be censured. Phil Sandifer 21:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I very much like the mandating of using email. In fact, I cannot think how it could possibly be acceptable to post links to a site that outs someone when the evidence, if it merits investigation, could be privately emailed to the ArbCom. ElinorD (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Secret courts aren't going to be for everyone. People are going to comment, in good faith, on potentials COIs on-wiki. Fine to suggest they be more discreet, but some people are inevitable going to opt for transparency over discretion. Banning them for good-faith discussion would only aggravate the situations. --Alecmconroy 22:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Give me more credit, please. It has nothing to do with Cyde, which was about a sockpuppet allegation, and therefore not covered by my suggestion. Sockpuppetry has nothing to do with a person's private or professional life. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If this doesn't have to do with Cyde and his linking to antisocialmedia.net to explain the sockpuppetry allegation, what does it have to do with the case, exactly? I mean, wasn't the attempt to out you exactly what was wrong with asm.net, and thus Cyde's link to it? Phil Sandifer 21:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I like Slim's proposal. (I've taken the liberty of correcting a typo!) To Paul August, I left a comment for you here, when you asked why being an editor should make a difference. I'd also like to add that there is a type of harassment which only exists for Wikipedians (or for people who contribute anonymously to other websites). It's the type that results from trolls becoming interested in an anonymous editor because of what the editor is doing on Wikipedia, and starting to harass that person by posting speculation on their real name. If there's an article about the famous Joe Bloggs which covers a certain embarrassing but notable event in his life, well sourced to reliable publications, so that there's no BLP violation, but omitting it would violate NPOV, and Joe Bloggs doesn't like this information being in his article, it's not going to be deleted just because Joe Bloggs registers an account. But under no circumstances should we link to a site set up by someone that MONGO was in content dispute with, where this person has managed to get hold of MONGO's IP address, and has concluded that MONGO is Joe Bloggs, and posted his evidence. Registering the MONGO account did not give Joe Bloggs any more right to have that embarrassing scandal removed from his article about the day he kissed the vicar's wife. But because the MONGO = Joe Bloggs harassment is a type of harassment that is peculiar to Wikipedians, editors need and deserve a certain protection from it. ElinorD (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's proposal is a bit long, but good. It is important to recognize that blp applies to all living people. If anything, the policy requires more careful application to people who are relatively unknown. I also like Morven's phrasing. 'Each of us is as good as anyone' sounds less misanthropic more hopeful than 'none of us is any better than anyone else.' Could we have some discussion about "unreasonable and objectionable"? Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The first parts are fine, but you can't mandate the "behind closed doors in smoke filled rooms" evaluation of COI claims-- it's not gonna happen, Wikipedia just doesn't work that way. You can suggest that it would be preferable to conduct such investigations in private, but some people are going to insist on a public discussion, hearing the discussion for the whole community, rather than deferring that discussion to a private subgroup. If they're making knowingly-false bad faith allegations, fine, that's a problem. If they're acting in truly good faith, though, that will be allowed. --Alecmconroy 22:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a good principle to add would be something like "When concerned about the actions of another editor, consider whether it would be more appropriate to raise those concerns privately instead of publicly." This, I think, is the right level - sometimes private concerns are appropriate and even more appropriate. But not always. Phil Sandifer 22:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Then we are preferring Wikipedians over subjects of BLP articles, because very rarely (AFAIAA) do we discuss potential COI's by email - they usually get plastered over the talkpages and, OMIGOB, we employ WikiScanner to root out examples of same. Legitimate COI concerns requires transparency, and perhaps nonlegitimate ones more so - so that the victims are seen to be proven innocent. LessHeard vanU 22:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense - we have OTRS, where tons of COI and other BLP issues are quietly handled outside the view of Google. There is nothing wrong with dealing with an issue off-wiki as such. Problems can arise from refusing to deal with it on-wiki, but that is a separate issue. Phil Sandifer 13:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

(response to SV] Re; "All publishers try to protect their writers and researchers from backlash caused by their work. We must do the same." Ummm, no? Firstly, not all publishers do so - there are those who disclaim that the content is that of the authors, and bear no responsibility for the material. Secondly, even where there is an agreement between publisher and contributor actions in bad faith by the writer or researcher, or in contravention of law, resolves to the writer as well as the publisher. Thirdly, reaction personally against a writer (and researchers) for work is generally not covered by the contract between author and publisher (see Salman Rushdie/The Satanic Verses), but is a civil matter involving the police or other authorities. Lastly, this is a wiki - we do not own what we write here (officially we are not considered authors/researchers, and have no credit/byline for contributions) and we have no contract with Wikipedia and therefore Wikipedia has no obligation toward its contributors. It is the community, with the blessing and encouragement of its founder, that attempts to define how best the individuals within it are protected. The obligation to protect members of the community is moral rather than legal. LessHeard vanU 22:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It is the legal position of the Wikimedia Foundation that they are a service provider and not a publisher. All content at Wikipedia is owned (even if also GFDL licenced) and self-published by the contributor. WAS 4.250 22:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification regarding content, it appears that the Foundation therefore does not owe a duty of care for what it posted by its contributors. LessHeard vanU 13:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Besides the moral, there is a utilitarian consideration. We have the policies we do because they are necessary for the project. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This is actually the principle that this case is about. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and yes, we have a community, but it should NEVER trump the encyclopaedia. When a link is relevant to an article, we include it, even when it contains substantial negative information about a Wikipedia user. If we would not link to it purely because the site happens to contain content that harasses a Wikipedia editor, we would put the community above the encyclopaedia, and that's a fundamentally wrong thing to do. Editors have no special protection. Yes, we do protect editors from harassment on Wikipedia, we block editors who attempt to harass other people, we remove links that are intended to harass people, but we do NOT remove relevant links from the encyclopaedia to "protect" editors. Melsaran (talk) 13:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Mixing policies

Mixing together a policy dealing with extreme attack sites and ordinary content is not a good idea. What makes the attack site extreme is that it is engaging in a obsessive campaign to harass in order to intimidate or retaliate. Whether or not some of the content on the site is valid information per our NPOV or BLP policy is entirely beside the point. Forcing an editor to look at a site that is harassing them in order to defend themselves is part of the campaign of harassment. We should not force this on our editors. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

So, to be clear, you're saying NPOV shouldn't govern articles in which "extreme attack sites" would normally be discussed? --Alecmconroy 00:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, how many articles do we have on "extreme attack sites"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Several articles have linked to alleged attack sites-- see evidence. Alternatively, if you think that there hasn't been any case where NPOV required a discussion of attack sites, then that's proof we don't need any special "attack site policy"-- NPOV will cover it.

The question of this whole arbitration is-- must ALL articles be written from NPOV? Or only those articles which do involve the Wikipedia community. If I understand the above post, FloNight's opinion is that some articles don't need to conform to NPOV. --Alecmconroy 00:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

IMO, it is almost impossible for Wikipedia to write an well balanced article about a site devoted primarily to actively attacking our editors. Under these circumstances, it is best left to other news organizations that can fact check and write without bias. Wikipedia is going to be around for a long time. If the attack site is notable, sometime in the future we will be able to write an article that truly follow the NPOV policy. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Wuh??? That's a scary, scary statement-- in essence saying "Wikipedia doesn't work, and we should acknowledge that". I find it inconceivable that Wikipedia can neutrally cover Abortion and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but Overstock.com is going to bring us to our knees, because we can't write a balanced article on that topic? Treasonous! --Alecmconroy 01:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hear hear. Cla68 01:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. Would it be allowable to write an article about a notable attack site? That would seem to go against the proposed remedy of banning people for even referencing an "attack site," which you support. -Chunky Rice 00:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is one of the top 10 most visited and used websites in the world. It stands to reason that websites will come into existence that will be notable by being reported-on in major media sources (such as AntiSocialMedia.net which has been mentioned in the NYTimes) for sharp criticism of the project and some of its participants. To outlaw articles on these websites that meet the notability standard appears to go against what Wikipedia stands for and seems to send the wrong message. Cla68 00:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not merely sharp criticism, it is a campaign of harassment intended to intimidate and retaliate against our editors for enforcing our policy. As I have stated repeatedly in my votes, criticism is welcome, even if it is stated bluntly or in an unkind manner. But what we are dealing with here is different from criticism. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

So, is it your opinion that such a site, no matter how notable, should never have an article at Wikipedia? It could be the #1 most visited site on the internet, and we would pretend like it didn't exist? -Chunky Rice 01:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

We are dealing with the actual facts in this particular case. ArbCom does not write policy. We find solutions to situations that the community can not handle themselves. We explain our reason through principles based on our policies and community ethos and the particular facts in a case. Hypothetical questions are not helpful and are part of the problem, I think. The Committee is trying to send the message that the extraordinary factors found in this situation should not be expanded to cover ordinary practices. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason this case is before the committee is because the community couldn't come to an agreement, which means that you're de facto writing policy with your decision on this issue. Policy is meant to answer hypothetical situations, as well as situations already encountered. We're looking to you to give us guidance on the issue, because we couldn't do it ourselves. Some admins were deleting and threatening blocks for mentioning certain websites in article mainspace, and other editors were pointing out that the current policies didn't appear to support their actions. The policy you seem to be advocating is that there are certain websites whose content is so heinous that they can't even be mentioned on Wikipedia, not matter how well they fit the notability criteria. If that's your position, not only are you writing policy, but you're changing the entire charter and vision of what Wikipedia is about. If so, then I think that your position may be sending the wrong message.

News to some of you: Wikipedia is bigger than me and you. The project will continue to exist with or without each of us as individuals. The project is very powerful and some of the heat that it brings to us from other sources may be more than some of us can bear. Well, it can't be helped when we're engaged in something as powerful as we're engaged in here...a free encyclopedia with all the world's notable, verifiable, NPOV knowledge. Attempting to change our rules in an ultimately losing attempt to isolate a few individuals from attacks on their credibility and repuations will only harm the project's credibility in the long run, for it's the project and the knowledge that it contains that we serve, not each other. I hope you'll keep that in mind as you go about making your decisions in this matter. Cla68 11:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not arbcom makes policy is irrelevant. Arbcom decisions create precedent about how policy is applied. Wikipedia users look to Arbcom decisions for this information. That's why this case even exists in the first place, because of a prior Arbcom decisions regarding MONGO. Ignoring potential fallout from your decision doesn't stop it from existing and saying that hypothetical questions are "part of the problem" is just beyond the pale. -Chunky Rice 12:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but proposed remedy 3.3.2 - BAN seems to preclude, don't you think? -Chunky Rice 00:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Definition of linking

Several of the proposed remedies specifically mention "linking". What is the definition of linking, because this has come up with me before? Does linking only mean actually creating a clickable/executable link to the site in question? But just typing the websites name in the article isn't linking? If there is any confusion at all on this, then it should be explicitely defined so that there isn't any disputes over terminology and application in the future.

For example, if I understand the proposed decisions correctly, AntiSocialMedia.net can be mentioned by name in articles that address the subject in an NPOV way (such as in the Overstock.com and related articles), using credible and notable sources, but the site cannot be directly linked to anywhere in Wikipedia. Do I understand this correctly? Cla68 00:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say so. Linking means creating a link, which is generally clickable. I don't think anyone wants to forbid mentioning sites by name, at least if they do I've missed that. ←Ben^B4 05:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Many of the proposed remedies specifically mention linking or referencing. -Chunky Rice 05:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you looking at an old version of the page? I don't see that. ←Ben^B4 07:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No, current.

• Proposed remedy #1: Links to the attack site and references to it may be removed by any user.
• Proposed remedy #2: Any user who creates links to the attack site or references it....
• Proposed remedy #3: The community is instructed to develop a workable policy regarding the circumstances, if any, under which "attack sites" may be linked or referenced.

-Chunky Rice 12:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored for children or Muslims in terms of words or images, but is to be censored when it comes to the words "Wikipedia Review"? WAS 4.250 15:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between upsetting someone and violating their privacy or smearing their reputation. Several of these sites expose our volunteers to real world harassment. That's actual harm.Proabivouac 00:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yet, we link to the Westboro Baptist Church and are allowed to say it's name out loud and their main activity is harass people in the real world. What's the difference, other than it's somebody else? -Chunky Rice 01:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct. The mode of harassment is somewhat different - picketing funerals, and attacking the dead - but we should not be linking to this vile site. I am not clear that NPOV requires us to link to a subjects' own site, and have come to seriously question the validity of this practice for a number of reasons - another is that it encourages the creation of articles as vehicles for self or commercial promotion.

I shall remove this link.Proabivouac 04:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to be as bold as I'd usually be: there is a special note hidden in the text not to remove the link, and a reference to Wikipedia:External links. I've weighed in on the talk page of the guideline. Perhaps you or anyone else participating here will join me.Proabivouac 05:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Where'd Newyorkbrad's Proposal go?

Hey-- where'd Newyorkbrad's proposed go? last I saw, it was in the proposed decision, but it seems to have been removed.[29] Is it intentional? Is it coming back? --Alecmconroy 01:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If Newyorkbrad's proposal is gone for good, and I'm afraid it is, then BADSITES will pass. Newyorkbrad's proposal was wiped out by Charles Matthews per "offline discussion." [30] Gotta love those offline discussions. BADSITES will be renamed MALICIOUSSITES (not an improvement, as I pointed out above) in proposed principle #15. This principle gives editors free rein to rip out any and all links to sites they deem "attack sites", again defined very loosely as any site with a "substantial" (undefined) amount of "cyber-stalking" (undefined). This proposal now has five arbs in favor and will probably soon pass.

Newyorkbrad's far better proposal made the crucial distinction between attack sites and attack pages, and only banned links to the pages themselves. This was far too sensible to pass and has now been deep-sixed. Newyorkbrad also made an explicit exception for isolated cases of "attacks" on a particular site, which was again too sensible to pass ArbCom. The BADSITES people are on the verge of winning. We will see many more campaigns to rip out every link to any site that criticizes a wikipedia editor. Oh well, I give up. I'm returning to exo mode, which I prefer anyway. I just hope that not too many of my links will get wiped out under BADSITES/MALICIOUSSITES. Casey Abell 13:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

jesus the most sensible proposals I have seen in any arbitration case and they disappear due to "offline discussion" without explanation... Does an arb want to step in here and enlighten the rest of us? Viridae^Talk 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason given was that NewYorkBrad's proposal was "legislation", in other words, a rewriting of policy. The Arbitration Committee does not write policy. Fred Bauder 13:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Then Brad should head straightaway over to WP:NPA and WP:BADSITES and get busy. Thatcher131 13:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

As noted below, for now I have posted them to Wikipedia talk:Linking to external harassment#Newyorkbrad's proposal from the ArbCom case for discussion, which I think is maybe the most logical place, but someone please let me know if I am wrong. Newyorkbrad 22:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

And this isnt? Viridae^Talk 14:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Response and quick summary of the issues as I see them

I'd welcome use of my thoughts from the other day as a basis for policy discussion. As I posted higher on this page, I was never sure whether they might better be addressed in that forum. There appears to be increased movement toward consensus on at least some of the ideas that I tried to crystallize, so perhaps progress could be achieved. Given that fact, and the fact that no remedies against specific users for past conduct in this area seem likely to be adopted, I still think it might make sense to put this case on hold for a little while in the hope that the policy discussion within the community could advance.

Based on the discussion on this page, and the votes of the arbitrators who did have an opportunity to comment on my proposals before they were removed, here's where I think the current state of play is, in rough terms:

• General agreement (not unanimous, but probably enough for consensus) that there should be no links directly to attack/outing/harassment pages, with some reasonable definition of what that term means;
• General agreement (same caveat) that where a site contains only an isolated dispute with a wikipedian, links to other pages in the site need not be removed;
• I have not seen any disagreement as yet with my suggestion (I think this was the novel element of my proposal) that where a site contains attack/outing pages (beyond the isolated dispute situation), links to other pages within that site should be disfavored, but not prohibited outright; the test I proposed was whether the site contains information material to an article or discussion and no other source for the same information could reasonably be substituted; this is new ground that should be discussed;
• There is still disagreement on whether there remain a relatively small handful of sites so problematic that no links to them should be permitted at all. Newyorkbrad 14:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

As always, Brad is sensible and restrained. But MALICIOUSSITES, principle #15, is the only thing in this decision that will matter. A site with criticism of a Wikipedia editor will be branded as an "attack site" with a "substantial" amount of "cyber-stalking" and editors will tear out every link to the entire site, citing MALICIOUSSITES. They would have cited MALICIOUSSITES in the Michael Moore, Theresa Hayden and Don Murphy cases, if principle #15 had then existed.

I disagree with Brad that the link-destroyers will make any attempt to distinguish between the actual attack pages and the entire site, or make any exceptions for isolated criticism of a WP editor on a site. Brad's very sensible proposals made those very sensible distinctions, and they have now been wiped out, which will encourage the BADSITES/MALICIOUSSITES forces even more. Sorry, Brad, but your wisdom and common sense is in all too short supply in this case. Casey Abell 14:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Surely there have been instances when a website was delinked when it may have best if it wasn't, but the few I know of in which this happened, we are talking about a very temporary event since discussions ensued and the links were restored. No matter what arbcom decides here, there is still going to be those who find some websites to be attacking and others to not be and there will be disagreements.--MONGO 16:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the main source of disagreement isn't whether or not a site is "attacking" or not, but rather whether or not that's a relevant criterion for judging the appropriateness of content (external links or references to the site). -Chunky Rice 16:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal copied to a policy talkpage for discussion

Per suggestions, I have copied my earlier proposals, and my summary understanding of the present state of consensus, to Wikipedia talk:Linking to external harassment#Newyorkbrad's proposal from the ArbCom case in case it would be of help in the ongoing policy discussion. Comments most welcome there. Newyorkbrad 22:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Tarbaby

Any chance we could name this part of the ruling something that isn't generally considered to be an offensive stereotype? Phil Sandifer 17:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Phil Sandifer 20:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Scary, scary, scary

So, let's have a run-down of what this case has seen:

• One arbiter has proposed an unrequested desysopping of an admin who wasn't even a party to this case. Has proposed redirecting our enemies biography pages to Clown. Has justified his actions in the case by saying "Don't be a chickenshit", even going so far to create an essay with that title. Multiple calls for his recusal have gone unanswered.
• Another arbiter, through his actions and a reasonable paraphrase of his words, that NPOV shouldn't apply to some articles. Says Flonight: "Whether or not some of the content on the site is valid information per our NPOV or BLP policy is entirely beside the point." He continues "it is almost impossible for Wikipedia to write an well balanced article about a site devoted primarily to actively attacking our editors. If the attack site is notable, sometime in the future we will be able to write an article that truly follow the NPOV policy."
• NewYorkBrad, like a voice crying out in the wilderness, speaks up and puts to words a summary of the consensus that seems to exist. The proposal meets widespread support, and it is incorporated into the proposed decision. There, it receives support from both Fred and Kirill.
• Despite its widespread support, the NYB consensus proposal is deleted from the proposed decision on the grounds that "Arbcom does not propose policy". Fine, but:
• The far more contentious policy proposal MALICIOUSSITES is left intact, and looks as if it's about to pass.

I don't mean to always be so shrill and intense-- I've been accused, not unjustly, of being a "chicken little" in this case, perpetually shouting that "the sky is falling". But, doesn't it seem like we're faced with throwing away our most precious foundation issues, like NPOV, just to spite some loser trolls? No matter what side your on, doesn't this case seem like it's a fundamental debate about what kind of a project we want to be?

I hope:

• MALICIOUSSITES will not pass, or will be withdrawn on the grounds that Arbcom does not make policy.
• That the policy will be remanded to the community.
• That Arbcom will pass, at a minimum, principle (F) "A reasonable policy formulated by the community in connection with this issue will be deemed to supersede any previous Arbitration Committee decision on the subject."

--Alecmconroy 21:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Which is why the clique will win this time, after the question has been unanswered for so long. Shame on you for thinking it could be otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.112.140 (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe in "the clique", the illuminati, the cabal, or the Pentaverate. I think the reason that this case has been so problematic is that emotions are running very high for some of our editors/arbiters. It's sort of similar to how Germany can, on the one hand, respect the universal right to freedom of speech, but then turn around and make holocaust denial a crime. It needs no secret conspiracy or assumption of bad faith to explain-- it's just the age old tendency for people to be blinded to what is "Really Important" when emotions are running high. --Alecmconroy 23:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you proposing that "Wikipedia should link to websites set up for the purpose of harassing its volunteers"? If a website were established for the purpose spreading nasty gossip about Alecmconroy, should we link to it? If so, why? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

What if the website that had gossip about Alecmconroy was talked about in several major publications, such as the NYTimes, and had a significant amount of traffic, thereby meeting our notability standards. Are you saying that we can have articles about any notable subject except one that contains gossip about a Wikipedia participant? Cla68 00:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Because one person's harrassment is another person's legitimate criticism? Because intelligent adults ought to be able to read all the facts and make up their own mind what's relevant and valid instead of having a censorship board decide for them? Because the freedom of all shouldn't be sacrificed to the subjective bad feelings of one? *Dan T.* 00:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

If Wikipedia's new charter is, "We are a free encyclopedia, open to all and for all the world, containing all the world's knowledge, except for websites that offend a few of us Wikipedia editors" then Wikipedia becomes a farce. Cla68 00:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia must definitely not aim to contain "all the world's knowledge," even less than the New York Times should contain "all the news." A site which aimed to do so would be a menace to the public.Proabivouac 00:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You are being sarcastic aren't you? Anyway, it should read, "all the world's verifiable, neutrally-written, knowledge. Wikipedia isn't a social networking site or role-playing game for us dedicated participants. It exists for its own sake, outside of us as individuals. That's one reason why it's wrong for us to change its basic premise in a futile and misguided attempt to "protect" some of our participants, who won't really be protected at all, because the sites in question will still exist, whether we acknowledge them or not. Cla68 00:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not being sarcastic. All the worlds' knowledge - even verifiable, neutrally-written knowledge - would violate people's privacy, at least.

You're right that it's not supposed to be an RPG, but most (though certainly not all) of these attacks on editors are components of ongoing flame wars which began on Wikipedia itself, and are being escalated to character assassination and violations of privacy. I'm a more sympathetic to bio subjects such as Don Murphy - after all, we started it - but the solution here is for us to stop provoking others, not to aid them in taking revenge against our editors.Proabivouac 01:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Kelly Martin said it better than me and in fewer words- "Nothing is supposed to come ahead of content." [31] Cla68 02:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This discussion is about what content Wikipedia should publish. I'm sure you'd likewise agree that more content does not necessarily equal better content.

There are very many things we shouldn't be publishing due to its unscholarly otherwise low quality nature: this material persists because there does not exist a constituency to remove it. Here is a case where such a constituency exists because, besides being of low quality (by scholarly, not blog, standards,) the sites attack Wikipedia editors.

If content is compelling - say, a criticism of Wikipedia editors which appears in mainstream news publication (e.g. the Essjay fiasco) or a peer-reviewed journal - then a link is fine.

The weakness of this argument is rhetorical - it's obvious that the only reason it's being made is because editors have a conflict of interest related to what's said about them on other sites. Other cruft, we're aware, exists. However, this is more properly viewed as yet another reason to delete: not only is it cruft, but it makes life miserable for our volunteers. There's nothing suspect or nefarious about not wishing to be attacked.Proabivouac 05:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you'll get an argument from anyone about deleting links for other content reasons. The only dispute comes up is-- what do we do when the content policies say we should INCLUDE the link. That's the dilemma. --Alecmconroy 05:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

"If a website were established for the purpose spreading nasty gossip about Alecmconroy"?? If NPOV requires it, yes yes a THOUSAND TIMES yes.

The only substantial question for this arbitration is: "What do you do when NPOV requires a link to an attack site?" The only three responses I've heard are:

1. NPOV is king. NPOV is a foundation issue, it is not up for debate. So we should keep the link.
2. Community is king. Community-related policies like NPA are more important to our project than NPOV. In some extreme cases, it may simply not be realistic to expect us to force our editors to have to comply with NPOV. Our editors are good people who have been subjected to very bad treatment, and we should defend them. If that means we occasionally fudge around NPOV in a few extreme cases, well, that's a justifiable price we should pay in order to maintain a strong community. So we should delete links, references, and mentions to sites that attack us.
3. Fantasyland. NPOV and BADSITES could never, EVER be in conflict, not even in theory. They've never been in conflict in the past, they will never be in conflict in the future. If it is a bad site, it's automatically deletable because it's unreliable. Or because it's non-notable. Or because of some other reason I'll make up later. But trust me, it is an article of faith that NPOV could never require a link to a BADSITE, so... you shouldn't even be worrying about that. Also, never mind those cases in the past where a notable BADSITE was temporarily removed, but was restored later when consensus concluded that NPOV required the link. Also, those weren't bonafide BADSITES, those were just unfortunate cases of mistaken identification. Also, those kinds of mistaken identifications will never ever happen again in the future either. Also, why are we even having this discussion anyway?

--Alecmconroy 00:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have yet to see a good example of NPOV requiring that we link to any site. The lcosest I've seen is the assertion that not linking to some sites while linking to others skews the pOV, but I don't see the logic of that. Links are not content. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

In that case, that puts you in camp #3. The only thing is-- if NPOV never conflicts with BADSITES, why not just say NPOV concerns will always override NPA/BADSITES. If you're right, it would never actually come up, and such a statement would make the rest of us sleep a lot better. --Alecmconroy 02:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Problems with logic, abstraction and clarity......

I think the case is suffering from problems with good faith problems of logic, abstraction and clarity. Basically the arb.s seem to be finding aspects quite tricky.

Re:Michael Moore, it's quite clear to me that we should never have removed his official site from his article page, could the arb.s confirm that this should never have occurred?

If a powerful leftwing celebrity attacks a rightwing Wikipedia editor on his website, his supporters on Wikipedia should be able, as a practical matter, to prevent removal of links to his site. (That wasn't what you wanted, though, was it). Fred Bauder 00:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think what were were hoping for is a sense that you and the others who supported the removal recognize the community consensus that you were in error, and a promise that you won't cause such disruptions when identical situations present themselves in the future. If you guys know that, we can leave it at that-- nobody's trying to be vindictive here. But if you don't recognize it, and if ya'll are promising to do the same thing again in the future, only next time you'll try even harder--- then it seems like it might be appropriate to expand this arbcom to try to get some specific warning in order to prevent such disruptions in the future. --Alecmconroy 02:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The current Malicious Sites proposal seems to leave the door open for a repeat offense in similar circumstances.

Privatemusings 21:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Michael Moore was a notable site that was involved in an isolated incident of criticism. It would certainly be unreasonable to ask the those editors who removed it to be desysopped or blocked. I think it would be even unreasonable to even issue a "warning" to those editors, because they were certainly acting in good faith. But it does seem like it would be appropriate to, while noting their good faith, gently ask those editors to try to "learn from" that experience so as to prevent such disruptions in the future. --Alecmconroy 23:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

But what did we learn? All I learned was that sometimes the bad guys win. Fred Bauder 00:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

What I would have hoped you would have learned was that "Community consensus does not support purging links to notable sources simply because they engaged in limited, isolated cases of criticism of Wikipedia editors". What I hope you would learn is that "Edit wars are disrupting" and when such cases occur in the future, you should use the talk page to achieve consensus, rather than edit warring against consensus.

This is precisely why we need such a finding. At present, all you have learned is that "Michael Moore and /or the community that supported linking to him are 'bad guys'", and that "edit warring against consensus in order to 'fight the bad guys' will sometimes not succeed, and all you can do is try harder next time". These are not the correct messages to take home, which is why we need to help you learn a different message now, rather than waiting until the problem behavior grows to the point that warnings and blocks are necessary.

Not just against anyone personally, but against anyone who has failed to learn that deleting links to notable individuals because of isolated criticism isn't endorsed by policy or consensus. Absent clarification from the community and arbcom that such behavior is undesirable, this problem will just worsen. --Alecmconroy 01:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

"There ain't no good guys, there ain't no bad guys; There's only you and me and we just disagree" -- Pop song performed by Dave Mason in 1977 *Dan T.* 01:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

A sense of perspective, please

I know that emotions run high on these issues. They are complicated issues, and much community effort has been made and will continue to be made to try to address them. But I do think that a sense of perspective needs to be retained at this point. Only a limited number of sites and links are at issue here. Although consensus on all points has not been achieved, consensus is growing that links to legitimate sites that are reliable sources for a particular purpose should not be deleted because of an isolated dispute with an editor, whereas links to the very most problematic sites should be disfavored. The extreme proposals on both ends of the spectrum being largely out of favor.

Further discussion of these matters should and I am sure will continue. However, at this point I don't believe that any version of the policy that has a genuine chance of being adopted at this point (either through principles established in the proposed arbitration decision or through community discussion on the policy pages) poses a serious threat to our editors or to fundamental foundation and editorial principles. Newyorkbrad 00:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I wish I had your confidence. MALICIOUSSITES takes as its starting position MONGO-- which defined outing sites as attacksites, which are unlinkable. Then it adds even more criteria that could also qualify a site to be labelled as an attacksite. Then it reiterates that even having SOME content that meets those criteria will still qualify the whole site as attack site, even if that doesn't seem to be the intention of the entire site.

If that passes, surely that will become the new default policy. Why should the anti-linking crowd support a new policy that reflects true consensus when they have a more strongly-worded "default policy" that goes beyond what is support by consensus? They'll just quote that decision, objecting to other policies as "not representing consensus" and "not being consistent with Arbcom precedents".

It'd be nice to have confidence that everyone will rally to support a fairer consensus, but when people won't even admit the tenets of NPOV should be followed if they conflict with the MONGOCASE, I can't believe that a consensus policy proposal will be followed if it should conflict with MALICIOUSSITES. --Alecmconroy 01:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

As I've noted above and on the policy page, the question of whether there exists a relatively small number of sites that contain such a substantial amount of problematic material that no page of the site should be linked from Wikipedia is one of the policy issues on which consensus does not currently exist. Principled positions exist on both sides of this issue which I am sure will continue to receive attention. What the recent discussions have made clear is that the types of sites in this category, if it is to exist at all, are to be construed very narrowly.

The types of conduct described in the "malicious sites" proposal are extremely serious. They are the types of conduct most calculated to have serious off-wiki, real-world repercussions for our editors. Sites that would routinely engage in these practices are, as I said in an observation in my earlier proposal (B) that no one has disagreed with to my knowledge, generally unlikely to constitute reliable sources for article content in any event. Even if links to these few sites are disallowed, the impact on our two million articles and growing should be marginal at most.

The last ArbCom case that was surrounded by as much sturm and drang as this one was decided about three months ago (see generally, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff). In that case, the arbitrators interpreted the biographies of living persons policy broadly and emphasized that it is proper in making editorial decisions to recognize that Wikipedia articles can affect the lives of human beings who are their subjects. There were many, many predictions at the time that the integrity of our encyclopedia had been forever compromised and that the sky would fall. Instead, though, the consensus that crystallized around that interpretation of BLP has been taken into account over the past few months and there have been few, if any, further incidents of the "BLP wars" that had taken place in the months leading up to that decision. (In that light, my recommendation that the arbitrators should decline that case because it was unlikely to accomplish very much proved faulty.) The impact of cutting back on a few articles, whose damaging effect on living individuals outweighed their encyclopedic importance, has proved to be small. Perhaps I am too much the optimist, but I think the same will be true here. Newyorkbrad 01:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully you're right. You should be a better judge of these trends than me-- I'm just an wanderer who stumbles into the minefields of Wikipedia politics only occasionally.

I guess I'm just jaded by past experiences. In 2006, people tried to reassure that the ED case was only about ED-- it could never be applied to actual NOTABLE site. At the time, I said "And if we admit ED as the first domain name which 'you are never allowed to link to', I 100% guarantee, people won't want it to end there." And time has proved me right, unfortunately. Now, looming at the fringes, we have an influential arbiter saying that even mentioning the NAME of such sites could be ban-worthy. Let us all hope that your intelligent predictions of where this will go prove to be more accurate than my fears of where this could go.--Alecmconroy 02:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Why I think this matters.

I support Newyorkbrad's call for calm - he's actually responsible for most of the progress on this issue, and I feel we all owe him some gratitude. That said, following the post above I thought I'd elucidate why I disagree that this isn't extremely important.

I believe Wikipedia to be in adolescence. Following our remarkable growth spurt, over the next 18months or so our role and reputation in the real world will solidify into the 'full grown' Wikipedia. This is not yet written.

I believe that at this delicate stage, the combination of refusing someone like Don Murphy to have his article deleted, whilst simultaneously disallowing a link to his homepage to be dangerous. More absurd is the thought that we would ever disallow a link to Michael Moore's homepage from his article, no matter what is posted there. You see, that's the reaction of an organisation defending itself, and the moment wikipedia as a whole sees the need to defend itself, it is no longer neutral, it ceases to be an encylcopedia.

There is consensus that the Essjay controversy harmed wikipedia. We should learn from the fact that we had several months to fix that particular problem ourselves, and failed, with the damage only caused after the New Yorker became involved. So far this issue has affected a Sci-Fi author, movie producer and high profile 'documentary' maker - let's fix this one properly, and quickly (policy proposal here). Privatemusings 06:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Calm is good. Everyone needs to keep focussed on getting the best possible resolution possible, whatever stage we are currently at. LessHeard vanU 12:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC) (and I mean everybody, not just those currently dissatisfied with the present situation.)

Wording of remedy 3

With regard to remedy 3/3.1/3.2, "Policy Matter Remanded to the Community", as to which Charles Matthews has questioned the wording of 3.2, a more neutral or slightly broader wording might be something like "The community is encouraged to discuss and adopt a policy addressing the issue of disputed links to external sites like the ones discussed in this case." Newyorkbrad 12:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

And come to think of it, I'd suggest avoiding the word "remanded," which typically refers to an instruction given by a superior court or body to an inferior one. Newyorkbrad 12:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've offered remedy 3.3 to address Newyorkbrad's suggestions. Paul August ☎ 17:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal example

Why do I let myself get sucked back into this case? All right, I'm about to violate principle #15, MALICIOUSSITES. I'm going to link to an "attack site." Those who are shocked by such things may avert their eyes.

In this thread [32] one of the awful people (just kidding, this user is very competent and reasonable, and I've argued for restoring the user's editing privileges on Wikipedia) on the awful site criticized my editing of a Wikipedia article. Now the criticism is extremely mild and arguably correct. But let's say I was thin-skinned enough to see it as "cyber-stalking" of me and my WP edits. And let's say that this criticism, instead of appearing on the awful site, showed up on another site. And let's say I invoked MALICIOUSSITES and started ripping out every link on Wikipedia to that other site that I could find.

My guess is that after much hoohah my link-destruction spree would be reversed. But why should we encourage such hoohah in the first place? Why write a policy like MALICIOUSSITES, with its condemnation of undefined "substantial" "cyber-stalking"? Why create a new toy for the thin-skinned to disrupt Wikipedia with?

I'm happy to see that two arbs have now voted against MALICIOUSSITES. Other people may be worried about the disruption such a poorly worded policy – and ArbCom is creating policy here – may cause.

And by the way, I just showed how a link to an "attack site" may be valuable and necessary. Casey Abell 14:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Three arbs have now voted against! There's hope! Well, maybe...the new oppose voter expresses agreement with the principle but doesn't like the "attack site" phrase. Sorry, but the idea of an "attack site" is the key component of the principle. Under MALICIOUSSITES anybody on WP can declare a site an "attack site" if they think they're being "cyber-stalked" (undefined) by its criticism. Casey Abell 15:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Still far too close to majority for comfort. It's interesting-- normally a proposed policy with only 51% support would be rejected as having failed to achieve consensus. But an arbcom "policy" could still pass with 51% despite the lack of consensus. --Alecmconroy 15:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Is that true? I thought every proposal needed a supermajority in support to pass and not just a majority. Not sure though, we'll have to ask the clerks. Melsaran (talk) 15:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

A proposal requires a majority of all the arbitrators active on the case in order to pass. (In calculating the majority, an active arbitrator counts if he or she hasn't voted on a particular item, but not if he or she abstains.) At present, there are 11 active arbitrators for this case, so the majority is 6. A list of the active arbitrators is at the top of this talkpage. Newyorkbrad 15:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think there's hope that MALICIOUSSITES won't become arbcom-imposed policy... I hope an arbitrator, maybe Kirill or James, may reconsider. A better-worded proposal may e useful, but this is currently way too vague and has a high potential for abuse. Melsaran (talk) 15:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, principle wouldn't be too bad if it didn't justify deletions based on attacks. There are plenty of reasons we probably won't want to link to site set up just to harass us. The two most important are Reliability and Notability. If we saw a proposal that pointed out sites that are set up just for the purpose of harassing ANYONE are unlikely to be reliable sources, and therefore we should be cautious about linking to them, I think everyone would support that as a good rule-of-thumb that might have exceptions, but usually is true. But the justification for removal is essential to get right.

When somebody forcefully criticizes you, it almost always feels like harassment-- and the deluge of people who feel harassed will be unending. --Alecmconroy 15:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting that my link to Wikipedia Review has survived so far. I was honestly worried that somebody would yank it immediately. Which of course is the entire point of this case. The link is entirely unobjectionable, and is in fact quite valuable as an example. If we adopted a link-by-link policy on removing "personal attacks", then we wouldn't have to worry about criticism of an editor resulting in a disruptive purge of links to an entire site. Even Wikipedia Review can be useful and unobjectionable as a source for some purposes. Casey Abell 15:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed principle 40, NPA

This sums up my opinion on this case to a tee. Of course, that means that it'll probably get buried under opposes shortly. -Chunky Rice 18:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes thats what I have been saying from the start. Viridae^Talk 21:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually a little shocked that Fred supported it. It seems inconsistent with other principles/remedies that he's supported.-Chunky Rice 21:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

We probably understand it differently, but as I understand it, it is nothing new. Just an affirmation of existing policy. You can talk very aggressively about content, but once you start attacking the other editor, you've crossed the line. Fred Bauder 00:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

But what if the content itself (otherwise valid) "attacks" an editor? That, to me, is the crux of this issue. Throughout the entire case, you've been saying that such content is unacceptable, but your support for this proposed principle seems to run counter to that.-Chunky Rice 00:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You're putting words in my mouth, as many on this page have. The harassment problem this case addresses is repeated assertions in public forums of allegations which have previously been addressed. For example, one claim is that Matamoreland uses sockpuppets. Well, he did, when he first started editing two years ago. And he got caught, was warned, AND QUIT USING SOCKPUPPETS. But that did not satisfy Wordbomb and still does not. He advances speculation about this user and that user being socks of SlimVirgin or Mantanmoreland, but when you check it out, nothing there. But he does not quit, he comes up with more which don't check out either. That's the problem, not legitimate criticism. Real information about the wrongdoings of another user, especially an administrator, are welcome. (Well, not welcome, but a good thing). Fred Bauder 12:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought that behind this whole Cyde thing was that one of his allegations about someone being a sock of SlimVirgin did check out, and "We" don't approve of people trying to verify such allegations because even if true, looking into it "advances his agenda" (I should just make a bunch of sockpuppets, and get them listed on an attack site, and then anyone who tries to do anything about is "advancing the agenda" of that site. But that would be disruptive, so I won't. Probably shouldn't have even mentioned it, but it's not like it wasn't obvious anyway.) We shouldn't let the terrorist...um...attack-site-orists win by letting them dictate our actions, either directly OR by reverse psychology. This is perhaps even more dangerous to wikipedia as a whole than abrogating NPOV. —Random832 15:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I don’t think that motion is inconsistent with Fred’s other comments or votes. That principle says that NPA isn’t applicable to content. Fred seems to believe that something is applicable to content in this context, but there’s no reason to suppose that the something is NPA. The MONGO decision wasn't based on NPA either as far as I can tell. I think the ideas, whatever we call them, that inspired that decision are the basis for Fred's thinking in this as well. 87.254.83.132 10:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Its based on harassment. MONGO opposed putting phony information into Wikipedia, especially about 9/11 and certain folks attacked him rather than addressing the content issue. Fred Bauder 12:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Principle 7.2 is a bad idea

If I can't remove an attack site that attacks me personally, then all someone has to do to keep the link to their attack site from being removed is simply expand the attack to include everyone who tries to remove it. --B 21:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that the proposed principle directly contradicts a principle from the MONGO decision, where the arbitrators unanimously stated that "Any user, including an administrator using administrative powers, may remove or otherwise defeat attempts at harassment of a user. This includes harassment directed at the user themselves."

But even if the new principle were adopted, I am sure it would be interpreted to contain an implied exemption for the situation you described—analogous to the real-world principle that a judge should recuse himself or herself from deciding a case if he or she is named as a defendant in the case ... but you can't force a change of the judge assigned to your case for suing him because you don't like his or her rulings once the case has started. Newyorkbrad 21:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

In which case WP:IAR comes into play. We go with the spirit of the rules, not the legalistic letter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShaleZero (talk • contribs) 21:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

But if that principle isn't what the arbiters mean, it isn't what they should pass. Anyone can and should remove a personal attack/harassment/attack page and to restrict someone being harassed from removing it is shooting ourselves in the foot. --B 22:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Only if you regard it as a completely intolerable situation to ever be stuck, even temporarily, with a link to a site you dislike; others think that the intolerable situation is to restrict freedom of information with site link bans, so your view isn't a unanimous one. At any rate, the principle seems sound that one should seek out an uninvolved, objective, dispassionate party to decide if something is truly the sort of harrassment that should be suppressed. If the harrasser tries to game the system by harrassing the formerly uninvolved party, then as somebody else stated above one wouldn't need to mindlessly invoke the rule to suddenly declare that person an involved party too and restrict him from taking further action, so long as the second party doesn't show signs of taking the matter too personally and emotionally. *Dan T.* 23:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

"I like ice cream." That is a personal preference. "Murder is wrong." That expresses a moral value. It is important not to confuse the two. We're not talking about a "a site [I] dislike" (a personal preference). We're talking about sites that actively engage in harassment of our editors and where linking to them inherently causes harm. --B 23:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

7.2 is a logical consequence of our policy on Conflicts of Interests. If you feel harassed, you should present you case that the link should be removed, but it should be up to others, who aren't involved, to actually make that call. If your complaint is sincere and has merit, you'll easily find supporters to help you. However, it is important that you take that step to actually let uninvolved others actually make that decision-- thus avoiding even the appearance of impropriety.

It's fine to make a case for a link to be removed-- but you can't expect us to let one user be the prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner. If you went to court and found that the person you were in a disagreement with was ALSO going to be judging the case, you'd find it hard to believe that justice will really be served. --Alecmconroy 23:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

"Justice" for the external link?Proabivouac 00:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Justice for the editors who believe in good faith that the link contributes to a valid purpose? *Dan T.* 20:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It has been seen countless times, that when someone removes something liek a personal attack on themselves when they are in a dispute with another person it inflames the situation further. You should ALWAYS seek out someone else to give a second opinion and remove it if necessary, just like admins should never perform an amin actipon when they are involved in the situation. Viridae^Talk 00:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Tying people up in what amounts to paperwork is not a good idea. However, I have been able to reliably depend on others myself, so am able to simply ignore attacks. Fred Bauder 00:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes but you are a longtime user and a member of the arbitration committee. Newer members get less support and may be more likely to scram when attacked. I don't think it is a good idea to have this limitation.--Samiharris 14:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Its not paperwork, its an effort to not pour fuel on the fire. Viridae^Talk 05:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The metaphorical fire is, in this instance, not a natural and inevitable phenomenon, but the conscious choice of other users to challenge the removal of the link.Proabivouac 06:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

There has been over-eagerness on both the parts of link inclusionists and link deletionists just as there has been among inclusionists and deletionists in general. The solution is careful caring thoughtful case by case behavior. WAS 4.250 06:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

But paper can be very useful for starting fires! (We didn't start the fire; it was always burning since the world's been turning!) *Dan T.* 20:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"I like ice cream." That is a personal preference. "Murder is wrong." That expresses a moral value. "John Doe is a murderer." That (absent a ruling of a court of law) expresses, at best, an opinion. —Random832 19:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

There's one way it would not be an opinion, and that's why it is of utmost importance to kill the witnesses. And failing that, at least forbid links to their websites. D'oh! -- 146.115.58.152 20:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Links to ASM

"'1.1) Links to AntiSocialMedia.net may be removed by any uninvolved user."

We learned form the MONGO case that this means:

ALL links to ASM MUST be purged, ASM will be added to the blacklist, and users who add any links will be threatened with a ban, regardless of how notable ASM should be (or become), regardless of consensus.

Deleting content from our articles requires a scalpel-- not a bazooka. An Arbcom policy should not be able to override consensus if an editorial consensus supported a link. --Alecmconroy 17:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

One should note that The New York Times linked to ASM when it was relevant to a controversy they were covering. But I guess we're so much more mature, sophisticated, and tasteful in our editorial judgment than they are. *Dan T.* 17:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The New York Times gets to set its content policies as we do ours. Apples/oranges.--Fjse44 06:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, it's not nearly so arbitrary. There's the way ethical, responsible journalists do things, and there's the way amateur bloggers do things. There's the way that preserves our objectivity and our integrity-- where we don't set content policies in order to bully our critics. Or there's the path that leads us towards disrepute. --Alecmconroy 06:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Removing a link isn't bullying anyone. If there are situations where we're beating up on someone - and there certainly are - the solution is to stop doing it, not to provide BLP victims the opportunity to retaliate against our volunteers.Proabivouac 08:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, I would "suggest that speculation of the consequences of decisions yet to be finalised is" important in helping to decide the exact wording and voting on those decisions when that speculation is based on past consequences of similar decisions as is the case here. It is to be preferred to not make the same mistake twice. Learning from a prior mistake is useful. WAS 4.250 04:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

What does this accomplish? Anyone can still just cut and paste the content they were otherwise going to link to, right? So, all this does is obscure the source of any future revelations of alleged misbehavior coming from the owner of that website. Cui bono? -- 146.115.58.152 09:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a copyright violation. Copyright violations are to be immediately deleted without regard for 3RR. Catch-22? WAS 4.250 09:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

His allegations tend to be logs cut and paste from wikipedia or wikipedia diffs to begin with, so not a lot of creativity would be required to avoid copyvio. I've only seen parts of the site as it stands today though. I certainly don't know the whole history here or how links to this website have to used to harass editors in the past. I don't see much there you couldn't find on an any onsite RFC. -- 146.115.58.152 10:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The NYT links considered further

One should look at the NYT article mentioned above, because of the way in which it links. What has happened is that in web-publishing the material, all the website mentions have been transformed into hot links. It's obviously rather mechanical, because in some instances they have referred/quoted subpages within the site in question, yet they have simply linked directly to the front page. It's simply a convenience issue for them.

If we name ASM.net, we've given enough information for anyone to know (a) that it contains attacks, and (b) how to get there. There doesn't seem to be much impetus her to link to it as a cited source, but on the other hand, it seems hard to justify not at least naming it. In doing so, the link is created, even if it isn't hot. We can hardly rely on our users being so computer-iiliterate that they cannot copy the link into a browser. We really cannot even rely on them being so incurious as to skip looking in the citation, where the site is named. Mangoe 19:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. If you list the domain name, how can you not hot-link it, but still be neutral? An unlinked domain name screams that Wikipedia is going to treat ASM differently. And what does that violation of NPOV even buy us? It will not restore anonymity to those who have been outed. It will not punish ASM into deleting its attacks. Human curiosity being what it is, it may not even decrease the traffic we send to ASM. All it will do is allow us to feel vindictive at the expense of our own reputation. --Alecmconroy 21:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Also worth considering-- if we name a domain name but do not link to it, we're gonna have to include an accompanying note of some sort that explains why the domain name isn't linked, presumably linking to whatever policy forbids linking. Transparency requires it, so our readers can understand whatever editorial policies we have. (Plus, that's the only way to prevent perpetually biting people who hotlink it in good faith). In the end, that kind of a footnote is probably going to draw way more attention to ASM than merely linking it would. --Alecmconroy 21:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Removing a link isn't bullying anyone. Um, no. If we claim that linking someone is somehow positive for them, an argument that, though unsubstantiated, has been seen in numerous incarnations of this dispute, then, in a world where we link to absolutely everybody else, removing a link in response to behavior absolutely IS an attempt to attack/punish/bully/etc someone. —Random832 15:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Basically, by removing the links, we're saying "If you do this, we will claim (implicitly by our editorial treatment of your website) that you are worse than nazis and pedophiles". That is bullying. —Random832 12:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal example – follow-up

Discussions like these can always use all available humor. In the "Personal example" section above, I posted a link to a MALICIOUSSITE. A few users on the MALICIOUSSITE noticed the link and are expressing astonishment (sincere?) that the link has survived so far on Wikipedia...and that I have survived so far on Wikipedia. Well, guys, I'm still here, and so is the link. MALICIOUSSITES isn't quite policy yet, though it's getting scary close. Casey Abell 15:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be just Teresa Nielsen Hayden's "Making Light" blog that's getting its links purged these days. *Dan T.* 16:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

On strawpersons

A claim (a new one, at least to me) has been made here that User:DennyColt (the person who proposed WP:BADSITES in its original form) was in fact a 'straw man sockpuppet' of the people who are in favor of linking to certain websites. This argument goes both ways. I could just as easily make the unsubstantiated claim that any number of 'attack sites' are actually straw men created by parties (perhaps unknown to them*) somehow interested in silencing, by association, any other criticism of certain users who seem to be 'targeted' by those sites, rather than people who actually bear malice towards their "victims". *avoiding actually accusing anyone of anything, in no small part due to the fact that I do not actually believe this. So, even where bad faith is clearly evident, let's at least assume sincerity (i.e. ASM is actually attacking people, rather than making their milder opponents look bad - DennyColt** actually wanted to delink things instead of being an elaborate ploy to make MONGO look bad - etc) in the absence of real evidence to the contrary, or we run the risk of getting so twisted up in conspiracy theories we won't even know which way is up anymore **not accusing him of bad faith, just realized this could be misinterpreted that way - others, though, have accused him directly of both bad faith AND insincerity without a shred of evidence for either —Random832 15:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was perplexed by this (the earlier part of your comment). I still have not seen any evidence (although I am aware that lack of evidence is not evidence of lack) by which this viewpoint has recently been promoted, and nor has anyone explained why those who are now trumpeting this theory are still wishing to adopt several of the principles authored by this individual. The continued absence of this editor does not allow any party to directly question them regarding the motives for creating BADSITES - but does allow conjecture to be largely unchallenged.

I haven't seen any suggestion that attack sites have been created/used by those opposed to linking to them as a method of poisoning the debate. There have been accusations that some opponents to linking to attack sites have linked to sites which may fall under that criteria under different circumstances - but that is a different matter. LessHeard vanU 20:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I was suggesting that, in this bizarro-world that I am not actually saying is real, that the people creating the attack sites are doing so in order to allow their targets to play the "victim card" in debates that have nothing to do with attack sites. That's ridiculous, but no more so than the idea that DennyColt made his proposal in order to discredit those in favor of removing links. —Random832 01:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, but one of those viewpoints have been expressed with, one must assume, all sincerity within this arbitration. LessHeard vanU 12:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Without very strong evidence of it, I won't believe any "conspiracy theory" that holds that any of the attack sites, or commentary pro-and-con about them, is created by people on the opposite side of the issue from that ostensibly taken in order to discredit that position. However, I do believe that there are people perfectly willing to take advantage of stuff that's out there and use it to further their own position, like, for instance, going out of the way to make a public commotion over being attacked so as to play the victim card and smear with guilt by association all other critics including ones with good points. *Dan T.* 12:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed alternative to MALICIOUSSITES

"Wikipedia generally should not link to websites set up for the purpose of harassing specific living individuals. Harassment in this context refers to cyber-stalking, offline stalking, outing people without their consent, humiliating them sexually, or threatening them with physical violence. Links to pages of websites that routinely engage in such practices are discouraged, since such sites are unlikely to fall within the usual definition of reliable sources for article content. Links to such sites should be used, if at all, only where including the link contributes substantially to an article or discussion, and where no other citation for the same information can be reasonably be substituted without loss of content or comprehension."

Can anyone improve on that? It's basically NYB's proposal. I think the idea that "Arbcom doesn't vote on new policies" is a good one.. But as long as they're going to be voting on "policy-like principles", they may as well vote on ones that look like they would achieve consensus. --Alecmconroy 15:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The three critical changes-- it includes sites that harass "all specific living persons" rather than just "wikipedians", it justifies the deletions based on Reliable Sources, and it changes a "never" to a "discouraged". Ultimately, the difference is that this does represent consensus, whereas MALICIOUSSITES would get rejected in a second if it were a policy. --Alecmconroy 15:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably the most critical change is the word "generally". We can't avoid it in cases like our coverage of OutWeek, Michelangelo Signorile, etc. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You're still doing it [33]. MichaelMoore.com is not a reliable source for anything, not even himself. Neither is the overstock thing. Neither is Stormfront. So obviously they should only be linked to for reference in their own articles, which they are (or things so closely related as it makes no difference). This proposal allows linking to notable malicious sites in their own articles, which (I believe) is all that you've asked for. Except for the little phrase "if at all", which means I can delete whatever I want. This is different enough from the current proposal (maybe even an opposite extreme), that it will never pass.

Presumably, all of this will apply to ED, when the article is written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.125.145 (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Good luck.--MONGO 17:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

noty —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.125.145 (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the general principle is that MALICIOUSSITES is sufficiently problematic that it won't become policy, at least not in its current form. We all know that arbcom doesn't make policy, but it REALLY doesn't make policy when one half of the committee disagrees with the proposed policy-- even if the policy squeeks by with a narrow majority. Since the whole purpose of this was to try find some rules to live with, it might be far more helpful for the committee to adopt a policy that has consensus (i.e. NYB's). On the other hand, remaining totally silent about the matter-- not adopting any policy-- would also be productive, as it would emphasis that it is a policy matter for the community to decide.

As is, MALICIOUSSITES is just an invitation to more of the same kind of trouble MONGO caused. It's not policy, it's not going to be policy, it has direct bearing on how we handle such sites-- but it will serve as even more gunpowder to fuel future edit wars, as people try to site it as if it were a consensus policy. At the same time, those of us who object to it will feel equally free to ignore it, since it doensn't have consensus. It won't solve the problems, it will perpetuate them. It won't clarify the situation, it will muddy things further. --Alecmconroy 21:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

As noted a couple of times above, my proposal (and my current understanding of where consensus does or doesn't exist) are now copied on one of the policy essay discussion pages. I don't know where the discussion will wind up centralizing (it's split in a couple of pages), so anyone can feel free to move it if needed. Please note that as of this time, I do not believe that there is any consensus one way or the other as to whether there exist a handful of sites that are so very problematic that there should be no links permitted to them at all. There is consensus, I think, that if any such sites exist, they would represent the extremely problematic sites and their number is very small. Newyorkbrad 21:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, the proposed alternative justifies itself on the basis that "sites are unlikely to fall within the usual definition of reliable sources for article content." But such sites may be used as links on talk pages or even policy discussion like this page--not necessarily as article content (indeed, someone has already used a link above). You do say "or discussions" later, but it seems very much like an afterthought; the general gist of it is that attack sites aren't good for article content so they should be banned everywhere including outside of article content. Ken Arromdee 21:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there's still lots of wording to be tweaked. You mentioned this on the policy page, and I apologize for re-proposing this wording that doesn't take that concern into account. Regrettably, the policy isn't really being allowed the full amount of time we'd like, because the MALICIOUSSITES pseudopolicy threatens to pass, which would substantially complicate the creation of a consensus proposal.

What's the simplest way we can change the wording to meet your concerns, without also losing the general consensus that (I hope) exists for the current wording? --Alecmconroy 22:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not sure. How about "Links to pages of websites that routinely engage in such practices are discouraged when used in article content, since such sites are unlikely to fall within the usual definition of reliable sources." This says "Links in articles are discouraged because they are unreliable" rather than "links are discouraged because they are unreliable in articles".

This may mean you need to add a separate sentence discouraging their use in talk pages, but that's unavoidable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken Arromdee (talk • contribs) 17:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that RS only governs links used as sources; sites can pass EL without being reliable sources, and the controversy about ASM is precisely such a case. —Random832 18:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Alternative 15.2

I've proposed another alternative 15.2, based on the above proposal by Alecmconroy, and and a suggestion by AnonEMouse on my talk page. Paul August ☎ 21:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA is now a special case of WP:NPOV, and BADSITES will live forever. Vote for it, I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.94.211 (talk • contribs) 11:15, October 3, 2007

Thank you for that wholehearted endorsement. :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not just stop trying to make policy? (and, yes, it's still an attempt to have arbcom make policy - condemning whole sites, rather than just specific pages, is not grounded in anything but the MONGO case. attempting to base it in BLP requires the novel idea that Wikipedia policy applies to the _content_ of sites that we link, and that any website whose content does not follow wikipedia policy should not be linked.) —Random832 17:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, WP:BLP is entirely about content. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It's about the content OF WIKIPEDIA. Wikipedia content policy does not apply to the content of other websites that are linked. Whether extending it is a good idea is debatable, but it does NOT currently apply, so such an extension would be an attempt by arbcom to create new policy. —Random832 14:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It specifically does, here is the direct quote.

"Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all in biographies of living people, either as sources or via external links (see above)." (emphasis mine). --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If there is a page or site devoted to making a non-notable personal attack on Michael Moore (and, frankly, you can't swing a cat without hitting a site that makes a personal attack on Michael Moore :-)), we don't link to it in our article in Michael Moore, based on WP:BLP and the content of that site. If there is a site devoted to giving extensive details about Michael Moore's arrest for jaywalking in 1988, or membership in the Silly Walks Club, that no reliable sources have gone on about, we don't mention those allegations or link to those sites, based on WP:BLP and the content of that site. This merely extends that same courtesy to our editors that we extend to all other living people. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No, but if someone who has an article maintains such a page, that wouldn't stop us, under current policy, from linking to the front page of their website in their own article. Your proposal would, and such a proposal should be examined by the community, not declared fiat by a body with NO policy-making authority —Random832 14:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If you'll read the discussion Paul August links to, I don't know what to do when MichaelMoore.com, which we need to link, puts a blatant non-notable attack on a living person on its front page. However, that is why I think justifying this in WP:BLP is the best solution, since WP:BLP deals with conflicts like that all the time. For example, WP:BLP says things like "do no harm", which clearly comes into conflict with writing bad things about anoyone. The alternative is to say that we have special rules for our editors, which I disagree with. This is not a new or specific rule, this is a general finding based in existing rules. It doesn't resolve all issues, but it does make them part of a general class of issues that we deal with all the time. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

But sometimes there are relevant differences between our editors and our article subjects. It all depends on context. After all, "[notable high school athlete] Foo attends X high school in Y City" might be an appropriate sentence in the lead of a mainspace article, while "[Wikipedia editor] Foo attends X high school in Y city" might be blockable. And so too with the appropriateness of linking to mention of the same fact on an external site. Newyorkbrad 16:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

But the relevant difference in the above seems to me to be notability not editorship. Paul August ☎ 16:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

More than that, note we're talking about "websites set up for the purpose of or substantially devoted to harassing", not general news sites that happen to print personal information as a small percentage of their content. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not the point. The point is he's wrong - the rule he's written is simply WP:NPA, but he asserts that it is based on core policies, and there's nowhere to appeal it to. You've completely failed to understand what WP:BLP says, and how it applies to this case. WP:NPA does not apply to articles, and it certainly doesn't apply to sources, for the same reason that WP:BLP does not apply to talk pages. No wikipedia policy applies to external sites - that's ridiculous. Policies only say which sites may be linked to and which may not be linked to. Here it is again [34].

I don't know your intention. If the proposal is intended to apply to sources, then it's so obvious as to be trivial. If it's intended to apply to all links, then it's as I described. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.94.211 (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

But WP:BLP does apply to talk pages. That's one of the key parts about it. "... Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space". And external links, as I've quoted above. These are direct quotes from the policy. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"[notable high school athlete] Foo attends X high school in Y City" might be an appropriate sentence in the lead of a mainspace article, while "[Wikipedia editor] Foo attends X high school in Y city" might be blockable. What about "[notable high school athlete] Foo, who attends X high school in Y city, edits wikipedia under Z username"? This (minus the high school athlete part) is what we have with Moore/THF. —Random832 00:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It's the sort of concern that WP:BLP deals with regularly. We need to give our editors the same courtesy we extend to all other living people. That's all this section says, the rest needs to be hashed out case by case.

I personally think that under WP:BLP your high school student editor example is treated similarly to writing that notable person Foo is a secret member of any other group that has had controversies: the Freemasons, or Skull and Bones, or the ACLU. In general, we don't write that, and we don't link to sites that are devoted to saying that, unless the claim is both well sourced and highly notable in itself, per WP:BLP, as I quoted above.

I personally think that doesn't mean we necessarily need to delete all links to Making Light and MichaelMoore.com from everywhere. For example, we have a number of articles about truly nasty organizations, not just scurrilous gossip, but outright hate groups accused of promoting violence. We do link to their official sites in the article on the articles on the groups, even though the sites, sometimes even the front pages of those sites, often have some really nasty allegations about living persons. We do not, however, repeat their allegations, link the sites elsewhere, or link to subpages anywhere else. Similarly MichaelMoore.com and Making Light. And if we can politely ask Teresa Nielsen Hayden and Michael Moore to remove the attacks, so much the better.

But those two statements are my personal opinions, based on our policies. In order to avoid that debate, proposal 15.2 doesn't say my personal opinions. All it says is, WP:BLP applies to editors no less than to any other living persons. The debate can go on, case by case, as it often happens with WP:BLP issues. This just allows us to hold that debate without accusations that we will give people different treatment - either better or worse - by their becoming Wikipedia editors. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC: External links to harassment

Some editors want to delete part of Wikipedia:No personal attacks that is the subject of this ArbCom case. I have initiated an RfC on the talk page to gain community input on the proposed policy change: Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks#RFC: External links to harassment. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a more accurate statement would be that some editors wish to remove the section of WP:NPA that was added without consultation and against consensus back in April, and has been in dispute ever since. Risker 15:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I originally forked the BADSITES text into NPA expecting it to be struck down or modified for consistency with WP:NPA#Removal of text. (Or rather, I hoped it would!) I proposed this [35] some hours before I went ahead and did it, but other than User:MONGO [36] no one else involved in the discussion at the time objected. Now, while it seems obvious to me that doing this was a bad idea, some version of it should probably stay for the time being while the ArbCom case works out and as the discussions on the alternative policy proposal continue.—AL ^FOCUS! 21:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I waited around for consensus [37], but only MONGO at the time was opposed to forking this material to NPA.—AL ^FOCUS! 22:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing personal, Academy Leader, but waiting 15 hours wasn't very long. As well, a review of the talk page archives of WP:NPA would have revealed that the same issue had been debated some months before in quite a bit of detail, and the consensus was that a section on external links was not required or appropriate. I do respect the concept of BRD, but what happened was you were bold, and then when anyone tried to revert in order to discuss, we were whacked quite severely. Risker 22:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I know, I was a young Wikipedian at the time. I didn't at all research the NPA talk archives before doing this, I only looked at the then-current version of the policy page, which generally seemed to me to be well-thought out and realistic, and I honestly thought BADSITES could be toned down to work in compliance with that, or killed entirely. That the reverting on both sides continues at NPA remains a significant part of the problem.—AL ^FOCUS! 23:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Remedy/enforcement conflict?

Why does remedy one (don't link, don't reference) have 2 support, 5 oppose, with many favoring a simple "don't link" alternative, but enforcement one (block those who link or reference) have almost full support, while enforcement one point one (block for linking)? Surely this is an error. Milto LOL pia 14:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

is this true?

are links and references to antisocialmedia.net going to be banned, and editors who make them banned too? We'll need to ban links to all the hate sites won't we? this is crazy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.3.37.130 (talk) 06:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

NPA#EL

I might also point out that a week ago, an RFC was conducted on NPA#EL's prohibitions against linking to harassment. The results have been consisted with what we've seen at BADSITES and here-- there is absolutely no consensus for a policy that prohibits ALL links to "bad" sites. --Alecmconroy 08:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

According to whom was there no consensus? I don't see the same result as you did. It appears that a large number of editors made comments favoring retaining language covering harassment in external links. Many others expressed an interest in a fresh policy to address the problem. Perhaps a neutral editor can make that determination. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you really claiming that there truly is a consensus!?!? There isn't even a majority! It's a HUGE debate. --Alecmconroy 10:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm "claiming" that the matter deserves a neutral evaluation. I see that only a few editors registered as supporting an unequivocal removal of the material. That's the position that, at the time, a couple of editors said was the consensus. Outright deletion has been rejected, as far as I can tell. It appears to me that there is a majority favoring a policy with enough teeth to actually prohibit links to sites engaging in harassment of project volunteers. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral evaluations are fine-- people should read the discussion themselves, not just take my word for it. And it's fine to speculate what kinds of future proposals might one day be able to achieve consensus-- I too think something along the lines of the New York Brad proposal could achieve consensus in the future.

But surely you don't still think NPA#EL has consensus! Many many arguments by many many people have been made. It is contentious. It is hotly disputed. Heck-- if nothing else, simple arithmetic can tell us-- it does not have consensus. --Alecmconroy 11:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

There seemed to be a plurality (though not an absolute majority) in favor of there being some sort of a provision regarding "links to harrassment", but nowhere near a consensus about exactly how to define this, where to draw the line, and how to word the policy. At least that's how I see it. *Dan T.* 12:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

after a breath of fresh air....

Progress seems hard to come by. Someone, I believe it was Alec, in one of the areas of this discussion mentioned an aspect that for me hold the greatest chance of success - rules vs. principles.

The community has failed to create a ruleset on this one, because we can't properly define any of the key terms 'attack site', 'harassment' etc. etc. - every single attempt has suffered from subjectivity, and the debate becomes instantly polarized.

This link will be controversial, but I'd encourage readers to click on it, take a look. This is the kind of link we're discussing baning It is Antisocialmedia.net - I can say hand on heart that I'd never heard of this site (except a vague, passing notion that Wordbomb was a bad user) before this discussion came to my attention. What strikes me is that this guy is making points, (maybe not very good ones - though i like the pun 'Orwell's that ends well') and that I am firm in my conviction that a healthy wiki allows us, when relevant, to reference a critic's points, however vitriolic.

I really care about these issues, and am working to move the policy proposal forward. I make the above point in the belief that we need to ground these discussions in real terms, because abstract terms haven't served us well. Please do not edit my comments. Privatemusings 22:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this a cross-posting of Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks#after a breath of fresh air..... Why are you posting the same essay and harassing link in two places? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is a cross post, in an attempt to engage all participants in what has become a somewhat splintered discussion. (your description of my post as an essay is unnecessarily flattering really!) Privatemusings 00:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that simply pointing to the already active discussion would be sufficient. Otherwise the conversation becomes more splintered. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Mailing list post

I think this is worth everyone participating in and reading about this case reading: [38]. Viridae^Talk 11:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Most thought provoking. I've written a little manifesto in response, User:Alecmconroy/AGF and BADSITES, and posted it to the list. --Alecmconroy 16:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

My goodness...if only the time you spent writing all that, as a similar essay I have seen repeatedly spammed everywhere, had been used to write an encyclopedia article...but, well, why do that? I mean, we're only an encyclopedia...oh wait, maybe not, maybe we are actually a blog.--MONGO 17:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ahh-- that's my character flaw-- I don't spend enough time writing articles!? Thank you for proving the point-- I wondered who would be the very first person to respond to my essay by changing the discussion to back to me instead of talking about the ideas contained therein. And it's MONGO by a nose! hehe. Don't worry, I'm sure you're just the first of many-- that's the point of the essay. --Alecmconroy 17:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Extra irony points for the very first response to the essay being about me instead of about the ideas in the essay! :) --Alecmconroy 17:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice essay, Alec. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Good essay... almost as good as mine!  :-) Seriously, it makes a few good points I missed myself. *Dan T.* 18:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Very thoughtful, and quite conciliatory in respect of the good faith efforts to stop Wikipedia from being linked to sites under certain circumstances by well meaning editors. BTW, how come it appears that the anti-BADSITES orientated disputants are so eager to write essays, like this one (well, everyone else is publicising theirs!)?LessHeard vanU 21:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all the kind words. :) --Alecmconroy 13:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Ode to Joy

Well, with the arbcom case about to close (or already having closed), the era of arbcom-mandated BADSITES 'policy' is over. Through all the principles and discussion in the debate, ultimately the matter has been returned to the community. And the proposal that any and all AntisocialMedia links be purged failed miserably.

BADSITES isn't dead yet, but this is the death knell for the argument that "Badsites is defacto policy because Arbcom said so". --Alecmconroy 11:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

But strangely, the enforcement provision that permits people to be blocked for linking to Antisocialmedia came within one vote of passing, with some of the same people, at the same time, voting for it that voted against the actual remedy proposals to ban such linking. It would be like if a court found that what a defendant did wasn't actually illegal, but then ruled to put the defendant in prison anyway. Anyway, apparently the case will be officially over 24 hours after the first "close" vote, which will be later today. *Dan T.* 12:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

There were a lot of strange things that occurred in this arbitration. I still don't know what to make of the clown nonsense-- was it a joke, a serious proposal, or what? I'm still not clear what all that Cyde mess was about and and how some Clyde v. SV dispute wound up almost being arbitrated in the middle of this case, without any request for it or evidence towards it.

But, lunacy and enigma aside, Arbcom has clearly considered the seductive darkside of the force that is BADSITES, looked it square in the eye, and (collectively) decided not to walk down that path. --Alecmconroy 12:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see where you're getting this. Look at what is passing:

• Wikipedia should not link to websites set up for the purpose of or substantially devoted to harassing its volunteers.
• This decision applies only to links to AntiSocialMedia.net and similar sites which engage in malicious behavior toward Wikipedia users.

That is pretty clear that "any and all AntisocialMedia links" will, in fact, be "purged". --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom can pass any principles it wants-- it's the remedies and the enforcemnts that are binding, and they've clearly decided not to order the removal of all ASM links. [39]

The principles aren't that bad. We all agree that, as a general principle, wikipedia should try to avoid linking sites that harass living people. The question is: Is that a general principle, to be weight along with NPOV and other principles, or is it an ironclad rule, violations to be met with instablocks?

ASM links may still wind up being purged--- the site has a lot of enemies. But people trying to purge it won't be able to claim "Arbcom said I have to do this, and if you disagree with me, I'm blocking you". It'll just be another content dispute, like the thousands of others we successfully handle every day. --Alecmconroy 18:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Though the current WP:NPA is now locked with the language of the previous ArbCom still there as justification. I thought this ArbCom was supposed to rule that using that ruling as some authority which trumps community consensus was a no-no. Maybe editors are just raging against the dying of the light? -- 67.98.206.2 20:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we're in the "last throes" of people trying to claim BADSITES and it's ilk are policy. They can't cite Arbcom as the source of their policy anymore. They can't claim with a straight face that BADSITES/NPA#EL have consensus anymore (unless they want to get laughed out of the room). All they're left with is persistently re-inserting text that doesn't have consensus into a page over and over and over again.

So, it's only a matter of how many days and how many blocks have to go before we're restored back to the old glory days of NPOV-is-King and no policy that mandates not linking to BAD SITES.

We'll still have purges, of course, like the Making Lights purge. Instances where somebody gets into a fight with somebody else and decides it would be a funny thing to do to delete all their wikipedia links-- but we won't call it "enforcing a policy", we'll calling it "vandalism", and it will be swiftly dealt with. And we'll still have cases where people try to harass each other-- but we won't call it a BADSITES violation-- we'll call it a bad-faith edit and revert it using common sense, just like we've done for the whole history of our existence. --Alecmconroy 20:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I hope you are right. -- 67.98.206.2 20:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Continued edit warring at WP:NPA

I see the war continues at WP:NPA with break neck speed, even while this case is hours from closing. It would have been nice for some guidance on disputed sections in established policies, etc., as we're probably already on our way to WP:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites 2 in order to tie up this loose end. Oh well, a little late for me to pipe up now. -- 67.98.206.2 20:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Finding 1

For the record, I’d like to suggest in the absence of any remedies, that each of the findings as to ASM should be rescinded. As Fred has pointed out, the only way this is really supported is on the basis that we support our friends and attack our enemies. I don’t think this is helpful for Wikipedia.

I would prefer not to reopen an ethical discussion about Bagley’s criticism on his website, although it seems that discussion has only really taken place privately in any case. Even assuming Bagley has engaged in “harassment” or “malicious” behavior, however, I don’t think it suits Wikipedia to make this kind of finding, on private information, about a semi-public individual.

I realize nobody has much defended him; who really cares what the committee says about a non-friend, as long as it doesn’t affect our policies? The community itself doesn’t know what has happened, other than that it’s sensitive and we’re not supposed to talk about it. At the same time, I think this is much of the problem. Perhaps it’s worth reconsideration. Mackan79 22:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to rescinding, but I wouldn't stress over the lack of it either. The important thing is that Arbcom overwhelmingly rejected the idea of ordering a blanket removal of all links to ASM. Whether or not to link to it from Overstock.com or not is now just another content dispute, to be left up to sound editorial judgment, subject to the same wiki processes that have worked for us so well on all the other articles.

As to whether ASM is notable enough to merit discussion over at Overstock.com-- I'm not really knowledgeable enough to say. But the important thing is that, with arbcom silent on the matter and BADSITES/NPA#EL rejected, that decision will be made by the community using principles of integrity like NPOV, RS, and Notability, and BLP, rather than being dictated TO the community by the "have they been mean to us" standard. --Alecmconroy 07:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)